Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

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

  1. #31
    Very Pro Dentist Chuck Haggard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Down the road from Quantrill's big raid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tamara View Post
    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.

  2. #32
    Site Supporter Tamara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In free-range, non-GMO, organic, fair trade Broad Ripple, IN
    Quote Originally Posted by LSP972 View Post
    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.
    Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.

    I can explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by tpd223 View Post
    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...

    .

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Tamara View Post
    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...

    .

  5. #35
    Site Supporter Tamara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In free-range, non-GMO, organic, fair trade Broad Ripple, IN
    Quote Originally Posted by LSP972 View Post
    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.
    Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.

    I can explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by LSP972 View Post
    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.

  7. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    SWF
    Quote Originally Posted by TriumphRat675 View Post
    Mine shoots left and the frame/front sight are lined up perfectly. I asked Claude Werner to take a look at it and he confirmed that it is the gun. According to Claude, this is not uncommon with the fixed sight snubbies.

    I believe - but don't take my word for it - that the "fix" is to actually adjust the barrel and realign the sight with the frame. In other words, you can't adjust the sights so you have to adjust the barrel itself. Mine is not bad enough that I've ever been tempted to try the fix, especially not with laser grips installed.
    I've bought a few J fames since the 80`s.

    M37 in 38spl only.

    M637-1 in 38spl +P
    M640
    M642-2

    M640 in 357mag
    M649


    The M642-2 was bought last year.


    Every single one of them would group a 5rd ragged hole at 7yards
    Every single one of them would group 158SWC at POA /POI

    148gr WC was pretty close and highly accurate


    I find the LW bullets tend to shoot low for me.

  8. #38
    Site Supporter Tamara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In free-range, non-GMO, organic, fair trade Broad Ripple, IN
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    I've bought a few J fames since the 80`s.

    M37 in 38spl only.

    M637-1 in 38spl +P
    M640
    M642-2

    M640 in 357mag
    M649
    You need more Js. I got some you can borrow, if necessary.
    Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.

    I can explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you.

  9. #39
    Hokey / Ancient JAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kansas City
    Quote Originally Posted by Tamara View Post
    You need more Js. I got some you can borrow, if necessary.
    O contrailer, he's got too many. Those things are obsolete at distances greater than physical insertion. I'll take that 37 off your hands and dispose of it.
    Ignore Alien Orders

  10. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    SWF
    Quote Originally Posted by LtDave View Post
    I've owned a bunch of j-frames over the past 35 years. So far, I've only managed to find 2 of them that have shot to the sights. And I had to file down the front sight on one to make it happen...

    Double post my bad

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •