School me on the S&W M&P 340/340PD and possible carry loads.

[Mike C]

So I am looking to fill a niche in my carry setup. Presently I have been carrying my PPS when both running, biking and lounging and am growing tired of the weight. So begins the search for a .38/.357 snub. I have been looking deeply at the M&P 340 and the 340PD. I presently feel the M&P 340 would be the best route to go. I would like the ability to run both .357 and .38 ammo so that ruled out a few other options I was looking at. I absolutely respect the platform but I am not a huge revolver guy and have very limited knowledge/experience and training with them so I am looking for input.

In doing my research the M&P 340 seems to provide the best sights, cost to weight ratio and least sensitive to cleaning and ammo. I am able to find one locally with LEO/Mil discount for around $645 OTD NIB. The M&P 340 is also very light weight but with the extra few ounces over the 340PD in weight I feel it will make the difference when shooting .357 loads. I want something light weight but have to keep in mind the recoil due to some nerve damage and pain issues I have. In further reading and research it is my understanding that the 340PD has weight restrictions on ammo against loads less than 125gr where the M&P 340 does not. Is this 100% correct? This is a concern for me because that is one of 3 loads I am presently researching for carry would be an issue in this gun, the load in question is the Barnes 110gr Tac-XP.

I am not completely set on the M&P 340 but it is really looking like the best option. On one hand I found reports of the 158gr FBI loads jumping crimp in the M&P 340, but that is not always the case. But at the same time the M&P 340 would work well with the lighter weight bullets in the even of an availability issue with the Speer Gold Dot 135gr +p or the 158gr load doesn't work out well. I am also heavily leaning towards the SG Dot 135gr +p due to the majority of the sights being regulated for 125gr bullets. I am worried about the huge disparity between POA/POI with the heavier stuff.

I am presently thinking that going with the M&P 340 will provide a greater variety of loads with both the .357 mag and the .38 Special as well as light weight in a controllable package with decent options and fewer issues with cleaning.

So in a nut shell is there any reason I should go another route? Is there anything else out there that will fill the role and meet my needs better? I am open to other options so fire away. Please keep in mind of my limited knowledge and background with revolvers. Recommended loads would be helpful as well in both .357 and .38. I looked on the Ammunition part of the forum and could not find a list from Doc with recommended loads. Thanks in adv. for any help.

[warpedcamshaft]

My decision was to skip all S&W revolvers which are equipped with the S&W internal lock... I have read enough first hand accounts of problems with the S&W lock that I have personally written off any S&W revolver equipped with it.

Currently, the only (current production) J-frames I'm aware of without a lock are the M&P340 and the 642/442...

I chose the 442/642 series due to cost and my intended role of the handgun (BUG for bigger guns/Pocket gun when I can instantly loose my livelihood if I must spend the day on my hands and knees around other people moving expensive equipment) but the M&P 340 is sweet.

That's my logic... maybe that will help.

[Mike C]

That was another reason I was seriously looking at the M&P 340 no lock and it's here local.

[warpedcamshaft]

That was another reason I was seriously looking at the M&P 340 no lock and it's here local.

In my mind... The price difference and the lock would be enough to rule out the PD vs the M&P...

My understanding based on research is that the Corbon 38 Special DPX 110 or a variation of the Barnes Copper bullet is a great way to go out of a sub 2 inch barrel... The only reason I would ever personally put 357 magnum rounds into a sub 2 inch barrel revolver would be if it was a "field pickup" situation where I had no other available ammunition. The 148 Grain full wadcutter may also warrant some research.

That said... I'm one of the idiots who had nerve issues in my hand after lots of rounds through a J-Frame.

[warpedcamshaft]

There are current production 340PDs without the lock. The SKU is 103061.

You are correct... Not currently listed on the website (6/12/2014), but it is listed in the 2014 S&W catalog.

(CORRECTION: SKU 103061 is listed on the website as not currently in production http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_764938_-1_757912_757910_757787_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y)

[mikeb9550]

There are current production 340PDs without the lock. The SKU is 103061.

You are correct. I have one. S&W finally got the message that we don't want those stinking locks. I can post a pic if you want.

I went with the PD do to the weight. I wanted the lightest I could go. Also liked the option to shoot 38 or 357. I am going to install the xs big dot myself or have a smith do it for a few bucks.

[Mike C]

How miserable am I going to be if I ran the 340PD? I am not recoil shy but wish to keep my pain levels to a minimum so I can frequently practice. Mikeb9550, have you ran any of the lighter rounds like the Barnes through your PD, what about some of the heavier wad cutters or semi wadcutters? I ask because I was informed that there can be extraction issues with the titanium cylinder with lead wadcutters, or semi-jacketed I can't remember which. Have you had any experience with this? I don't have an issue shelling out the cash for the PD but I really want to have the option to run the widest variety of ammo through the gun. Right now I am feeling like thats the M&P 340. I could just stick to the 135gr +p Gold Dots but I really don't want to be limited to one or two loads.

Does anyone have an idea of what Doc recommends in terms or ammo? I was talking with a buddy that I shoot with and I think he told me Doc recommends heavier semi-wad cutters. If anyone could verify this it would help tremendously. Because that will narrow things down further rather quickly.

[Mike C]

I just read this and am now rethinking my decision for a J frame. http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?716-The-quot-new-quot-J-frame/page3
Maybe I just need to suck it up. My PPS really isn't that heavy with 8 rounds or Speer GD 147gr's and a spare mag. It is small enough I can pack it just about anywhere.

[mikeb9550]

How miserable am I going to be if I ran the 340PD? I am not recoil shy but wish to keep my pain levels to a minimum so I can frequently practice. Mikeb9550, have you ran any of the lighter rounds like the Barnes through your PD, what about some of the heavier wad cutters or semi wadcutters? I ask because I was informed that there can be extraction issues with the titanium cylinder with lead wadcutters, or semi-jacketed I can't remember which. Have you had any experience with this? I don't have an issue shelling out the cash for the PD but I really want to have the option to run the widest variety of ammo through the gun. Right now I am feeling like thats the M&P 340. I could just stick to the 135gr +p Gold Dots but I really don't want to be limited to one or two loads.

Does anyone have an idea of what Doc recommends in terms or ammo? I was talking with a buddy that I shoot with and I think he told me Doc recommends heavier semi-wad cutters. If anyone could verify this it would help tremendously. Because that will narrow things down further rather quickly.

I haven't even taken it to the range yet. From what I have read, its going to hurt with a decent 357 round. I probably will carry +p38 or low end power .357s. You don't gain much in a higher powered round in a snub nose. I would have bought a 342 if they had still made them. Wasn't going to pay 700 for a used one not knowing how it was cared for (titanium can be iffy if not cared for properly).

I do plan on shooting 357 just to see how bad it hurts. Part of being a guy. We have to smell everything as well. I hear it helps to have a grip with padding on the backstrap like the CT grips. If you where shooting 357's why would you want to shoot anything lighter than a 125g?

[idahojess]

Here's a good thread on ammo:
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9287-Snub-Ammo-FBI-load-or-Short-Barrel-Gold-Dots

I have a 340PD, sans lock. I don't have any desire to shoot a 357 through it. For that matter, I have no desire to shoot a 357 through my 642, (obviously -- I can't, but if I could, I wouldn't).
The weight restriction on the 340PD of no less than 125 grains applies only to magnum loads --lighter than that will flame cut the titanium.
As I noted in another thread (a few down, no need to post a link), I really like the weight of the 340 PD in the pocket. There's also some good info from some smarter guys than me in that thread on how to remove the 340PD lock if you can't find one without the lock.
I don't think you can go wrong with either, but I really like the pocket carry ability of the PD.
Good luck

[mikeb9550]

I just read this and am now rethinking my decision for a J frame. http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?716-The-quot-new-quot-J-frame/page3
Maybe I just need to suck it up. My PPS really isn't that heavy with 8 rounds or Speer GD 147gr's and a spare mag. It is small enough I can pack it just about anywhere.


I have a lot of carry guns. My favorite is my Kahr P9 covert which they don't make anymore. I needed a gun (real gun) that I could carry in drawstring pants or shorts and the ultra light j frame is the ticket. I just felt under gun with my little P3AT. Not a fan of mouse guns or the 380 round. This is a little bigger, more powerful, and about the same weight. My P3AT just got bumped to the ultra deep cover duty.

I was never a revolver guy. This year i was given my wife's late grandfather's Cheif Special 36. I shot it well and it rode very nice in my pocket. The only bad thing was the weight. the 340pd is almost 1/2 the weight. These light weights are definitely carry a lot shoot a little type of guns. Super heavy trigger. I have a spring set that i might swap out.

