340 No Lock

[MGW]

Have we talked about 340s yet? I didn't turn anything up is a quick search specifically about 340 jframes.

Is the 2 ounce weight savings and better front sight worth the premium price over a standard jframe? And I'm putting this in the context of something that will be pocket carried every single day. My price on a new no lock is basically $300 more than a 442/642.

I've never owned or shot a 340 so I really don't know. I would use 38 only so I don't really care that the 340 will handle 357.

Asking the question has just about talked me out of it.

[Dagga Boy]

Wayne and I are both getting ready to buy M&P 340's as back ups to our VP9's. The weight is not as big a positive to me as the front sight. I have been carrying a 642 or 442 as a back up daily for the last 6 months or so and have gotten used to it. I just decided that I want something I can really grab a good sight reference on and not have to depend on the laser.

[Hizzie]

Wayne and I are both getting ready to buy M&P 340's as back ups to our VP9's. The weight is not as big a positive to me as the front sight. I have been carrying a 642 or 442 as a back up daily for the last 6 months or so and have gotten used to it. I just decided that I want something I can really grab a good sight reference on and not have to depend on the laser.

Thought you said you were getting away from guns that hurt to shoot?

[Totem Polar]

Not that you should care what I think, but, I feel that the 340 is the most practical J-frame made. Maybe not the best (compared historically to, say, the first +P+ 640s in .38spec, or my old 3" RB 36-1), but the most useful. I don't find a whole lot of difference in recoil between a 340 and a 442 shot back-to-back with .38 loads, but I do find a difference in sight acquisition, as noted by DB, above. JMO, FWIW, etc.

[MGW]

Wayne and I are both getting ready to buy M&P 340's as back ups to our VP9's. The weight is not as big a positive to me as the front sight. I have been carrying a 642 or 442 as a back up daily for the last 6 months or so and have gotten used to it. I just decided that I want something I can really grab a good sight reference on and not have to depend on the laser.

Thanks nyeti. That means a lot coming from you.

[MGW]

Thought you said you were getting away from guns that hurt to shoot?

I'm weird. I'm in my early 40's and actually enjoy shooting a j frame.

[Dagga Boy]

Thought you said you were getting away from guns that hurt to shoot?

It is a gun that will likely never see a .357 magnum. Those are what you shoot in Ruger's.....;-).

[Hizzie]

I'm weird. I'm in my early 40's and actually enjoy shooting a j frame.


I'm even younger with a strange affinity for double action revolvers of the magnum persuasion.

[MGW]

I didn't say magnums. BJJ and shooting are hard on 40 year old elbows.

[LSP972]

In regards to the weight savings question... are you looking at the stainless cylinder version, or the titanium cylinder version? Give the price differential you mentioned, I suspect the latter.

For pocket carry, the three or so less ounces of the Ti-Scan (titanium cylinder/scandium frame) example makes a huge difference over the course of a day. I never would have believed that; until I began carrying one. The story of how I got there is interesting, though not germane here; but after many, many years of wearing my BUG on my ankle, I began carrying it in the off side pocket. At first, it was my trusty old M-642. Then, I bought a M-360PD (I whacked the hammer spur to prevent snags, etc.)... and was amazed. Nothing else to say, except that you really won't believe it until you try it for yourself.

I bought that M-360PD in 2002, and except for a brief period in 2007, have carried it daily. It looks it, too... but it soldiers on, and far as I'm concerned is TOTALLY superior to the latest/greatest .380 whatever, for the stated purpose.

Aside from the larcenous selling price, the only real drawback to the Ti-Scan revolvers is the fact that one has to be VERY careful with that titanium cylinder if you shoot the gun much. But that is a topic for another thread.

Oh... and they are simply painful to shoot, recoil-wise. But I've tried just about everything, and IMO nothing else comes close for a concealable, user-friendly, and relatively comfortable-to-carry pocket gun. This assumes, of course, a proper pocket holster and trouser pockets. IOW, relatively deep pockets, yet roomy ones that you can slip (as opposed to having to jam) your hand into.

IOW, there is more to successful pocket carry than selecting your piece...

.

[Dagga Boy]

As usual LSP972, good observations. I pretty much live in Duluth Firehose pants and shorts. My 642 pocket rig fits perfect in the support cargo pocket and I barely notice it. The 340 should be totally unnoticeable with its reduced weight. I have plenty of J frames to practice with so the 340 can fill the carry a lot, shoot a little role.

