Zero issue with S&W M&P 340 (J Frame)

[tpd223]

Part of the reason that they're so cheap as they are is that everything to do with those guns was fully depreciated when cars still had carburettors. Just about any change they make will probably bump the cost up to where they're priced like real guns.

Astute observation.

The bonus being that a guy can then later spend the money on something like a CT laser grip and basically get a low-light capability and better "sights" for distance.


Not sure where the "belly gun" thing comes from except folks who haven't taken the time to be able to shoot these guns well. I'm not the world's greatest shooter, but I have two 642s that I have to qual with twice a year and I clean the KS KLETC C-POST qual with both guns every time.

Doing some of the sight improvements that Claude talks about for pocket guns helps my day light sight picture a lot, CT grips work really well when I shoot these guns in low light or indoors.

[Tamara]

I thought we (GJM, anyway) had established that some of the newer guns have the replaceable/interchangeable front sight capability? My 342, of 1998 vintage, and my 360PD, of 2002 vintage, both have that feature. I'm assuming that the source of the complaint here is that the lower "tier" offerings- 442s, 642s, etc.- have fixed front sights milled into the barrel, like they did it on the pre-95 guns.

I've got an '05-vintage 432PD and, while it has the newer sleeve-and-liner style two-piece barrel assembly, the front sight is machined integrally with the barrel sleeve. Like you, I am assuming that there is a cost savings associated with this in the shape of fewer machining steps and a lower parts count, as I recollect the 432s being priced the same as the 442s.

[LSP972]

Not sure where the "belly gun" thing comes from except folks who haven't taken the time to be able to shoot these guns well.

The "belly gun thing" goes way back; a lot farther than you or I. It refers to the small size and intended use; up close and exceedingly personal. As noted in an earlier post, I qualified annually, during a thirty-year career with one, out to 25 yards. That doesn't mean this genre of handgun would be my first choice for most tasks.

Yes, a well-made example has much inherent accuracy. But unless the game is determining group size in a Ransom Rest, inherent accuracy is meaningless. Practical accuracy (what a given shooter can make the gun do) is what matters. And most folks simply do not shoot J frames well at much past 7 yards, because of the triggers and the fact that there isn't much to hang on to.

I would be hesitant to fault an experienced pistolero for choosing something like this for a primary; I'm sure he/she would have valid reasons. But I think we can all agree that said experienced pistolero can do better "work" with a service piece; particularly in regards to distance shooting and multiple targets/assailants. Most folks who do carry a mouse gun as a primarly/only, do so out of convenience. That was my retirement plan; the spiking crime rate here changed all of that.

Hey, for many years I was guilty of using mine as a sole off-duty piece. Its presence defused a couple of potentially bad situations, but I never had to actually shoot somebody with it. As my experience grew, I eventually relegated its place to that of back-up; both on and off duty. It remains such in my retirement; except when "lounging" around the house.

But that is another thread...

.

[LSP972]

I've got an '05-vintage 432PD and, while it has the newer sleeve-and-liner style two-piece barrel assembly, the front sight is machined integrally with the barrel sleeve. Like you, I am assuming that there is a cost savings associated with this in the shape of fewer machining steps and a lower parts count, as I recollect the 432s being priced the same as the 442s.

I haven't examined a recent-production 442 or 642 in quite a while. Are they now coming with the two-piece barrel/shroud arrangement? My 342 and 360PD have that; but I have seen some early to mid 2000s-vintage 642s that still featured the one-piece barrel with integral front sight.

S&W changes things so often it is practically impossible to keep up. I am acquainted with a couple of majorly serious S&W collectors... and they pretty much remain constipated all the time...

.

[Tamara]

I haven't examined a recent-production 442 or 642 in quite a while. Are they now coming with the two-piece barrel/shroud arrangement? My 342 and 360PD have that; but I have seen some early to mid 2000s-vintage 642s that still featured the one-piece barrel with integral front sight.

Last I was paying attention, the 442/642 were still using old school one-piece crush-fit barrels, but that was some a while back.

Smith collecting being such a broad field, I dialed mine back to mostly early-'70s and older guns and sold off all the newer stuff except for a bare handful of working guns, so I don't really pay any attention to new 442s in a showcase these days. I ASSuME they're still using one-piece barrels, but they may have still been using up NOS five years ago, the way the .mil is still awarding Purple Hearts that were in storage from 1945, and have since gone to two-piece without me noticing.

[Bill Nesbitt]

I haven't examined a recent-production 442 or 642 in quite a while. Are they now coming with the two-piece barrel/shroud arrangement?
.

I have a recent (within the last couple of years) no lock 442. It has the one piece barrel with the invisible integral front sight. I got it when S&W replaced my Model 37 that hit way off to one side.