old 640 or new 640

[Moonshot]

I have an opportunity to pick up a gently used (under 500 rounds) S&W 640 (the old style 640 in .38 caliber only and with 1 7/8" barrel) for about the same price as a NIB 640-1 (but not the 640 Pro) chambered in .357 magnum and with a 2 1/4" barrel. The old 640 has had an action job by Denny Reichard, so it has a very nice trigger. This and a few extra add-ons account for the high price.

I am wondering if there are any advantages to the old 640s that make them preferable to the new magnum 640s, or if one should still go with the slightly larger and slightly heavier magnum 640. Even if I could, I would not shoot magnums out of a j-frame, so being chambered in .357 is not a selling point for me.

I generally carry a Glock in an IWB rig and a 642 in an ankle rig. I don't see this changing regardless of which model of 640 I might buy. If I buy either, it would be used primarily as a high round count training gun (not a range gun - I have a range-only 642 for that role). There might be times when I swap out my Glock for a 640 in an IWB rig and carry a pair of J-frames, or should age or injury render me recoil sensitive, the heavier 640 may have to replace my 642, but either version of 640 could fill this new roll, and neither model is really better suited than the other.

The old 640 has no frame lock. If I buy a new magnum 640, it won't have the frame lock.

So again, given the same price, what would you all recommend - a used 640 in .38 only with an action job or a NIB 640 magnum with a nice trigger (just not quite up to Denny's standards), slightly longer barrel, slightly heavier weight. Neither would be carried in a pocket and neither would be loaded with magnums. I don't care about how much I could sell one for vs the other - I don't intend to sell whatever I buy.

[1slow]

If possible I would buy the Pro, the sights make 25 yd head shots doable.

[Chuck Haggard]

Buy that .38 640, NOW!, and send it to me, immediately!

[Moonshot]

Chuck Haggard

Buy that .38 640, NOW!, and send it to me, immediately!

How do you really feel?

Seriously, what is it about the .38 caliber 640 that makes you say that? The only obvious difference (to me at least) beyond caliber is it's a little lighter and a little smaller than the magnum version, making carry a little easier, but is it that much easier? I really don't know.

The other difference is the action job. Denny does sweet work, but I've played with a few 640 magnums lately (all with that goofy hole in the side, so I wasn't going to buy them), and they all had really nice triggers. Not as nice as Denny's, but nothing to complain about. Compared to the SP101 I was playing with, WOW!

[Chuck Haggard]

I used to have one of those back when I in a fit of stupid sold it. That gun is a all steel clone of my 642, which I could really use for range work, and Denny does a hell of a trigger job.

[BobM]

Made the same mistake as Chuck. Traded an early 640 away. I'd like to have it back and check every gun shop I walk into for one.

[LSP972]

Did NOT make the same mistake. Still got mine.

Moonshot, the reasons we prefer the "older" gun is mainly because they are a bit trimmer (in the form of a smaller frame/shorter barrel), and some have no MIM parts. Nothing wrong with MIM parts; S&W figured out long ago how to make them work properly. It's simply a traditionalist thing.

Granted, the smaller frame/shorter barrel business is miniscule... but noticeable.

All of this matters because the experienced J frame man is not even thinking about using "magnums"; which is the only "advantage" offered by the newer guns. He's going to load his snubby with .38s... Hence, the .357 capability of the "new" 640 is irrelevant.

.

[SWAT Lt.]

I would go with the old 640 .38 without hesitation.

[LtDave]

Old, no doubt about it.

[Totem Polar]

I'm no SME, but I do like wheelies. I'd jump on the old one too, unless... Your eyes are j-frame challenged and the new 640 has the pinned in blued front sight. I find that sight WAY easier to pick up, plus you can get it swapped for fancier options--something that takes serious commitment with original recipe centennial Js.

But, yeah, the old one is probably the pick of the litter.