[MGW]

In regards to the weight savings question... are you looking at the stainless cylinder version, or the titanium cylinder version? Give the price differential you mentioned, I suspect the latter.

For pocket carry, the three or so less ounces of the Ti-Scan (titanium cylinder/scandium frame) example makes a huge difference over the course of a day. I never would have believed that; until I began carrying one. The story of how I got there is interesting, though not germane here; but after many, many years of wearing my BUG on my ankle, I began carrying it in the off side pocket. At first, it was my trusty old M-642. Then, I bought a M-360PD (I whacked the hammer spur to prevent snags, etc.)... and was amazed. Nothing else to say, except that you really won't believe it until you try it for yourself.

I bought that M-360PD in 2002, and except for a brief period in 2007, have carried it daily. It looks it, too... but it soldiers on, and far as I'm concerned is TOTALLY superior to the latest/greatest .380 whatever, for the stated purpose.

Aside from the larcenous selling price, the only real drawback to the Ti-Scan revolvers is the fact that one has to be VERY careful with that titanium cylinder if you shoot the gun much. But that is a topic for another thread.

Oh... and they are simply painful to shoot, recoil-wise. But I've tried just about everything, and IMO nothing else comes close for a concealable, user-friendly, and relatively comfortable-to-carry pocket gun. This assumes, of course, a proper pocket holster and trouser pockets. IOW, relatively deep pockets, yet roomy ones that you can slip (as opposed to having to jam) your hand into.

IOW, there is more to successful pocket carry than selecting your piece...

.

I have not seen a 340PD for less than $1000. I've never seen a no lock PD in person but I know they are out there.

Smith lists the standard 340 as 2 ounces lighter than the 442/642. I would be curious if someone could weigh both and verify if that is true.

Quantico lists the first responder price on 340's as $650. I sent them an email and verified that they are listing the no lock version. The best price I've found locally is $700. I'm still looking but I doubt I'll be able to find one cheaper.

[SAWBONES]

It is a gun that will likely never see a .357 magnum. Those are what you shoot in Ruger's.....;-).

Agreed.

After shooting every single premium commercial .357 Magnum load I could find, from Federal, Winchester and Speer (Gold Dot) in 110gr, 125gr and 158gr, through my two 340PDs several years ago (minimum of 20 rounds per load), I determined that not only are .357 Magnum loads downright unpleasant to shoot in these little lightweight guns, but more importantly, NONE of the .357 Magnum loads are as accurate and precise in these dinky guns as certain of the better .38 Special loads, e.g., the Gold Dot "Short Barrel" 135gr+P in .38 Special.

Follow-up shots are slow in any case, the more so with .357 Magnum loads, but more significantly, the precision of the .357 loads was poor by comparison. Maybe it was my hold that was inconsistent, but I don't think so, and I'm not bothered by felt recoil. These little lightweight J-Frames just aren't the ticket for shooting .357 Magnum, IME.

OTOH, my Ruger SP101s never see a .38 Special round.
158gr .357 Magnum prints to POA in these, and that's all I care about, though I rarely carry them.

[Super77]

I have not seen a 340PD for less than $1000. I've never seen a no lock PD in person but I know they are out there.

Smith lists the standard 340 as 2 ounces lighter than the 442/642. I would be curious if someone could weigh both and verify if that is true.

Quantico lists the first responder price on 340's as $650. I sent them an email and verified that they are listing the no lock version. The best price I've found locally is $700. I'm still looking but I doubt I'll be able to find one cheaper.

To me the 340PD was worth the price premium. The front sight and light weight would cost more to add to a 442 than the 340PD cost me and I like the idea that the 340PD is rated for magnums even though I'll never shoot them. I thought about getting one of the titanium-cylinder models but in the end I didn't want to worry about scratching it and deadlining the gun. With Spegel's boot grips it carries niiice in the pocket. FWIW G&R Tactical (http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=103072&reference=/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi%3Fsearch%3Daction%26keywords%3D340%26 searchstart%3D0%26template%3DPDGCommTemplates/FullNav/SearchResult.html) has them for $675.

