PDA

View Full Version : 340 PD



idahojess
05-15-2014, 12:15 AM
I just picked up a new 340 PD (with the titanium cylinder) with no lock. Not terribly cheap, but really not much more than what I think they were going for in 2008 when I bought my 642. I was under the impression that Smith wasn't making these any more, and that the online retailer I bought it from had just come across some new old stock.

I picked it up today from my local FFL, and the fired cartridge case said February of 2014. Maybe they make small batches still? I thought it was cool that it looks like Smith might still be making these -- maybe they'll bring back the 342.

Anyway, it's a nice gun, and feels much lighter in my pocket of my work khakis than my 642 airweight.

I managed to get out to the range this evening and fired about 60-70 rounds or so -- all .38 special. No bullet pulling issues in either the 130 grain practice ammo, the 135 + P gold dots or the 110 critical defense standard pressure. That round count was probably enough. It's not awful to shoot, but ...

I noticed the factory grips weren't conducive to my HKS speedloader. I'll probably replace the grips with either Crimson Trace 405s or 105s. I have 405's on my 642, and I'm not sure I like the cushioned backstrap --seems to pinch the web of my hand when I get a high grip. It has the red ramped sight, which seemed pretty good.

Does anyone who has these guns have any recommendations for cleaning solvents with this gun? The manual says standard cleaning solvents, no ammonia, etc. Maybe Hoppe's elite or just CLP? I know you have to be super careful with the titanium on these...

Thanks,

LSP972
05-15-2014, 07:29 AM
I know you have to be super careful with the titanium on these...

Thanks,

Indeed you do. The titanium has a clear coat of some sort that, if breached, will allow flame-cutting erosion to commence.

I have a 360PD and a 342. The 360PD has a lot of rounds (several thousand) through it, almost all .38s; the 342, a few hundred. I stick with jacketed bullets- TRUE jacketed bullets, not the "plated" variety- to elinimate leading, which must be scrubbed out. Scrubbing is bad for that clear coat.

I use Hoppes #9 solvent and stiff nylon brushes on the cylinder. I found a test tube brush that is slightly large than the charge hole ID which does a good job of keeping the charge holes clean. The cylinder face gets cleaned with solvent and your basic M-16 toothbrush. The barrel liners are stainless, so a regular bronze bore brush is okay for the bore. Just remember to be careful when cleaning the bore, and don't let the bore brush bang into the recoil shield. Repeated impacts here can peen the hole where the firing pin comes through, with predictable issues following.

I'm interested in the fact that you have a 340PD without the lock. It was my understanding that none existed, since S&W supposedly didn't start producing the "magnum" AirLites until after full integration of the new frame with lock. My 342 is lock-free, but my information is that only a few thousand of these made it out the factory door before the change. Just goes to show, with S&W you never know...

If you don't mind, I'd appreciate if you could PM me the first three letters of the serial number. With that, I can run down the approximate date of manufacture; could be that S&W is making these now sans lock. They are offering new-production 642s sans lock, so apparently they heard the screams of discontent regarding that stupid lock.

Of course, dealing with the lock is no big deal; my 360PD has The Plug, but you can disable the lock without worry of any other problems in about ten minutes if you are competent at detail-stripping a J frame. Just be sure to put that "flag" back in there, lest the remaining mechanism get loose, fall against the hammer, and lock things up as tight as the lock itself would. Don't ask me how I know that.

Anyway... sorry for the rambling. Enjoy your Beast; they are the ultimate pocket carry piece. As you noted, not fun to shoot, but if you can find some genuine target wadcutters, those make practice much more tolerable.

.

Chuck Haggard
05-15-2014, 07:48 AM
The nylon brushes that comes with all Glocks make a good chamber brush for .38/.357s when one doesn't want to use a bore brush or something in bronze or whatever.

SAWBONES
05-15-2014, 08:51 AM
I'm interested in the fact that you have a 340PD without the lock. It was my understanding that none existed, since S&W supposedly didn't start producing the "magnum" AirLites until after full integration of the new frame with lock.
.

This was my understanding too.

I have two 340PDs, one with the ramped front sight, the other with fiber-optic front sight, but both with the danged lock, and I'd love to have a no-lock example if I could find one.

idahojess
05-15-2014, 10:02 AM
Thanks for the info LSP and Chuck. I did err on the side of nylon brushes last night when I cleaned it -- seemed like the smart choice.