[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.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/31/99418672788ba453c4f91a0494dcf5eb.jpg

[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.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/31/99418672788ba453c4f91a0494dcf5eb.jpg

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.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/31/99418672788ba453c4f91a0494dcf5eb.jpg


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.

.

[Moonshot]

Thanks for the insight, LSP. You have given me a lot to think about.

A little back ground... I hate pocket carry. I use this method only when I have no other viable option. Even if my M-642 is primary, I will tend to carry it on my ankle. Only if I am wearing shorts does this change, and if I am wearing shorts, I can usually get away with an untucked shirt, allowing me to carry my G26 IWB. There are, however, times when this is not practical, and the M-642 has to go into a Desantis holster and into my front shorts pocket.

I am looking for a good kydex IWB or AIWB for my M-642, (must also be tuckable), which might allow me to forgo pocket carry in shorts, but I haven't found one I like. I've read about Dark Star gear, and I may get one and give it a go. This is also how I would carry a 640 (old or new) should I end up carrying a pair of J's.

My carry M-642 is fitted with the Pachmyer Compac Professional. My range M-642 is also fitted with the Pachmyer Compac Professional. This setup lets me practice with an identical gun to my carry gun, but keeps the wear and tear off my carry gun. If I have non-shooting friends at the range with me who want to try something, I have an old M-60 I load with WCs and which is fitted with Hogue Monogrips. A larger gun would make a better teaching gun, but my wife cannot properly hold and manipulate any revolver larger than a J-frame, so that limits my options. She tends to practice with the Hogue fitted M-60, and that is also the gun she has available at home. I want her to have a DAO with concealed hammer, so the 640 would become hers.

As for the Airlite Ti/Scan versions, I have no doubt the reduced weight would make pocket carry more comfortable, but the reasons I don't like pocket carry are more for the lack of security (certain daily activities can allow the gun to move up and expose the grip) and I don't like the draw (they may draw smooth, but I've never been able to get a truly solid grip on any gun in my pocket). Pocket carry also sucks if you are sitting (car, restaurant, etc).

If I had lots of money, I would probably add an uberlite to my inventory, but for now it's not a high priority.

[LSP972]

Your points on why you don't like pocket carry are valid. Smaller, properly-contoured stocks like Ahrends or Spegel "boot grips" would alleviate much of the issues you have with it… and of course would make controlling the gun in accurate distance fire more difficult. No free lunch.

However, there is one potentially fatal flaw in your thinking… no on-body carry method that I can think of is slower and more difficult to accomplish a quick, effective presentation from than ankle carry. If you are toting your primary/only piece on your ankle… well, I hope you see the boogey man coming in time to get your iron out.

And if you're going to the trouble of concealed belt carry- IWB, AWIB, whatever- why not go with a serious piece with a few more beans?

Not criticizing you… just throwing some thoughts out there.

.

[ragnar_d]

I want one really bad.

JR1572

Yeah, I just got a bad case of the wants . . . hell, I'd gladly settle for a set of those sights on my 638.

[Edmo]

I own a 640 Pro Series and would pick the newer 357 gun.

Edmo

[Moonshot]

I'm still waiting on being able to make this deal happen. I have no interest in shooting magnums from a J-frame (did that with an SP101 and it wasn't fun), so the smaller and lighter 640 is preferred. If this deal ends up falling apart, the magnum 640 (either -1 or Pro, whichever one I find first without that goofy lock) will be what I pick up.

[Moonshot]

A quick revisit to my earlier thread. After a brief delay (actually not so brief), I am getting ready to pick up that old 640 (requires a little travel). I finally heard back from S&W and was told the serial number indicates it's not a +p rated 640. Standard pressure only. I realize it doesn't matter much, but it does take away some of the allure. One of the reasons I want a steel j-frame is for using +p ammo (not all the time, but often enough). Does it make a difference?

