"convert" revolver from .357 to 9x19?

[OldBroad44]

The 9mm is very efficient and makes very good power out of 2" barrel revolvers.

I don't see why 9mm in general would suffer less loss of power from short barrel semi autos than .357 mag does from short barrel revolvers. Special short barrel ammo excepted. The usual reason given for better power than expected from short barrel semi autos is that the chamber an action are closed when firing. No cylinder gaps to kept gasses escape. Do you happen to have a ref or link? Just asking, @Certaindeaf .

 

[Certaindeaf]

I don't see why 9mm in general would suffer less loss of power from short barrel semi autos than .357 mag does from short barrel revolvers. Special short barrel ammo excepted. The usual reason given for better power than expected from short barrel semi autos is that the chamber an action are closed when firing. No cylinder gaps to kept gasses escape. Do you happen to have a ref or link? Just asking, @Certaindeaf .

It must be the powders. If I remember correctly a "2 9mm revolver makes similar power to a 2" .357.

 

[nammac]

Maybe something like this, S&W 986 9mm revolver…

GunBroker.com - Error

 

[The Heretic]

Maybe something like this, S&W 986 9mm revolver…

GunBroker.com - Error

I don't want a snubby (the 986 is available in a longer barrel IIRC) because I don't like the handling or balance - I have owned several snubby revolvers, a CA Bulldog (IIRC) and a Ruger SP101. Handy, but I did not shoot them well, the recoil and flash was excessive IMO.

I prefer a minimum of 3" and no more than 5" - longer than 5" the balance is off for me. I owned a DW .44VH that I found to be too heavy for trail carry and too front heavy for good balance. It was ok for pin shooting because it had the porting and the heavy barrel made it steady for quick pin shooting, but I didn't care for the balance for precision shooting despite the fact that it was the most accurate revolver or handgun I have ever shot.

For me 3-4" is optimum - with 4" being the Goldilocks "just right" - usually (it depends on the material - Scandium being much lighter than steel, and on the configuration - e.g., heavy underlug vs pencil barrel). I need to shoot my 325 and TRR8 more, but their weight and balance seems about right. The 325TR is 4" and the TRR8 is 5".

The Chiappa being an aluminum frame, I would bet would maybe be okay with a 6" barrel, but I would probably still prefer the 5" as it would carry better.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I don't see why 9mm in general would suffer less loss of power from short barrel semi autos than .357 mag does from short barrel revolvers. Special short barrel ammo excepted. The usual reason given for better power than expected from short barrel semi autos is that the chamber an action are closed when firing. No cylinder gaps to kept gasses escape. Do you happen to have a ref or link? Just asking, @Certaindeaf .

I think this video is what I remember regarding short barrel 9mm.. I didn't re-watch it but I don't think they even used +P/+P+ 9mm and it was pretty much equal to .357 magnum..

 

[nammac]

I don't want a snubby (the 986 is available in a longer barrel IIRC) because I don't like the handling or balance - I have owned several snubby revolvers, a CA Bulldog (IIRC) and a Ruger SP101. Handy, but I did not shoot them well, the recoil and flash was excessive IMO.

I prefer a minimum of 3" and no more than 5" - longer than 5" the balance is off for me. I owned a DW .44VH that I found to be too heavy for trail carry and too front heavy for good balance. It was ok for pin shooting because it had the porting and the heavy barrel made it steady for quick pin shooting, but I didn't care for the balance for precision shooting despite the fact that it was the most accurate revolver or handgun I have ever shot.

For me 3-4" is optimum - with 4" being the Goldilocks "just right" - usually (it depends on the material - Scandium being much lighter than steel, and on the configuration - e.g., heavy underlug vs pencil barrel). I need to shoot my 325 and TRR8 more, but their weight and balance seems about right. The 325TR is 4" and the TRR8 is 5".

The Chiappa being an aluminum frame, I would bet would maybe be okay with a 6" barrel, but I would probably still prefer the 5" as it would carry better.

This will be more your cup o' tea then…

GunBroker.com - Error

 

[Certaindeaf]

El Kortho.

