Originally Posted By DakotaFAL:
He’s technically not wrong as the potential exists, but there needs to be some caveats and qualifiers as he is massively overstating and mis representing the issue.

1) size matters.

I’ve shot 9mm revolvers for a decade or so, and have not encountered the issue. All of my 9mm revolvers are steel frame, and only one is J framed size, a Taurus 905.  I generally stick to 115 gr or 124 gr loads in that smaller, lighter revolver.

It’s not clear on the linked article whether it’s a Ruger LCR or an SP101 that had the issue.  In my experience with the slightly larger and 5 oz heavier than a J frame sized Ruger SP101, the more or less K framed sized AL9, and L frame comparable Speed Six, I have found that 115, 124 and 147 gr ammunition in both hand loaded and factory loaded form has worked fine.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/h470/SDBB57/A4E21E86-C558-48D0-91DE-5009926FFF12.jpeg?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds

It’s worth pointing out that .45 ACP also doesn’t use a crimp as like the 9mm Luger it head spaces on the case mouth.  It has significant recoil and significantly heavier bullets. However bullets migrating forward under recoil and locking the cylinder isn’t a problem.  That’s almost certainly due to the heavier weight of these larger revolvers and the positive effects it has on reducing recoil velocity.

The take away here and the qualification that should be made is that 9mm is potentially problematic in lightweight revolver, and an alloy frame is a bad idea in that regard. That’s why you won’t find them in that frame material.  The steel frame Taurus 905 weighs in at 21 oz empty and I’d call that the floor, based on my personal experience.   The Ruger LCR is 4 oz lighter and IMHO that’s pushing the limits for use with full power self defense loads.


2) The ammo matters.

The article refers to 115 gr ball ammunition from a well known manufacturer.  Remington, Federal and CCI all sell 115 gr FMJ 9mm ammunition and while they are all well known manufacturers, none of those are what I would rank as high quality 9mm ammunition.   The article doesn’t name a manufacturer.  Personally, I would avoid CCI blazer aluminum cased ammunition due to the potential for reduced neck tension.

Farnham cites some ammunition makers including a warning “not for use in revolvers”, but again doesn’t say who.  I have hollow point self defense loads from Remington, Winchester, and Hornady as well as FMJ loads from Remington, Winchester, CCI (brass case), PMC, RWS and Sellier and Bellot and cannot find any such warning.


3) It’s not a problem unique to 9mm.

I also avoid alloy frame .357 Mag revolvers but do have a couple steel J frame .357s (2.125” and 3”) as well as a couple Kimber K6 revolvers (2” and 3”), and a 3” SP101.  I have had issues with bullet migration in those revolvers as well as in some 2 1/2” and 3” K frame revolvers.

Consequently it’s always been my policy and recommendation to fire at least 50 rounds of your intended self defense load through your revolver before carrying it.  More importantly, part of this proving process is two mark and then load a round in the cylinder, then fire the entire cylinder except that round, and then rinse and repeat with that same round two more cylinders. That subjects that round to 12-15 recoil cycles.  I’ll repeat that tooth two more rounds.  If none of those three rounds grow any longer then bullet migration is extremely unlikely.

There are some .357 Mag factory loads that won’t pass this test, even though those rounds are crimped.

Yet no one is suggesting not to use a .357 Mag revolver due to bullet migration concerns.  Instead they recommend testing the revolver and ammo combination for this potential issue.

If you remove the bias against 9mm revolvers n general expressed by many folks, the same recommendation can and should be made for a 9mm revolver.

—-

It’s worth noting that when using 9mm and moon clips you will never encounter issues such as getting a rim caught under an ejector star during a reload, preventing the crane from going back into the cylinder until you carefully pick the case out from under the ejector star.

The short 9mm Luger case in a revolver also effectively means any ejector rod is “full length” and creates much more positive ejection. That can be a big issue with the shorter ejector rods used in some short barrel .357 Magnum revolvers.

9mm reloads with moon clips are also faster than with .38 or .357 and a speed loader.

Yet apparently we are supposed to ignore those clear advantages and avoid 9mm revolvers due to a theoretical potential for bullet migration that is in the real world no greater than is the case for .357 Magnum.

I agree with everything in this post 'cept the "full length" ejection.
Measure, measure a whole bunch of revolvers, measure tens of thousands of reliable revolvers and get back with how many deliver a Full length ejection stroke.
Hmmmmmm.

And, in the revolvers that DO offer full length ejection, run a thousand rounds and figure the "rim under star" malfunctions and get back to me.
I have a large database of ejector lengths squirreled away and "partial ejection" is "totally reliable" especially if you let gravity assist

But every other word he wrote is straight up thruth.

So it looks like click bait to me or at the minimum, someone who encountered an issue with ONE aluminum frame revolver with ONE ammo source. Lightweight revolvers have some good points but your ammo has to meet the test. Do the work and carry on.

Originally Posted By DakotaFAL:
It’s worth pointing out that .45 ACP also doesn’t use a crimp as like the 9mm Luger it head spaces on the case mouth.

Originally Posted By Neogirevik1:
Thank you for correctly spelling his last name right!

There's a reason 9mm never became commonplace in revolvers.

I find it hard to argue with him, as his small arms knowledge is vast. Peruse his archived quips on his website if you have some down time, the man knows a lot about small arms.

I'm going to try and train with him this year.

Originally Posted By HomeAtLast:


Where did this bit of B.S. come from?
They use a taper crimp but we all know that already.

Originally Posted By JTMcC:



I agree with everything in this post 'cept the "full length" ejection.
Measure, measure a whole bunch of revolvers, measure tens of thousands of reliable revolvers and get back with how many deliver a Full length ejection stroke.
Hmmmmmm.

And, in the revolvers that DO offer full length ejection, run a thousand rounds and figure the "rim under star" malfunctions and get back to me.
I have a large database of ejector lengths squirreled away and "partial ejection" is "totally reliable" especially if you let gravity assist

But every other word he wrote is straight up thruth.

So it looks like click bait to me or at the minimum, someone who encountered an issue with ONE aluminum frame revolver with ONE ammo source. Lightweight revolvers have some good points but your ammo has to meet the test. Do the work and carry on.

Originally Posted By John-in-austin:
Non issue, but I suppose he needed something to write about.

Originally Posted By John-in-austin:
Non issue, but I suppose he needed something to write about.