Snubby in 9mm?? Anybody have one??

[Kb! Bob]

Hey all,
I have been looking into another pocket carry gun to take some of he load off of my PF9, which is starting to get pretty beat. Most of my pistols are
9mm and I dont have any other .38/.357's. Any reason for/against a 9mm snubby!?!!

[Steve_NEPhila]

I can think of a few reasons against. Low availability, sensitivity to ammunition, the 9mm was designed for an autoloading pistol. Those are just a few.

It would most likely be cheaper, easier and just as effective to find a good revolver in 38 or .357 Mag. If it is a snubby, I would strongly suggest the 38 special over the .357 Mag. I have a 642 that has been worked over by a master revolversmith and I like it quite a bit.

[Kb! Bob]

I can think of a few reasons against. Low availability, sensitivity to ammunition, the 9mm was designed for an autoloading pistol. Those are just a few.

It would most likely be cheaper, easier and just as effective to find a good revolver in 38 or .357 Mag. If it is a snubby, I would strongly suggest the 38 special over the .357 Mag. I have a 642 that has been worked over by a master revolversmith and I like it quite a bit.

I know you are a big-time revolver guy, so I'll take this as good advice! The gun I saw that was available was the Taurus 905 is SS.

[Steve_NEPhila]

I know you are a big-time revolver guy, so I'll take this as good advice! The gun I saw that was available was the Taurus 905 is SS.

Ewww... I would stay away from Taurus if I were you. There are many horror stories in here as well as other forums. For a 9mm there are two that I would buy, although I would not carry them. The Ruger SP 101 in 9mm and the Smith and Wesson 940. Both are steel, and a bit heavy. There is a 940 on gunbroker right now with a buy it now price of 899 USD!!! The Rugers will most likely go for 600+ USD.

For those kinds of prices you can buy a used Smith Performance Center gun, or a stock snubby in 38 and tune it up at your favorite gunsmith. If you must have a 9mm snubby, the Smith and Ruger are the only games in town as far as I am concerned, and I have shot both. Keep us posted if you do pick up a snubby. (They are very tricky weapons, for experts only in my opinion.)

[Kb! Bob]

Ewww... I would stay away from Taurus if I were you. There are many horror stories in here as well as other forums. For a 9mm there are two that I would buy, although I would not carry them. The Ruger SP 101 in 9mm and the Smith and Wesson 940. Both are steel, and a bit heavy. There is a 940 on gunbroker right now with a buy it now price of 899 USD!!! The Rugers will most likely go for 600+ USD.

For those kinds of prices you can buy a used Smith Performance Center gun, or a stock snubby in 38 and tune it up at your favorite gunsmith. If you must have a 9mm snubby, the Smith and Ruger are the only games in town as far as I am concerned, and I have shot both. Keep us posted if you do pick up a snubby. (They are very tricky weapons, for experts only in my opinion.)

Ok, you convinced me! Soooooo, whats the best .38/.357 for pocket carry?!?!

[rich e]

S&W 642...

[Orive 8]

A couple of officers in the department that I used to work for purchased S&W 940s (2" snubbies that work with 5 shot 9mm moon clips) for their BUGS.

The 940 is an all steel snubby, this made shooting it, even with +Ps manageable. Also, if you did not have any moon clips, you could still load 9mm rounds from your duty/primary weapon's spare mags, (it was actually pretty easy to do after some practice) in an emergency.

I think that the 940 is a pretty neat gun, and I always check the used shelves at different gun stores to see if I might run across one.

[JoeyBones]

I was lucky enough to try out a fellow forum member's S&W 940, and I loved that gun. I didn't think recoil was bad, personally, but then again we were shooting 115 or 124 (can't recall for sure) range ammo.

The moon clips actually made loading/unloading rather quick. Ejection was nice and positive, due to the shorter length of the 9mm empties...

I am a 9mm guy, so I admit that I have a slight bias toward the concept of a 9mm revolver.

Regards,

Bones

[Steve_NEPhila]

For pocket carry, I would have to say the 642 is spot on. Tipping the scales at about 15 ounces, it is light and potent. I pocket carry a 642 regularly and it works quite well for me. My 642 also produces fantastic groups at 10 meters.

The only thing I would change about my 642 would be to have a tritium front sight insert. I have already had the action smoothed and the charge holes chamfered.

[Noah_Zark]

I am the current owner of two Ruger SP101s in 9mm, and the former owner of two S&W 940s. One 940 was a "no dash number" example, meaning it was in the configuration as-introduced. The second 940 was a "-1" (Dash One), indicating some engineering change had been made, I forget which.

In reality, both 940s had problems with fired cases sticking and difficult ejection of empties from the cylinder. I found that nickel-plated cases would extract with relative ease, but I went to far as to obtain a set of Brownells cylinder hones to remove the ROUGH machining marks in the chambers of both guns. Smoothing the chamber walls did improve extraction to a noticeable extent, but on occasion there would be a cylinder that almost required a soft-faced hammer to pound the ejection rod. Thus, I deemed the 940 not sufficiently reliable as a BUG, and because the 940 in 9mm is one of the S&Ws that confirmed S&W collectors are currently all lathered-up about, I sold them about a year ago. I was tired of effing around with the 940s and I'd never carry them as a result of the hit and miss extraction.

The Ruger SP101s are the exact opposite of the S&W 940 from a functionality standpoint. The empties all but fall out, requiring only a light tap on the ejector rod to kick them out. The chamber walls are virtually mirror-bright and lacking tool marks. The DA and SA trigger pulls are relatively light and consistent, if not exactly equal to those of a S&W handgun. Close enough, IMO. In fact, one of the SP101s is on undetermined loan to my now 85-yr-old mother as her protection gun. The SP101 is "arthritic hand friendly" in that she can pull the trigger in DA mode, and cock the SP101 with her thumb if desired. The cylinder release is easy to use, too -- push in, instead of the S&W's slide forward. And the santoprene grips cushion recoil. A couple times a year we go to the range and Mom puts a couple cylinders of 124 gr Gold Dots through her/my SP101 at a 7 yd target and she's still Minute of Bad Guy with it.

Historically, I'm a S&W revolver fan. I don't collect them so much as accumulate them, and I have no safe queens. For me to prefer a Ruger SP101 over a S&W SS J-Frame speaks volumes. Some S&W apologists try to claim that the tapered 9mm case "locks up" in the 940 cylinder, but my experience with the SP101 does not bear that out. There is no "tapered case lockup" effect if the cases all but fall out of the Ruger. It's a simple matter of one manufacturer not taking the time to put attention to finishing details.

All that said, there's the issue of availability and cost. The Rugers do go for around $600, and fuggedabout the 9mm 940 -- leave them to the rabid S&W collectors. You look long and hard enough, SP101s do turn up.

As for the 640/642, those are excellent guns for carrying much and shooting little. Personally, I will never own another alloy-framed J-Frame S&W revolver. Two alloy J-Frames I once owned developed cracks in the thin area of the frame directly under the threaded barrel recess and above the yoke/crane boss recess. The barrels could be spun out by hand. I bought both guns used, and have no idea of the history and round count. Taking the sellers' at their word, any gun for sale has only ever had one or two cylinders full of ammo shot from it, and the alloy J-Frames I bought were no exception. They weren't visibly cracked when I bought them, and I had perhaps 150 to 250 rds through them when I noticed the sights were no longer aligned, about two yrs apart. There it is, FWIW. "Twice burned, forever shy" is now my motto w.r.t. ANY alloy J-Frame. YMMV.

Noah