 

[OldBroad44]

I think this video is what I remember regarding short barrel 9mm.. I didn't re-watch it but I don't think they even used +P/+P+ 9mm and it was pretty much equal to .357 magnum..

Okay. First the video shows one bullet type, a 124 gr 9mm +P Gold Dot being fired from both a short barrel Glock and a snubby SP 101 revolver and giving muzzle energies of 354 and 372 ft lbs. Since only one bullet was fired and only one gun of each was used and different commercial bullets can vary by more than this even fired from the same gun, and different guns of one make and model can vary more than this on average, and different makes and models can vary even more, this difference isn't meaningful. Basically this particular ammo yieldS about the same power from either gun. That's interesting. If the cylinder gap in the revolver causes much of a loss of energy it apparently isn't much.

Next the video shows result firing a 38sp +P Starfire from a .357 mag snubby revolver and getting only 172 ft lbs and proceeding to p!ss all over the .38. And here's where they go wrong, I say. They pay no attention as to whether this ammo is designed for a short or longer barrel revolver. By comparison, the Buffalo Bore 110 gr. Short Barrel .38sp +P load yields 322 ft lbs fired from a snubby revolver. That is about the same or pretty close to the 9mm. So clearly the particular .38 ammo they chose was designed for longer barrels. So they compared A 9mm +P ammo designed for short barrels with a 38sp +P designed for longer barrels, a comparison of apples to oranges. When I add in the BB info its clear that when you compare apples to apples, 9mm +P and .38sp +P are comparable. However note that if you buy .38 sp +P short barrel commercial ammo you are likely paying $2/round for it, where 9mm +P suitable for short barrels is likely to cost half that or better.

Dam. Premature posted will add the rest. In editing

Finally the video shows their firing a 125 gr Hornsby in their .357 snubby and getting 329 ft lbs, which is a litte less than their 9mm +P results. Again they pay no attention to what this .357 load is designed for. So lets look at the BB .110 gr 357/ mag Short Barrel round. That gives us 416 ft lbs fired from a snubby. Higher than all their 9mm +P numbers. But at the cost of greater expense for the special ammo.

As I have said before, if you fire a .357 snubby with anything other than special short barreled ammo you haven't anything more than a 9mm. in addition, if you do comparisons of 9mm vs .38 or 357 mag from short barreled guns without taking into account what the revolver ammo is designed for, your results are useless and misleading.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Okay. First the video shows one bullet type, a 124 gr 9mm +P Gold Dot being fired from both a short barrel Glock and a snubby SP 101 revolver and giving muzzle energies of 354 and 372 ft lbs. Since only one bullet was fired and only one gun of each was used and different commercial bullets can vary by more this even fired from the same gun, and different guns of one make and model can vary more than this on average, and different makes and models can vary even more, this difference isn't meaningful. Basically this particular ammo yieldS about the same power from either gun. That's interesting. If the cylinder gap in the revolver causes much of a loss of energy it apparently isn't much.

Next the video shows result firing a 38sp +P Starfire from a .357 mag snubby revolver and getting only 172 ft lbs and proceeding to p!ss all over the .38. And here's where they go wrong, I say. They pay no attention as to whether this ammo is designed for a short or longer barrel revolver. By comparison, the Buffalo Bore 110 gr. Short Barrel .38sp +P load yields 322 ft lbs fired from a snubby revolver. That is about the same or pretty close to the 9mm. So clearly the particular .38 ammo they chose was designed for longer barrels. So they compared A 9mm +P ammo designed for short barrels with a 38sp +P designed for longer barrels, a comparison of apples to oranges. When I add in the BB info its clear that when you compare apples to apples, 9mm +P and .38sp +P are comparable. However note that if you buy .38 sp +P short barrel commercial ammo you are likely paying $2/round for it, where 9mm +P suitable for short barrels is likely to cost half that or better.

Dam. Premature posted will add the rest. In editing

Finally the video shows theirvnubby

Yes, it wasn't an exhaustive statistical analysis by any means.
On the same hand, I highly doubt he cherry picked the ammo he did use to get the results he did get. It was a simple test and was simply explained.

 

[OldBroad44]

Thanks for the link @Certaindeaf . I was surprised that the cylinder gap in the revolver cost so little loss of power. Now I'm wondering whether silencing a revolver might be more effective than I assumed. If there is so little loss of power because of the cylinder gap maybe there's not much loss of noise from the cylinder gap either.

 

[OldBroad44]

Yes, it wasn't an exhaustive statistical analysis by any means.
On the same hand, I highly doubt he cherry picked the ammo he did use to get the results he did get. It was a simple test and was simply explained.

I agree that its unlikely he cherry picked. Basically all the common ammo that people are likely to use in these kinds of tests exclude Short Barrel revolver ammo, so always end up with misleading results. Most people aren't familiar with short barrel revolver ammo. And if you expect decent performance from a short barrel revolver you need to be.

I'm happy with any video that teaches me even one thing that I didn't know, and this one did.

 

[The Heretic]

Okay. First the video shows one bullet type, a 124 gr 9mm +P Gold Dot being fired from both a short barrel Glock and a snubby SP 101 revolver and giving muzzle energies of 354 and 372 ft lbs. Since only one bullet was fired and only one gun of each was used and different commercial bullets can vary by more than this even fired from the same gun, and different guns of one make and model can vary more than this on average, and different makes and models can vary even more, this difference isn't meaningful. Basically this particular ammo yieldS about the same power from either gun. That's interesting. If the cylinder gap in the revolver causes much of a loss of energy it apparently isn't much.

Next the video shows result firing a 38sp +P Starfire from a .357 mag snubby revolver and getting only 172 ft lbs and proceeding to p!ss all over the .38. And here's where they go wrong, I say. They pay no attention as to whether this ammo is designed for a short or longer barrel revolver. By comparison, the Buffalo Bore 110 gr. Short Barrel .38sp +P load yields 322 ft lbs fired from a snubby revolver. That is about the same or pretty close to the 9mm. So clearly the particular .38 ammo they chose was designed for longer barrels. So they compared A 9mm +P ammo designed for short barrels with a 38sp +P designed for longer barrels, a comparison of apples to oranges. When I add in the BB info its clear that when you compare apples to apples, 9mm +P and .38sp +P are comparable. However note that if you buy .38 sp +P short barrel commercial ammo you are likely paying $2/round for it, where 9mm +P suitable for short barrels is likely to cost half that or better.

Dam. Premature posted will add the rest. In editing

Finally the video shows their firing a 125 gr Hornsby in their .357 snubby and getting 329 ft lbs, which is a litte less than their 9mm +P results. Again they pay no attention to what this .357 load is designed for. So lets look at the BB .110 gr 357/ mag Short Barrel round. That gives us 416 ft lbs fired from a snubby. Higher than all their 9mm +P numbers. But at the cost of greater expense for the special ammo.

As I have said before, if you fire a .357 snubby with anything other than special short barreled ammo you haven't anything more than a 9mm. in addition, if you do comparisons of 9mm vs .38 or 357 mag from short barreled guns without taking into account what the revolver ammo is designed for, your results are useless and misleading.

I would add one thing; in another article somewhere on the internets (I forget where), a person testing short barrel ammo, found that (IIRC) the short barrel ammo did better in a long barrel than non short barrel ammo did - so either way, it was more efficient ammo (but not by much), giving the impression that it was better all around ammo (IIRC, it was the same manufacturer, same projectile, same caliber - just the "short barrel" version vs. the std version of the same ammo).

Without doing a google search, that is what sticks in the back of my head. I think it was Speer Gold Dot 9mm +P Short Barrel ammo.

 

[OldBroad44]

I would add one thing; in another article somewhere on the internets (I forget where), a person testing short barrel ammo, found that (IIRC) the short barrel ammo did better in a long barrel than non short barrel ammo did - so either way, it was more efficient ammo (but not by much), giving the impression that it was better all around ammo (IIRC, it was the same manufacturer, same projectile, same caliber - just the "short barrel" version vs. the std version of the same ammo).