I'll look at the ammo I shoot carefully -- I didn't anticipate shooting any plain lead bullets through it, but I'll look for some true fmjs...
Thanks,

LSP972
05-15-2014, 10:07 AM
This was my understanding too.

I have two 340PDs, one with the ramped front sight, the other with fiber-optic front sight, but both with the danged lock, and I'd love to have a no-lock example if I could find one.

Well, looks like we were mis-informed. The OP provided the first three letters of his s/n, and they are one letter (the third letter; the first two are the same) away from my 360PD, which I acquired in 2002.

Most interesting...

.

LSP972
05-15-2014, 10:09 AM
The nylon brushes that comes with all Glocks make a good chamber bruch for .38/.357s when one doesn't want to use a bore brush or something in bronze or whatever.

Indeed they would.

Ya know, I must have a half-dozen of those things lying around; never thought to use them for anything but a field-expedient tooth brush...:D

.

theJanitor
05-15-2014, 11:35 AM
The S&W website lists a no-lock 340. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_792048_-1_757783_757781_757781_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

If anyone finds one, and wants to let go of their 340PD with a lock for a REALLY good price, I'd be happy to take it off your hands :)

LSP972
05-15-2014, 12:46 PM
The S&W website lists a no-lock 340. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_792048_-1_757783_757781_757781_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y



Well... curiouser and curiouser... but no titanium cylinder on that one.

.

idahojess
05-15-2014, 01:58 PM
Well, looks like we were mis-informed. The OP provided the first three letters of his s/n, and they are one letter (the third letter; the first two are the same) away from my 360PD, which I acquired in 2002.

Most interesting...

.

Good information, thanks. I think the 340 M&P's are currently available, with the steel cylinder, in optional no-lock configuration. I wonder what the current serial numbers on those look like. I assume the frame is the same on those.

SAWBONES
05-16-2014, 12:06 PM
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.

LSP972
05-16-2014, 12:39 PM
I know it doesn't sound like much, but the in-pocket difference seems obvious to me.


It makes a BIG difference. Most folks poo-poo that statement... until they try it for themselves.

BTW, you are aware that the great majority of documented lock self-engagements have occurred with the Ti-Scan (titanium cylinder, scandium frame) guns? J frames and N frames? IOW, if your 340PD's lock has not been disabled, and you carry it... might want to think about sorting that out.

.

.

idahojess
05-16-2014, 02:36 PM
Here is a pic...
It's a lot lighter in the pocket than my 642. Wish I would have worn a glove when shooting it the other day...

Stephen
05-16-2014, 04:23 PM
It blows my mind that they persist with a feature that is so unpopular with their customers. I wonder if Smith would continue with the locks if the D/A revolver market was half as crowded/competitive as the plastic pistol market.

LSP972
05-16-2014, 07:06 PM
There, as they say, is the proof. Interesting, indeed… especially the box.

My 360PD came in a externally-padded hard case with a white outer box, the product label affixed to one end (I'd post a photo, but I "may not post attachments"). Ditto my 242 and 342, both of which are pre-lock. In fact, every AirLite I've seen (perhaps a dozen or so) came so packaged.

That appears to be a period-vintage cardboard box. One wonders if this piece has sat in some warehouse/back shelf for the past 12 years. If it were mine, I'd cough up the fifty bucks for a Jinks letter. That's gonna be the only way to know for sure what this revolver's pedigree is.

In any event, great score, guy. Treasure that puppy.

.

idahojess
05-16-2014, 07:38 PM
In any event, great score, guy. Treasure that puppy.



Thanks! Will do!

SAWBONES
05-16-2014, 07:40 PM
It blows my mind that they persist with a feature that is so unpopular with their customers. I wonder if Smith would continue with the locks if the D/A revolver market was half as crowded/competitive as the plastic pistol market.