[DWW]

I had a 340 M&P a few years ago, but ended up selling it. I didn't find it to be a real practical platform to launch .357 magnums from and found myself kind of babying it due to having spent so much on it and that didn't make much sense with it bring a pocket gun/BUG. I also actually didn't like the big dot night sight. I'm firmly in the minority with that opinion, but I found it somewhat distracting in low light and at the distances I envision employing this gun, I didn't really see the better sights an actual advantage. I've got a 642 now that I've been very content with. Just my two cents, YMMV.

[JR1572]

Bud's has no lock 340's for $625 under their qualified professional plan.

Those couple of ounces aren't worth that much to me. I'll just deal with my heavy 442.

JR1572

[Hizzie]

Bud's has no lock 340's for $625 under their qualified professional plan.

Those couple of ounces aren't worth that much to me. I'll just deal with my heavy 442.

JR1572

It's the pinned, and easily replaced, front sight not the weight.

[JR1572]

It's the pinned, and easily replaced, front sight not the weight.

I'm glad you brought that up. What sight options are available? XS, FO, and red plastic? Am I missing any?

JR1572

[MGW]

There are a dozen or so no lock 340PDs (SKU: 103061) on Gunbroker under $900 right including a couple with Buy Now prices under $800:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=475269529

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=475168705

True. I'm not really a gunbroker fan. I like having my hands on it before I buy. Quantico is local(ish) and they come with the tritium front. I realize they aren't PD's but I'm okay with that.

[MGW]

Bud's has no lock 340's for $625 under their qualified professional plan.

Those couple of ounces aren't worth that much to me. I'll just deal with my heavy 442.

JR1572

For me the front sight is the biggest reason for me. A little lighter is a bonus.

[Dagga Boy]

I just wish Smith would do a 442 .38 with no lock and a tritium front sight, I would be all over it. It would be far more affordable and address an actual need far better than a 13 oz. 357 magnum.

Essentially, a M&P 442 would have been a better way to go than a M&P 340.

[JR1572]

I just wish Smith would do a 442 .38 with no lock and a tritium front sight, I would be all over it. It would be far more affordable and address an actual need far better than a 13 oz. 357 magnum

That would make the most sense. I would be all over that.

I get the idea of the pinned front sight, but paying more than double what I paid for my no-lock 442 plus the .357 option that I would never use isn't that appealing to me.

JR1572

[Up1911Fan]

I really wish S&W would do a run of no lock M&P 342's. Those sold for around $530.

[JR1572]

Didn't S&W make some 642's with 2.5 inch barrels and pinned front sights?

Didn't their powerport guns have replaceable front sights?

JR1572

[JR1572]

I really wish S&W would do a run of no lock M&P 342's. Those sold for around $530.

That would be nice.

JR1572

[Hizzie]

I'm glad you brought that up. What sight options are available? XS, FO, and red plastic? Am I missing any?

JR1572
Gold bead. Duh. You forgot the best option.

[JR1572]

Gold bead. Duh. You forgot the best option.

I didn't even know that was an option.

You're talking me into a j frame with a pinned front sight...

JR1572

[idahojess]

I bought my 340 PD no lock about 10 months ago and really like it to carry. Very easy in a pair of slacks, and much lighter than my 642.
I started with stock grips, put a used (falling apart) set of LG 405s on it, then switched to the LG 105s. I didn't find the LG 105s fit my hand very well (couldn't hit the button), so I got a new set of LG 405s (Brownells--very good company).
For what it's worth, I think the prices are cheaper now than what I paid last year.
Here's a thread -which LSP has some good info on removing the lock on a lock version, cleaning, and other good stuff.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?12282-340-PD/page2&highlight=340pd

[UNK]

Great place to buy your ammo. https://precisiondelta.com/

[UNK]

Also the often recommended nylon pocket holsters don't work for me. I've got one of these ordered. Good reviews online. http://shop.aholster.com/

[MGW]

I just wish Smith would do a 442 .38 with no lock and a tritium front sight, I would be all over it. It would be far more affordable and address an actual need far better than a 13 oz. 357 magnum.

Essentially, a M&P 442 would have been a better way to go than a M&P 340.

Ditto

[SWAT Lt.]