Without doing a google search, that is what sticks in the back of my head. I think it was Speer Gold Dot 9mm +P Short Barrel ammo.

The short barrel ammo has faster powder, so in a long revolver probably has a sharper than necessary or optimal recoil. My guess is they can't be loaded as hot as loads meant for longer barrels because the same amount of power would cause more pressure if delivered over a shorter interval. And pressure is what causes guns to blow up. At any rate, the short barrel loads at BB just produce power that brings the load up into the ordinary range for the caliber, not anywhere near the heaviest loads for the caliber.

 

[gmerkt]

Re. increased government control of semi-auto pistols versus revolvers.

At one time, the anti-gun crowd was fixated on handgun regulation. Since then, they have switched focus to "assault weapons." In a sense, their attention is diverted away from handguns, for the time being. Notwithstanding all those Chicago homicides that are typically done with handguns. If the "assault weapon" issue ever resolves, perhaps attention will switch back to handguns.

If handguns again become the focus of anti-gun efforts, it's my opinion that it wouldn't matter whether they were semi autos or of a revolving nature. A T/C Contender would be just as evil as a 1911.

Re. the Taurus 692, a $700 gun?? Swallow hard on that one.

I've owned several 9mm revolvers. A few S&W 547's, a Ruger SP101, and - mentioned previously above - two S&W 986's, both in the five inch bbl. configuration. I liked all of them, but the 986 may still be bought and sounds like it would fill the bill for OP. But again I opine that I don't see a hall pass for 9mm revolvers once the gun haters get into concentrating on handguns again.

 

[Member 52301]

Ruger used to sell the Blackhawk .357 with an extra 9mm cylinder. Plus...I don't recall it requiring moon clips.

P.S........Ruger still lists the Blackhawk convertible.

Ruger® New Model Blackhawk® Convertible Single-Action Revolver Models

ruger.com

-E-

^^^

THIS! Thank you.

I almost bought one years ago. I came THIS close! LOL

The RUGER BLACKHAWKS are very NICE handguns and a friend of ours owns the Blackhawk with the 45 Long Colt and 45acp cylinders too.

They are TACK DRIVERS!

Easy to care for. Blued or in stainless steel.

They are built like tanks.

Beautiful guns too!

I am VERY biased towards the RUGER brand in ALL of their s/a revolvers that I previously owned and in MANY of the ones that my MT husband has owned in his lifetime too.

All of my s/a revolvers were in the RUGER brand shy of that one b/p one which was Made in Italy that I never did shoot due to dealing with my late husband's cancer and death. My RUGER ones were New Model ones bought from the late 90's and on.

My MT husband has owned the old model ones and the New Model ones with the transfer bar. I had that EXPLAINED to me when I was a Newbie, back east, and I read a BIT about it in the late 90's and on.

My former Blackhawk bought back east and came out west with me was in 45Long Colt only.

My other Blackhawk from Montana was 357Magnum only. It could use 38Special and Plus P of course.

All of my (And my MT husband's.) Ruger convertibles (RF!) and super single six s/a revolvers came in 22lr and 22wmr.

I did have one special run of a Ruger single six and that ONLY came with one cylinder in 22lr.

I NEVER owned a centerfire 2 cylinder Ruger s/a revolver but IF I still shot very SPECIFIC handguns that I adored in the past - most likely I would own one.

Best wishes to THE HERETIC!

Cate

 

[OldBroad44]

Re. increased government control of semi-auto pistols versus revolvers.

At one time, the anti-gun crowd was fixated on handgun regulation. Since then, they have switched focus to "assault weapons." In a sense, their attention is diverted away from handguns, for the time being. Notwithstanding all those Chicago homicides that are typically done with handguns. If the "assault weapon" issue ever resolves, perhaps attention will switch back to handguns.

If handguns again become the focus of anti-gun efforts, it's my opinion that it wouldn't matter whether they were semi autos or of a revolving nature. A T/C Contender would be just as evil as a 1911.

Re. the Taurus 692, a $700 gun?? Swallow hard on that one.

