340 PD

[LSP972]

... Hoppe's Elite.

I wonder what the difference between that and regular old #9 is? Ever since they caved in to the enviro-nazis and stopped putting ammonia in #9, it just hasn't been the same stuff. Adequate… but not the same.

.

[SAWBONES]

I wonder what the difference between that and regular old #9 is?

As far as I can tell, Hoppe's Elite is identical to M Pro-7.

[LSP972]

As far as I can tell, Hoppe's Elite is identical to M Pro-7.

Well, if I knew what M Pro 7 was, I'd be in business...

JK, I'll look it up...

.

[guymontag]

IIRC , at least for the old formulations, Hoppe's Elite and M-Pro were quite similar, but varied in the amount of additives - M-Pro tailored for more lubricity, Hoppe's Elite for more corrosion protection.

Pardon the side note.

[DonW]

The weight of that no-lock, steel-cylinder M&P 340 is 13.3 oz. unloaded, which about splits the difference between the 340PD and the Airweights.

The primary attraction for me of the scandium alloy frame, titanium alloy cylinder 340PD is its very light weight of 11.4 oz. unloaded, as compared to the 442/642, which are 15 oz. unloaded.

I know it doesn't sound like much, but the in-pocket difference seems obvious to me.

Wish I could get a no-lock 11.4 oz. J-frame, but unless S&W decides to make one, I'll just be content with my no-lock 642s and #*@!-lock 340PDs for pocket carry.

This is the lightest J-frame that I've heard about, mentioned in this smith-wessonforum.com/ thread:

Performance Center "one off"

U.S. Secret Service 442 run with a prototype alloy cylinder, mentioned in the SCSW (page 243 in my 3rd edition). Crazy light. Definitely would need Hogue grips.

[LSP972]

The original AirWeight, the M-13 AirCrewman (made to order for LeMay's Strategic Air Command bomber crews), had an alloy cylinder. So did the first hundred or so of what became the Model 42 J frame Centennial AirWeight. They didn't hold up, cracking/splitting after just a modicum of standard pressure .38 Special. The M-13s were mostly destroyed by the government, but the M-42s are still out there; and highly prized collector's items. Nobody in his right mind shoots them.

One of my SWAT buds ended up in the Secret Service (years after Clinton's tenure). He told me that he had heard of those flyweight snubbies, some were supposedly still in circulation, but only "important folks" had access to them. In any event, I'll bet they didn't shoot them much… if at all.

I'll tell you one thing… if I ever run across one of those no-lock M-340 Ti-Scans for sale, its a bought pecan.

.

[DonW]

The original AirWeight, the M-13 AirCrewman (made to order for LeMay's Strategic Air Command bomber crews), had an alloy cylinder. So did the first hundred or so of what became the Model 42 J frame Centennial AirWeight. They didn't hold up, cracking/splitting after just a modicum of standard pressure .38 Special. The M-13s were mostly destroyed by the government, but the M-42s are still out there; and highly prized collector's items. Nobody in his right mind shoots them.

Interesting. What was cracking, the frame or cylinder? Wouldn't the clinton secret service 442 manufacture have different manufacture tolerances than the earlier M-13?

[LSP972]

Interesting. What was cracking, the frame or cylinder? Wouldn't the clinton secret service 442 manufacture have different manufacture tolerances than the earlier M-13?

The cylinder.

I don't think it was a matter of tolerances. We probably have better alloys now, or more sophisticated heat treating, etc. The Supica book states that those "special" 442s made it through the 5000 round test without failing (that's the same standard S&W holds the Ti-Scan magnums to with full-power .357 or .44 ammunition); could be. What we do know for a fact is that the AirCrewman revolvers - both the S&W and the Colt- 40 years prior to the 442s, did not hold up to moderate amounts of shooting with a rather low pressure round. We also know that the AirWeight guns with steel cylinders of that era and beyond hold up to a lot of shooting.

The designs, old (AirCrewman) and new (M-442), are, for all practical purposes, the same. So it has to be the metallurgy in the cylinder, I'm thinking.

.

[DonW]

The cylinder.

I don't think it was a matter of tolerances. We probably have better alloys now, or more sophisticated heat treating, etc. The Supica book states that those "special" 442s made it through the 5000 round test without failing (that's the same standard S&W holds the Ti-Scan magnums to with full-power .357 or .44 ammunition); could be. What we do know for a fact is that the AirCrewman revolvers - both the S&W and the Colt- 40 years prior to the 442s, did not hold up to moderate amounts of shooting with a rather low pressure round. We also know that the AirWeight guns with steel cylinders of that era and beyond hold up to a lot of shooting.

The designs, old (AirCrewman) and new (M-442), are, for all practical purposes, the same. So it has to be the metallurgy in the cylinder, I'm thinking.

Very interesting. So nothing wrong with the secret service 442s with prototype alloy cylinders. Smith & Wesson needs to bring this back to the modern no-lock J-frame.

[Up1911Fan]

Very interesting. So nothing wrong with the secret service 442s with prototype alloy cylinders. Smith & Wesson needs to bring this back to the modern no-lock J-frame.

With a pinned front sight.