[Chuck Haggard]

Magnums ain't fun even from a 640. From the uber light guns it feels like a baton strike into the palm of your hand.

[Mike C]

This is certainly a hard decision, I definitely came to the right place. This forum has a lot of sound advice. Mikeb9550, I was thinking of J frame because your right they do ride easy. This whole thing started because I went cycling the other day for a 50 miler and did something I never do, I left my gun at home. Even though it didn't feel right and I had a really bad feeling about it I did it anyways. It just gets tiresome having raw spots from where the PPS rides. I don't want to end up in that situation again.

The comment and quote Doc made gave me pause but I think I will pickup an M&P 340 after all. I will do my best to never carry it sticking to at lease a 9mm with a reload where I can but it will be good to have more options especially for the centurion rides. I've ended up with some nasty heat rash before.

Idahojess thanks of the link on the ammo.

[Chuck Haggard]

If it were me I'd skip the .357, go with a no lock 642 and add CT laser grips, then buy a case of wadcutters and a couple of speed strips.

[Mike C]

That is exactly what someone else told me today. I was told I'd probably only ever shoot a cylinder of .357 through it before I decided not to do that again because it's certainly no fun, well unless you're a masochistic. Mr. Haggard can the 642 be fitted for sights? I understand the prompt for CT laser grips and I understand how useful they are but I am a big fan of good sights and from what I have read the 340PD and the M&P 340 have the best of the bunch. Plus the M&P 340 has the nice U notch in the rear for use with the XS sights. Also do you recommend wadcutters over the 135gr Speer Gold Dots, or Barnes PDX loading? I have been looking around and the Gold Dots seem scarce, I am concerned with being able to find ample supply of carry loads.

One last question Mr. Haggard, how many rounds would you feel need to be ran through a wheel gun before you would trust it? Normally I run at least 2k in my semi autos before I start calling them good. I don't imagine I would need to run near that in a baby J but would like to have an idea. I believe Doc said he runs at least 500 trouble free with a good portion of that being carry loads before blessing off.

[1slow]

I have a 340 in .357, a 4'' .500 S&W. The .500 with 440gr Buffalo Bore in more comfortable than a Scandium .357 with full house loads.
Having shot a Ti J frame with +P .38 for 110 rounds one afternoon. I would rather do that than shoot 10 rounds of .357 through a Scandium J frame.
Use +p .38 Special in it.

[LSP972]

That is exactly what someone else told me today.

And it is what a lot of us, after many years of carrying J frames in one form or another, do.

I have a 360PD that I carry every day as a second piece. I bought it because of a bizarre twist in our procedural order at the time (2002). That anomaly was fixed, and I immediately scored a 342 no-lock; but I've since retired so it matters not now. I went back to carrying the 360PD (with the lock replaced by The Plug) because its a lot more beat-up than the 342.

The point here is, I have put close to 5K round of ammunition through that 360PD over the years, in practice and qualification. Exactly 15 of them have been full-house .357s. Chuck said it was like getting hit in the palm with a night stick… personally, I would say "baseball bat". Whatever your descriptor, it is a painful, physical blow.

That said… I prefer the 360PD to carry because it is several ounces lighter than a standard AirWeight J frame. That makes a difference when pocket carried. The difference is the titanium cylinder.

I believe the 340 you are looking at has a stainless cylinder… i.e., it weighs the same as a AirWeight .38 (442/642). The latter is substantially less expensive, and you don't want or need the "magnum" capability. So… unless you're getting a real brother-in-law deal on that 340, you might want to look around some more.

Revolvers don't need breaking in; they either work, or they don't. Fire a cylinderful through whatever you end up with; if you get no spitting/debris from the side (indicating that the timing is good), and the point of impact aligns with the point of aim (indicating that the barrel is on straight), then that puppy is good to go. It WILL get smoother as you work the action more, but as far as a necessary break-in period… nope.

As for "carry ammo"… well, its a little revolver with a two-inch barrel. You cannot expect much in the way of ballistic performance, regardless of what you load it with. I use the 135gr Gold Dot Short Barrel cartridge, but I can get those. I also have 158gr LSWCHP and 148gr HBWC ammo I would (and have) carry it without a second thought.