Given that the current owner company has been Saf-T-Hammer since 2K or so, I'm sure that some non-shooting company bozo executive felt it would be just a wonderful marketing decision to incorporate one of their "gun lock product ideas" into their new "gun product line". :p

Talk about corporate stupidity and thoroughgoing lack of understanding of their customer base.

idahojess
05-16-2014, 08:00 PM
oops disregard this post here

SAWBONES
05-17-2014, 05:13 PM
BTW, you are aware that the great majority of documented lock self-engagements have occurred with the Ti-Scan (titanium cylinder, scandium frame) guns? J frames and N frames? IOW, if your 340PD's lock has not been disabled, and you carry it... might want to think about sorting that out.

No problem there, I took out the little locking levers from both guns, but the lock holes are still just as ugly. :mad:

LSP972
05-17-2014, 09:09 PM
No problem there, I took out the little locking levers from both guns, but the lock holes are still just as ugly. :mad:

Did you simply remove the "flag"? That's the flat piece with the nub that locks the hammer. This is the obvious quick-fix, but one fraught with peril. That's what I did… and after five or so years and a couple of thousand rounds, the remaining cylindrical mechanism got jarred loose and 'fell into' the gun, locking up the hammer tighter than Dick's hatband.

Fortunately, this occurred on the range.

When you remove that "flag", you're leaving about 1.5mm of space between the side of the hammer and what's left of the mechanism.

Best bet is to remove the flag, grind off the nub, and replace the flag. She'll run happily ever after. Or buy The Plug and knock out the entire mechanism. That's what I did after deciding I didn't care for that gaping hole in the frame, after removing the remainder of the mechanism.

Sorry if you already knew all of this; but I have run across numerous post-lock J frames whose owners did what I did initially… and were an unknown number of rounds away from potential disaster.

.

SeriousStudent
05-17-2014, 10:20 PM
I would very humbly agree with LSP972, and strongly recommend the Plug. It's not horribly difficult to do yourself, especially if you buy a neat little $20 tool from Brownells.

Of course, I have an entire toolbox full of neat little $20 tools from Brownells.

theJanitor
05-18-2014, 02:39 AM
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=416567361

SAWBONES
05-18-2014, 10:18 AM
Did you simply remove the "flag"? That's the flat piece with the nub that locks the hammer. This is the obvious quick-fix, but one fraught with peril. That's what I did… and after five or so years and a couple of thousand rounds, the remaining cylindrical mechanism got jarred loose and 'fell into' the gun, locking up the hammer tighter than Dick's hatband.

Fortunately, this occurred on the range.

When you remove that "flag", you're leaving about 1.5mm of space between the side of the hammer and what's left of the mechanism.

Best bet is to remove the flag, grind off the nub, and replace the flag. She'll run happily ever after. Or buy The Plug and knock out the entire mechanism. That's what I did after deciding I didn't care for that gaping hole in the frame, after removing the remainder of the mechanism.

Sorry if you already knew all of this; but I have run across numerous post-lock J frames whose owners did what I did initially… and were an unknown number of rounds away from potential disaster.


No apology necessary, I appreciate your help.
I didn't know that the remaining lock mechanism (keyway and all) might come loose and fall into the gun.

Is The Plug you mentioned the item made and sold by Bullseye Smith on the S&W Forum, or something else?

If it's that one, I've not gone that route yet, but now you've inspired me to do so!

SAWBONES
05-18-2014, 10:21 AM
I would very humbly agree with LSP972, and strongly recommend the Plug. It's not horribly difficult to do yourself, especially if you buy a neat little $20 tool from Brownells.

Of course, I have an entire toolbox full of neat little $20 tools from Brownells.

I love tools.
Which neat little $20 tool from Brownells are you referring to?

idahojess
05-18-2014, 12:09 PM
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=416567361

Yeah, the dealer (different than that link) I bought it from advertised they had 4 no-locks at the time. Hopefully there will be more of them out there...

LSP972
05-18-2014, 01:20 PM
Is The Plug you mentioned the item made and sold by Bullseye Smith on the S&W Forum, or something else?

Could be; I truly do not remember; its been six+ years since I bought mine. I did get the guy's contact info off of the S&W Forum, though, so that must be him.

As for needing that tool; you'll need something of hold the little clip while you snap it into place. I used a pair of jewelers' needle nose pliers I use in my modeling hobby.

But The Plug works. Mine has been in there for 6+ years. I carry that revolver every day, and have put a couple of thousand rounds though it since installing The Plug. Its totally trouble-free; install it and forget it.

