old 640 or new 640

[cathellsk]

I have two of the pre magnum frame 640s and they are my favorites of all J frames.

One is a first production run from '89 with the CEN prefix serial number. It's got the best action from the factory of any of my J frames and my new production no lock 642-1 has an Apex Tactical trigger kit.

The other is a regular production from around '94.

I used to have an NYPD spec one from around ''91 but foolishly got rid of it. It was slicked up by an NYPD armorer and was very nice. The seller told me he used it once in the line of duty and would only say it was a good day for him and a bad day for the skell.

Get the pre magnum frame in my opinion. They balance better for me. I'd also never fire magnums in a J frame, too punishing.

[Moonshot]

Thanks for all the replys. This is the kind of info I was seeking. I am hoping to put this deal together in the next few days, but it all hinges on a few pieces falling into place - one of which is beyond my control. I'll let you know what happens.

[MGW]

Not my picture but here is a new style 640 pro. It's definitely not a pocket gun if that's what you are looking for. It would make a great AIWB pistol though. Great sights too. I've been trying to talk a friend out of his for awhile now.

[Chuck Haggard]

Not my picture but here is a new style 640 pro. It's definitely not a pocket gun if that's what you are looking for. It would make a great AIWB pistol though. Great sights too. I've been trying to talk a friend out of his for awhile now.

That is just dead sexy right there

[Moonshot]

Yeh, that is a nice looking gun. If my deal on the old 640 falls through, I'll be in the market for something else, and this may be it. I don't care about the moon clip feature, but those sights nice. Too bad they don't make it a little smaller, in .38 +P only (say, about the same size as the old 640?).

Is there a reason for the fluted barrel? Cosmetic only (looks like a skinny cylinder) or does it serve a purpose?

[Beat Trash]

I did not know that new 640's were available without the lock.

I really like that revolver.

[JR1572]

Not my picture but here is a new style 640 pro. It's definitely not a pocket gun if that's what you are looking for. It would make a great AIWB pistol though. Great sights too. I've been trying to talk a friend out of his for awhile now.

That is just dead sexy right there

I want one really bad.

JR1572

[MGW]

Yeh, that is a nice looking gun. If my deal on the old 640 falls through, I'll be in the market for something else, and this may be it. I don't care about the moon clip feature, but those sights nice. Too bad they don't make it a little smaller, in .38 +P only (say, about the same size as the old 640?).

Is there a reason for the fluted barrel? Cosmetic only (looks like a skinny cylinder) or does it serve a purpose?

You can buy a no lock M&P 340. The sights aren't as good but you do get the pinned front sight. If I remember correctly it's a little over an ounce lighter than a 442/642 though. First responder price on a new one is around $650 (ouch). I've seen them used for a little less. If I ever buy another pocket J it's the one I'll save my pennies for.

I've only seen one 640 Pro in captivity and the selfish bastard won't sell it to me.

[Moonshot]

I've never shot any j-frame lighter than an air-weight, and from what I've read I'm not sure I want to. If I augment my 642 with another style of j-frame, it will be to an all steel variety for more pleasant training and better use as a teaching tool.

I'm still hoping to pick up the old 640, but if that deal falls through, I'll start looking for either a new 640 (-1 or Pro, depending on cost and lack of frame lock), or perhaps a 3" M60. I want to keep it a J-frame (vs K-rame) for speed loader compatibility just in case I end up carrying both it and my 642. The SP101 would work, but it's a little too big (back of grip to trigger) for my wife to easily handle. The J's fit her hand, the Ruger's not so much.

[LSP972]

I've never shot any j-frame lighter than an air-weight, and from what I've read I'm not sure I want to.

Well, do you want to SHOOT it, or CARRY it? Sounds to me like you're looking for something to augment your M-642; something more "shootable". That's wise, and the older 640 you've been looking at is the perfect match.

OTOH, the AirLite/Ti-Scan (titanium cylinder, Scandium frame) J frames weigh a steady three ounces less than the AirWeights… and if you pocket carry, that matters. Belt or ankle, its a wash and not worth fretting over. But until I began doing it (carrying an AirLite in my pocket) there is NO way you could have convinced me that those three ounces made a difference. It most assuredly does.

No free lunch, however. As you correctly deduce, the AirLites are distinctly unpleasant to shoot; which presents one with a dilemma.

Allow me some wandering philosophy here: use it, or ignore it, as you see fit…

As a long-time trainer of cops, with the added responsibility of assisting in the clean-up after one of them shot something/somebody, I was a hardcore proponent of the "Practice as you do" dictum. IOW, if you carried a flyweight snubby, then by God that's what you should be training with. And that's why I have over 5K of rather unpleasant rounds through my EDC M-360PD AirLite snubby.

Time and age tends to alter one's perspectives. Two things to consider here: one, as I have aged, my tolerance for discomfort in general and recoil in particular has diminished noticeably. Second (and the more important of the two, IMO), after many thousands of rounds downrange through various "platforms", I feel comfortable and confident picking up (or drawing) a weapon that is very similar, if not exactly identical, to the one I normally shoot.

My rambling point here is, if you want a practice snubby that is more comfortable to shoot, go for it. You want to shoot bunny farts in it? Go for it. As long as your "shooter" is pretty close in configuration to your EDC example, you'll get plenty of training value. What I'm taking about here, specifically, is the stocks you put on both weapons. Those should be the same- EXACTLY the same.
One thing I have noticed about folks who were weaned on bottom feeders is their near-total lack of understanding of how much of a difference stocks make on a revolver. No fault of theirs; its something you learn after lots of exposure, and they lack that.

To get specific, lots of folks carry a flyweight snubby with small, "carry" stocks, yet their shooter has Pachmyar Compacs or similar, hand-filling, recoil-attenuating stocks. Number One on the list of Why That Is Not A Good Idea is this: the more comfortable stocks are NOT going to shoot to the same POI, especially one-handed under duress.

Anyway, sorry for the novella. Good luck on snagging that old M-640.

.