Don't waste your money on exotic sights, IMO. These things are belly guns. IF you intend to use it as a primary, then better sights might be a good idea. Maybe. I have a Big Dot on my 342, and it helps not one bit, at any distance, for me.

BTW, I'm not trying to usurp Chuck here; you asked him directly. He'll have his opinions/suggestions. But I've been carrying a J frame of one sort or another, almost every day, since 1978… so I have a few ideas on the topic…;)

.

[RevolverRob]

I am also not Chuck, but can answer a couple of those questions.

442s/642s by and large do not have easily replaced sights, there are a few models with pinned front sights (some older Pro models, PC guns, and the 2.5" guns they built for a short while). So, you're forced to have the front sight milled off and a new sight installed, either pinned or dovetailed. Probably the best J-Frame sights are the Bowen Custom Arms sights currently installed by Cylinder and Slide, they can be seen in this thread on GJM's 340 (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?12507-M-amp-P-340-or-442-plus-sight-work). The CTC grip + stock ramp front is a solid alternative for a 442/642.

I have run this setup on my 642-2 (with the lock removed) for the past decade, the only thing I did additionally was paint the front sight with some bright nail polish and color in the rear notch with a permanent marker. It shoots quite well at all ranges practical for a handgun (I shoot at least a cylinder full at 25 yards every range trip) if I do my part. I primarily pocket or IWB carry it, and it works fine for the most part. I do occasionally long for it to be lighter, not because it is a pain to carry, but because the heavier gun tends to swing around if you're wearing looser fitting cargo pants or shorts. It bothers me enough that I've been thinking of getting a 340 myself, but I also have carpal tunnel in my primary hand so I've avoided being a glutton for punishment, the 642 loaded with 5-rounds of 158-grain LSWCHP +P weighs in at just an ounce under one pound, which is already a pretty good handful.

Best,

-Rob

[LSP972]

It bothers me enough that I've been thinking of getting a 340 myself,

Then I believe you want a 340PD; the 340 M&P has a stainless cylinder and weighs the same as your 642.

The AirLite guns have titanium cylinders and are the featherweights; the AirWeights use a regular-steel cylinder. Of course, they cost a lot less; that titanium is expensive, plus you have to be very careful when cleaning it.

Its worth both annoyances, IMO.

.

[Up1911Fan]

442/642: 15oz
M&P 340: 13.3oz
340PD: 11.4oz

[Mike C]

Thank you all for the advice, I will take it. I do feel the need to do something very soon but I will look around more and weigh my options. I have consistently been recommended the 642 by both friends, and now many respectable opinions and experts. I have a friend who will let me take his 642 for a spin. I think that I will do that before I go snag up the M&P 340. If I go that route I will certainly have more coin to spare for some grips like Mr. Haggard recommended and some speed strips and ammo. Thank you again everyone. More than helpful as usual.

[Chuck Haggard]

I find the 642 with the front sight painted orange and the rear sight blacked out with Sharpie to have a sight picture at least as good as the XS sights on the higher priced guns. The Laser works better than both.

I used to be a very anit-laser guy, until I started shooting a 642 with a CT grip installed. I have shot, witnessed, 4" groups from stading barricade using my 642, the laser, and Winchester Match WCs. WAY tougher to pull off that kind of shooting with irons sights on a snub, regardless of which sight you have.

I have no problem with the Gold Dots, (or DPX) it's a great load, but it do recoil quite a bit, and it may or may not hit to your sights, depending on your gun.

[LSP972]

M&P 340: 13.3oz


Well, how about that… wonder how they did it with a stainless cylinder?

Thanks; that's what I get for assuming (that the 340 M&P weighs the same as the 642).

.

[RevolverRob]

Well, how about that… wonder how they did it with a stainless cylinder?

Thanks; that's what I get for assuming (that the 340 M&P weighs the same as the 642).

.

I believe it's the Scandium frame where the weight is shaved.

442/642 - Aluminum alloy frame, carbon or stainless steel cylinder
M&P 340 - Scandium alloy frame, stainless steel cylinder
340PD - Scandium alloy frame, Titanium alloy cylinder

-Rob

[Chuck Haggard]

I believe it's the Scandium frame where the weight is shaved.

442/642 - Aluminum alloy frame, carbon or stainless steel cylinder
M&P 340 - Scandium alloy frame, stainless steel cylinder
340PD - Scandium alloy frame, Titanium alloy cylinder

-Rob

And the shrouded barrel, it ain't all steel either.