.

SeriousStudent
05-18-2014, 02:09 PM
I love tools.
Which neat little $20 tool from Brownells are you referring to?

Apex Tactical has a nice Youtube clip where Scott Folk explains how to install their kit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIUfmg1JulE

At the 3:40 mark, he shows you a spiffy little tool to use. This is the magic doodad you seek: http://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-tools-supplies/handgun-tools/slide-tools/s-w-rebound-slide-spring-tool-prod774.aspx

It's the S&W rebound slide spring tool. Hope that helps.

SeriousStudent
05-18-2014, 02:12 PM
......

Is The Plug you mentioned the item made and sold by Bullseye Smith on the S&W Forum, or something else?

......

That's the gent I purchased mine from. John's product is worth the $25 for the piece of mind.

SAWBONES
05-18-2014, 02:35 PM
LSP972 and SeriousStudent, thank you both.

idahojess
05-20-2014, 03:05 PM
Regarding cleaning solvents, I did submit an inquiry to Smith & Wesson, and just got an e-mail from them recommending Hoppe's Elite.
I figure that, and nylon brushes, should keep it "clean enough"...

LSP972
05-20-2014, 05:17 PM
... 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
05-20-2014, 09:21 PM
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
05-21-2014, 09:44 AM
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...:D

JK, I'll look it up...

.

guymontag
05-22-2014, 07:45 AM
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
09-03-2014, 06:02 PM
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" (http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/144904-performance-center-one-off.html)

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
09-03-2014, 09:49 PM
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
09-04-2014, 08:27 PM
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
09-04-2014, 09:12 PM
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
09-05-2014, 09:57 AM
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
09-05-2014, 10:54 AM
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.

RevolverRob
09-06-2014, 12:34 PM
There, as they say, is the proof. Interesting, indeed… especially the box.

My 360PD came in a externally-padded hard case with a white outer box, the product label affixed to one end (I'd post a photo, but I "may not post attachments"). Ditto my 242 and 342, both of which are pre-lock. In fact, every AirLite I've seen (perhaps a dozen or so) came so packaged.

That appears to be a period-vintage cardboard box. One wonders if this piece has sat in some warehouse/back shelf for the past 12 years. If it were mine, I'd cough up the fifty bucks for a Jinks letter. That's gonna be the only way to know for sure what this revolver's pedigree is.

In any event, great score, guy. Treasure that puppy.

.

Just saw this. I'd bet it's a new manufacture. New Smith and Wessons are again coming in cardboard boxes not plastic hard cases. This appears to have been the case for about 2-3 years now.

I still want a 340PD in a bad way....But have been thinking of just sending the 642 off to Gemini Custom for their Pocket Protector package. This thread and the various 1911 threads are not helping me at all...

-Rob

LSP972
09-07-2014, 07:55 PM
Very interesting. So nothing wrong with the secret service 442s with prototype alloy cylinders.

We don't know that. Supica makes the statement, but I suspect he's just repeating what he was told. Personally, I firmly believe they would indeed have offered it commercially, if nothing else because the Ti-Scan guns are VERY popular, yet not half the folks who want one will buy one due to the high price. I further believe the reason they haven't is because of product liability concerns.

We know the guns were made and issued… the rest is conjecture. But I agree with you 100%; I'd buy two of these if they didn't have the lock, right now…


.

LSP972
09-07-2014, 07:57 PM
Just saw this. I'd bet it's a new manufacture.

I'd bet its not. Did you not see the similarity in serial numbers between this one and my 360PD from 2002?

.

LSP972
09-08-2014, 10:50 AM
We don't know that. Supica makes the statement, but I suspect he's just repeating what he was told. Personally, I firmly believe they would indeed have offered it commercially, if nothing else because the Ti-Scan guns are VERY popular, yet not half the folks who want one will <not> buy one due to the high price. I further believe the reason they haven't is because of product liability concerns.

We know the guns were made and issued… the rest is conjecture. But I agree with you 100%; I'd buy two of these if they didn't have the lock, right now…


.

ETA to add "not"… duh.

WDW
09-11-2014, 12:02 PM
http://www.budspolicesupply.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/4_9/products_id/3377
These have no lock