[LSP972]

The pre-95 Js are generally not "rated" for +P. You can, however, shoot a limited number of them without concern… provided they are genuine factory (IOW, something loaded by the Big Three- Winchester, Remington, or Federal/CCI/Speer) and not some of the boutique "toe-tagger specials" that so many rave about. Those are generally loaded beyond SAAMI standards; and you are definitely risking damage to a pre-95 J frame with them.

I have an M-37 made in 1966 that I carried as a BUG- and qualified with annually- for many years. I carried the FBI load in it. This is a 158gr lead SWC hollow point loaded to industry +P levels. I shot perhaps 25 of these per year in it, and it is still tight, no endshake or other signs of too much pressure.

You'll find all sorts of opinions on this. The bottom line is, unless you are one of those masochistic fellows who enjoy punishing recoil, anything hotter than a standard pressure .38 Special, in ANY J frame, is less than pleasant. If you plan to shoot a lot of +Ps, then better get a revolver rated for that. A few here and there, OTOH, won't hurt a non-rated S&W J.

IMO, of course…;)

.

[Moonshot]

I don't tend to shoot a lot of +p ammo through any of my J-frames - even those rated for +p. It's too expensive, and it's not much fun. I never shot a lot of +p through my SP101, and that was fun.

I don't anticipate shooting much more than WCs through the 640, but I did want to shoot a qualifier each year - strong hand and mirror image. That's two qualifiers with carry ammo. Carry ammo may be WCs, or it may be SBGDs. That's likely a few hundred rounds per year of +p. Not a lot by any means, but it might be too much for several years of use in a frame not rated for it.

I still want to pick up the 640. I'm not buying it for +p use. It just would have been nice if I didn't have to worry about it.

[LSP972]

A couple of hundred a year might be pushing your luck.

This conversation reminds me of something I have been meaning to explore, but simply never can remember to do it at the same time I have the TIME to do it... if that makes any sense.

Back (WAY back) in the day, Winchester made a cartridge called the .38 Special Super Police. It featured a 200 grain, rather blunt RNL bullet, moving at 800 or so fps. It was reportedly much more effective than the standard 158gr RNL, yet was safe to use in the aluminum frame revolvers of the day. I have wanted to explore this concept, using cast bullets and different powders on expansion/penetration tests.

One thing that has stopped me is this... if this load was so great, how come it was basically abandoned? Of course, all of this is far beyond the scope of this thread, so I won't clutter it up any further. To be totally honest, its probably just another, perhaps weak, way to "justify" my desire to keep using my older pre-95 Js... because the new iterations, with their two-piece barrels, MIM parts, and slightly larger frames, pretty much leave me cold.

That said, my EDC secondary is one of those things (M-360PD), because the titanium cylinder examples are so much lighter than a standard AirWeight.

But my "shootin' iron" Js are old, steel frame guns; a first-edition M-640, and a 70's vintage M-60.

If you're into that sort of thing, if that 640 is in godd shape, you can probably flip it for a profit to some old throwback like me...:D

.

[Chuck Haggard]

I've had opportunity to crono some of the "Super Police" stuff, that used to be an issued duty load at my old job. The samples I had access to were running in the low 600fps range from a 4" gun, I would imagine even less from a snub. IMHO it was neither super, nor a good police duty load.

Stories of that round glancing off of windshields and car bodies are legion.

One of my old Chiefs had occasion to shoot a bad guy that was trying to kill him with a WWII bring-back P38, he shot said bad guy twice in the face, once in the forehead and once in the left cheek just under the zygomatic arch, neither bullet penetrated, nor did they slow dude down one little bit. Luckily one of the six rounds Chief fired hit dude in the left arm, that bullet glanced off of the humerus (did not break it) and cut the brachial artery on the way out. This eventually led dude to pass out before he could finish trying to kill our guy, and a damn good thing too since Chief was hiding behind a parked car trying to reload when dude flanked him to try and get some more rounds off at him.

Anyway, back to your original programming.

