Revisiting the Smith & Wesson Model 940

The Smith & Wesson 940 is a hammerless, J-Frame revolver that was built on the new Centennial platform between 1991 and 1998. During its relatively short life, four versions were made: the 940, 940-1 with an improved extractor, and the 940-2 on the magnum J-Frame were produced in 9mm Luger. The 940 PC was a limited run of three hundred Custom Shop models chambered for the .356 TSW.  The .356 TSW was a 9x21.5mm cartridge that offered ballistics similar to the contemporary .357 SIG. When moon clips are used, 9mm Luger cartridges, which are 9x19mm, can be used in the .356 TSW since the shorter cartridges headspace on the clips.

I briefly owned a Smith & Wesson 940 in the '90s and carried it in a belly band. At the same time, I experimented with a 3", round butt, S&W 547, a K-Frame revolver that did not require moon clips due to its unique extractor.  I liked them both but neither seemed as practical as a J-Frame in .38 Special or a K-Frame in .357 Magnum.  At the time, 9mm Luger stopping power was more controversial than today; I was reloading a lot of .38 Special and .357 Magnum ammo; I had already invested in plenty of .38/.357 speedloaders; and when factory or commercially reloaded ammunition had to be used for practice, .38 Special was the cheapest centerfire handgun ammunition that you could buy.

Recently, I had the opportunity to shoot a S&W 940-1 with Federal Hydra-Shok 124 gr. JHPs and Winchester 115 gr. ball.  Offhand, accuracy was on par with most J-Frames that I have shot, which is generally quite good, despite the short sight radius. The exceptionally smooth trigger, for which the Model 940 is known, contributes to its accuracy and, at roughly 23 oz., the recoil of the 9mm Luger is very manageable. I find it kicks less than an Airweight in .38 Special with +P loads and much less than that of a Model 640 in .357 Magnum. As some law enforcement agencies are realizing, modern ammunition has improved the performance of the 9mm Luger and it is effective in short barrels.  Today, commercially loaded ball ammo is plentiful and it is the cheapest to practice with. As a result, the S&W 940 seems more attractive now than it was in the '90s.

Is it more practical than before and has it ever been very practical at all? If the cult following of the S&W 940 and its ever rising prices are any indication, the answer might be yes. The fact that revolvers of similar size, like the Ruger LCR, Taurus 905, and the Charter Arms Pit Bull (resurrected as a 9mm Luger that does not require moon clips), are currently produced in 9mm Luger might also provide an affirmative response to this question. Yet, the availability of lighter, subcompact pistols with greater capacity, like the Ruger LC9s, and pistols that are virtually the same size and weight as the S&W 940, like the compact Glock 26 with twice the capacity, lead you to wonder as to why bother with a revolver chambered for 9mm Luger at all. Then, we see the Smith & Wesson Performance Center 986, a 31.7 oz L-Frame with a 2.5" barrel chambered in 9mm Luger that uses seven round moon clips, and realize that for whatever reason, some people do.

As backups to 9mm semi-automatic pistols, 9mm revolvers like the S&W 940 sound pretty good since both handguns use the same ammo. However, with the exception of having common ammunition on the range, the benefit is questionable. Revolvers like the Model 940 require moon clips for extraction although they can generally be loaded and fired without them. Thus, if a revolver is loaded with a moon clip, an initial reload with loose ammo, or that which is left in a spare magazine, is possible, though slow (and especially awkward for someone who is neither prepared nor practiced in doing so). Thereafter, a subsequent reload would be grueling and impractical since empty cartridges would have to be individually picked or poked from the chambers.  Of course, such reloads are at least plausible with revolvers; they are not with semi-autos unless the backup and primary weapons have compatible magazines. In fairness though, when a backup gun is necessary, it is because you have lost control of your primary weapon, expended all of its ammunition, or experienced a catastrophic failure.  What is the likelihood of having to reload a backup gun in the first place, much less more than once?  I am unaware of any statistics for such events.

Most who carry concealed handguns carry only one and they often choose a weapon that is a compromise between comfort, convenience, and effectiveness. This is well demonstrated by the current popularity of subcompact semi-automatics chambered in .380 ACP and 9mm Luger. Such pistols typically carry seven or eight rounds, have microscopic sights that are difficult to see, and provide sharp recoil due to their relatively light weight, which is often between 9 and 18 oz. Additionally, those chambered for .380 ACP are expensive to practice with. The S&W 940 is attractive because it is accurate, controllable, cheap to practice with, and offers good ballistics from a short barrel. Moreover, moon clips provide fast reloads; two loaded moon clips require little more space  than one speedloader loaded with .38 Special or .357 Magnum ammunition.

Some can argue that the five round capacity of the S&W 940 is less than desirable, stainless steel sights are also hard to see, bent moon clips can bind the action and render a miserable trigger pull, and that demooning empties is a thankless chore. Each point has merit but also consider:

1. Fat bodied semi-autos, like the Glock 26, do not feel good to everyone.
2. Sub-compact pistols are not bastions of ergonomics and many find them unpleasant to practice with.
3. Some people are more comfortable with revolvers because they are simple to operate, do not require field stripping for maintenance, and as a result, there is no need to pull the trigger prior to cleaning, as is required with some semi-autos. Furthermore, a cursory glance between the recoil shield and the cylinder of most revolvers reveals the presence of cartridges and there is no possibility of removing the magazine, yet forgetting to clear the chamber. 
4. Hammerless revolvers are well suited for firing through pockets because they have no hammers to snag and do not have to cycle.  
5. The visibility of a stainless steel front sight is easily improved with nail polish or paint.
6. As to bent moon clips, they are relatively cheap and once suitable defensive ammo is selected, it should not be difficult to reserve a few new ones for carry. It is also fair to note that many have experienced or witnessed some type of failure because semi-automatic pistol magazines have been damaged, improperly assembled, or poorly constructed.
7. Demooning empties is a pain in the ass, even with a tool!

Despite the fact that semi-autos are effective, they do not make small framed revolvers obsolete. The J-Frame Smith has been around since 1950 and it remains popular today while Ruger, Taurus, and Charter Arms also enjoy a substantial market share for revolvers of similar size. I find J-Frame Smiths to be practical and consider the S&W 940 a useful option for concealed carry.