I've owned several 9mm revolvers. A few S&W 547's, a Ruger SP101, and - mentioned previously above - two S&W 986's, both in the five inch bbl. configuration. I liked all of them, but the 986 may still be bought and sounds like it would fill the bill for OP. But again I opine that I don't see a hall pass for 9mm revolvers once the gun haters get into concentrating on handguns again.

My guess is that any new gun control laws focusing on semi auto long guns will attack high capacity semiautomatic handguns too and vice versa. I think revolvers WILL get a pass. Their use by good-guy cowboys and hero settlers of the American West in movies makes them All-American and wholesome as apple pie. The fact that the military uses semiautomatic long guns and handguns associates them with war and mass murder. So does the fact that its semi autos in both handgun and long gun versions that are most often used in school shootings and mass shootings these days.

To the average gun control nut, I think a person carrying a high capacity semiautomatic long or handgun suggests someone who wants to be able to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible and expects to need to do that. And they assume such equipment is intended for aggression rather than realizing its also just as suitable for SD. . But a revolver seems more like a general purpose tool rather than a weapon of war. Unless its a .44mag. Then its got all the super macho vibes from the Dirty Harry movies. But so far there aren't any bans on specific calibers. And .44sp is a better SD caliber anyway.

 

[kmk1012]

Thanks for the link @Certaindeaf . I was surprised that the cylinder gap in the revolver cost so little loss of power. Now I'm wondering whether silencing a revolver might be more effective than I assumed. If there is so little loss of power because of the cylinder gap maybe there's not much loss of noise from the cylinder gap either.

Based on personal experience, the cylinder gap emits a LOT of noise, I couldn't tell the difference with or without a suppressor on. I wouldn't want to see you get let down after spending $$$ only to be disappointed.

 

[OldBroad44]

Based on personal experience, the cylinder gap emits a LOT of noise, I couldn't tell the difference with or without a suppressor on. I wouldn't want to see you get let down after spending $$$ only to be disappointed.

Ahhh. I was hoping someone would have some direct experience with a silenced revolver. Tell us more about it, @kmk1012 .

 

[kmk1012]

Ahhh. I was hoping someone would have some direct experience with a silenced revolver. Tell us more about it, @kmk1012 .

I bought this as a joke, as well as because I like weird guns. I tried it with my rimfire and 30 cal rifle suppressor. Both were equally as loud as not having one mounted at all. Really a gimmick unless a Nagant type revolver is used. I understand that when cocking that type of revolver it forces the cylinder up right against the barrel end and seals it off.

 

[The Heretic]

My guess is that any new gun control laws focusing on semi auto long guns will attack high capacity semiautomatic handguns too and vice versa. I think revolvers WILL get a pass. Their use by good-guy cowboys and hero settlers of the American West in movies makes them All-American and wholesome as apple pie. The fact that the military uses semiautomatic long guns and handguns associates them with war and mass murder. So does the fact that its semi autos in both handgun and long gun versions that are most often used in school shootings and mass shootings these days.

To the average gun control nut, I think a person carrying a high capacity semiautomatic long or handgun suggests someone who wants to be able to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible and expects to need to do that. And they assume such equipment is intended for aggression rather than realizing its also just as suitable for SD. . But a revolver seems more like a general purpose tool rather than a weapon of war. Unless its a .44mag. Then its got all the super macho vibes from the Dirty Harry movies. But so far there aren't any bans on specific calibers. And .44sp is a better SD caliber anyway.

Yes. Whenever we hear about "gun violence" it is almost always semi-automatic this and semi-automatic that, whether it is a handgun or rifle - sometimes whether it is a semi involved or not, they squeeze in something about the need to control semi-autos. It could be a pump, or bolt, or lever action or a revolver that was used, and if there is an article about it and gun control is mentioned, it isn't rifles or handguns, it is semi-autos and high capacity mags.

Oh eventually, once they ban semis, they will then turn to revolvers and other action types in rifles - the end goal being to totally disarm the public.

Will the government totally disarm civilians? Probably not. Especially not in the USA. That doesn't mean that eventually the laws won't be on the books to do so. I probably won't be around to see it, but eventually it will happen.