[LSP972]

Well, we have a box of it here, in good condition. I'll try to get it chrono'ed.

No doubt about it bouncing off hard cover; I was thinking more of unprotected meat.

.

[Moonshot]

That Super Police load seems to be going about as fast as the S&B WC, and I believe Doctor Roberts indicated that was too slow.

As for the 640 not being +p rated, I wish it were otherwise, but it's not a deal breaker. I anticipate that i will give the 640 to my wife, to replace her 70's vintage M60. I am a big believer in DAO, and the 640 has the added advantage of an internal hammer - she could shoot through a pocket if needed and there are fewer avenues for lint and dust bunnies to migrate into the action.

She would be more prone to carry a 642, but less prone to practice with it (even with WCs).

I would still like to qualify annually with the 640 (just in case I end up with it), but I can limit my use to WCs. After reading, and re-reading the recent posts on this subject, I think WCs are a pretty sound way to go. I just have a lot of SBGDs. If I don't practice and carry them in my J-frames, I'll have to buy another bigger and heavier gun (3" SP101 or K-frane) to shoot them out of.

[LSP972]

With the relative scarcity of the 135gr +P Gold Dot, I would imagine you'll have no trouble selling those cartridges.

If you have to buy wadcutters, selling the others might be a good idea. The prices for new factory wadcutters are heinous, these days.

.

[Jeep]

Well, we have a box of it here, in good condition. I'll try to get it chrono'ed.

No doubt about it bouncing off hard cover; I was thinking more of unprotected meat.

.

I had some of those 200 grain rounds, which I (unwisely) had in a HD revolver for awhile. They were recommended by a cop who seemed to know what he was doing, but they wouldn't penetrate much of anything. The were very, very, very slow. Had they really travelled at 800 fps the recoil would have been hideous, I suspect.

[LSP972]

Working on getting a chronograph lined up now. Ours (the lab's) be bust, and now is not the time to request a replacement..

.

[Moonshot]

A little late, but I finally picked up that 640 no dash. It has an incredibly smooth stigger. I don't know what the weight is, as I don't have a gage, but it's smooth as butter. Denny really can do some beautiful work. It also came with beautiful Secret Service grips. I'll probably put Hogue monogrips on it as it will become my wife's house gun. The SS grips may make their way to my 642.

I haven't had an opportunity to shoot it yet. That should come this weekend when I take my 640 and my 642 to the range and use up some of the Federal WC's I managed to pick up. If they shoot to POA at 7 to 10 yards, I may have found my new carry load.

[SJC3081]

In the 1980s and 90s NYPD Model 36, 60 and 640 got a steady diet of Remington 158 SWC +P and held up fine. so in think the +P rating is just a lawyer talk. I chronograph my duty ammo listed above at 830 fps from a 1 7/8" barrel.

[Moonshot]

While I am not overly concerned with shooting some +p out of my new "old" 640, I do take the manufacturer's recommendations seriously. If they say it's not recommended for +P (and they did say this), I have to figure there is a reason. It may be a stupid reason, it may be a lawyer's CYA reason, it may be based on factors that would not apply to me, but so be it.

In fact, my moving away from +p out of my sub 2" J-frames is based more on reports of even the better "designer" HP rounds not opening up if cold (and where I live it gets cold a lot, and I carry on my ankle). Hotter +p rounds are also a little less accurate for me when shooting with my non-dominant hand, they are slower with follow up shots, and one primary reason I carry a j-frame at all is to give to my wife or daughter(s) in an emergency. They shoot WCs far better than any +p.

[LSP972]

Glad you got the piece; they are becoming quite difficult to find in good shape (for sale, that is).

No joy so far on a chronograph, but then I haven't thought about this in a while (i.e., I haven't been actively looking). Thanks for the reminder… I gots ta KNOW…

.

[UNK]

Good info FROG 1


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.

.

[Moonshot]

Deleted