[LSP972]

Didn't know the M&P 340 had a scandium frame; and forgot about the two-piece barrel.

.

[Mike C]

So I went to the gun store and something followed me home....

Meet the newest member of the family.
http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a531/hkcoolaid/IMG_2074_zps86a3bff1.jpg (http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/hkcoolaid/media/IMG_2074_zps86a3bff1.jpg.html)

I ended up going with the 642 because I felt like it was the best bang for the buck while still fitting my needs. The 642 is still pretty light weight. It weighs in a 1 lb 3/4 of an ounce loaded up with the Hornady Critical Defense 110gr +P. I would have only shaved of 2 ounces or so going with the M&P. I needed something light but substantial enough to not beat me up. In talking with a friend coupled with the good advice I got here this was the way to go for me. The great part is not only did I get something I really do like but I still have enough coin left over to order some CT grips as suggested and spend some extra time at the range with the ammo I bought. I just wanted to say thanks again to all who helped out with the responses.

[Chuck Haggard]

The other thing the CT grips gives you is a free on board SIRT pistol, for dry fire/trigger work.

[Mike C]

Mr. Haggard that with me very helpful. Big fan of dry fire practice over here. Do you have any holster suggestions for AIWB? I am looking at Darkstar gears webpage right now at the small clip holster, it looks promising. I like the idea that it is completely reversible, ride height also looks good.

[idahojess]

The 642 is a great choice.
You might want to look at bobby mac's sn-1 for aiwb (it's the only one I've tried -but it's pretty good). There is also a sn-2 which is a little more rigid.

[Mike C]

Thanks, I'll check them out now.

[Up1911Fan]

I have a DSG with the soft loop and it is a high quality minimalist holster.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Do you have any holster suggestions for AIWB? I am looking at Darkstar gears webpage right now at the small clip holster, it looks promising. I like the idea that it is completely reversible, ride height also looks good.

If you don't need the tuckable option, CCC's Versaclip and Uno are nice and worth far more than the pittance charged:

http://shop.customcarryconcepts.com/IWB-Holsters_c3.htm

I just received a few versaclips, one of which was for a Ruger SP101. I am very pleased with it. I can only imagine how much better it would be with a lightweight weapon.

[Mike C]

PM sent to you Sotex. I have a question about the clip.

[Rappahannock]

I have a 340PD (shown here with its great-grandfather) and have been very pleased with it - that is, after I stopped fiddling with 357 ammunition in it. +P is enough for this little revolver and it is very comfortable indeed to carry in a "Simply Rugged" pocket holster.
What I don't understand is why the lock is such a big deal. Just snatch it out and replace it with "The Plug," which is cosmetically good enough and eliminates all those narsty lock parts. It was the first thing I did with this revolver not long after this photo was taken and hasn't been an issue since.
As to ammunition, it is partial to +P Nyclad Federal rounds. A speed strip full of them and a Benchmade knife completes my summertime EDC.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v717/Guevera/IMG_5761_zps01d45882.jpg

[Mike C]

My issue with the lock was more finding someone I could trust to remove it than anything else. I don't trust myself since my experience with wheel guns is so limited. Competent smiths are very, very hard to find around here. By the way Rappahannock that is an awesome photo. Thanks for sharing.

[DBR]

I like the Buffalo Bore hard cast wadcutter in the gun backed up by the Speer 135gr short barrel HP on speed strips. The BB hard cast goes about 850fps from a 2" barrel, penetrates deep and tracks straight allowing it to do damage on the far side.

[LSP972]

My issue with the lock was more finding someone I could trust to remove it than anything else.

If you plan to use The Plug, then all you need to know is how to get the hammer out of a J frame; not rocket science, but you do need to exercise care. Anyway, once the hammer is out, you can remove the "flag" and use a punch to knock out the rest of the mechanism. If you plan to simply disable the lock and keep the existing parts, that takes a bit more finesse.

Either way, its not something one should attempt after watching a YouTube video. You can get the hammer out without removing anything but the side plate, without difficulty... but if the rebound slide or the hand, etc., becomes dislodged (which isn't uncommon), now you've got to get all those pieces/parts back into sync.

As with most armorer tasks on modern handguns, all of this is not overly complicated... but if you aren't familiar with it, it can be daunting.

.