After carrying and shooting a wide variety of J frames over the years, the M&P 340 no lock is my favorite. I have no use for 357 Mag in this gun, but like the tritium front sight with white outline and rear U notch and the blackened stainless steel cylinder. Guns with the lighter titanium cylinders are not worth the weight savings to me. Yes, they are noticeably lighter, but they have much sharper recoil and one has to be very careful when cleaning not to damage them. Additionally, the lighter guns are much more likely to have bullets jump their crimps which could potentially lock up the gun. The M&P 340 is lighter than the 442/642, has good sights, bullets do not jump their crimps, and one doesn't have to worry about damaging the cylinder/coating. They are a lot more expensive than the 442/642 but worth it to me.

[LSP972]

I have plenty of J frames to practice with so the 340 can fill the carry a lot, shoot a little role.

Yeah, I quit shooting mine regularly a while back. Even with my bunny fart reloads, it is downright unpleasant to shoot after less than 50 rounds. I generally practice with my old M-640 these days. But I did score a pristine, nickled M-36 square butt a few months ago. Dunno why, but those issue magna SB stocks with a Tyler adapter just fits my hand perfectly.

My M-342PD has a Big Dot tritium front sight. As with most Big Dot installations, the elevation is off POA at distance; but it sure is quick to acquire up close...

Agreed, they should bring back the M-342. No doubt some marketing weenie is telling them that the hoi polloi prefer a flyweight .357.

And I JUST missed one of those no-lock M-340PDs locally. This one wasn't NIB, but might as well have been. I sulked for two days...:(

.

Incidentally, by "mine" I mean an M-360PD. After reading back over this thread, I see that some of us are talking about the Ti-Scan M-340, and some of us are talking about the current M-340 with a stainless cylinder. Two different animals. No big deal, but there is a distinction... jusy sayin'.

.

[JodyH]

I have a Scandium Ti 360 and find that the light weight is detrimental to accuracy in a way I've not encountered before. Even with a Apex trigger kit the trigger weight is too much for the gun weight and it's extremely easy to steer the gun with the trigger, far easier than it is with a 642/442 weight gun.
The Ti cylinder also lacks momentum and it seems to negatively effect trigger pull on the 2nd through 5th shots of a fast string where a stainless cylinder seems to be helping you by adding it's momentum to the rotation.

[MGW]

I have a Scandium Ti 360 and find that the light weight is detrimental to accuracy in a way I've not encountered before. Even with a Apex trigger kit the trigger weight is too much for the gun weight and it's extremely easy to steer the gun with the trigger, far easier than it is with a 642/442 weight gun.
The Ti cylinder also lacks momentum and it seems to negatively effect trigger pull on the 2nd through 5th shots of a fast string where a stainless cylinder seems to be helping you by adding it's momentum to the rotation.

Thanks for the info. I'm watching the local boards but it looks like I might as well suck it up and buy new.

[Mike Pipes]

Also the often recommended nylon pocket holsters don't work for me. I've got one of these ordered. Good reviews online. http://shop.aholster.com/

Brian I have a pair of these, as you know he makes left and right models.I really like mine.I wrapped coflex around the lower 1/2 and it really makes em stable in your pocket.....cya mike

[UNK]

Another satisfied customer. I'm looking forward to receiving mine, thanks for the input.

Brian I have a pair of these, as you know he makes left and right models.I really like mine.I wrapped coflex around the lower 1/2 and it really makes em stable in your pocket.....cya mike

[LSP972]

I have a Scandium Ti 360 and find that the light weight is detrimental to accuracy in a way I've not encountered before. Even with a Apex trigger kit the trigger weight is too much for the gun weight and it's extremely easy to steer the gun with the trigger, far easier than it is with a 642/442 weight gun.
The Ti cylinder also lacks momentum and it seems to negatively effect trigger pull on the 2nd through 5th shots of a fast string where a stainless cylinder seems to be helping you by adding it's momentum to the rotation.

Well… those are indeed interesting observations. Although, the times I shot mine for quals (out to 25 yards), I never noticed any of that. Mine is as-issued except for the stocks and The Plug. The Apex stuff wasn't available when I bought the gun, and by the time they were, the DA trigger had smoothed up to the point where I'm happy with it. That did take a 1000+ rounds, however.

Just how accurate are you trying to be? The qual target we use is a P-1; basically, a B-27 with just the eight ring displayed, and staying within that ring was "good enough"; I was too busy whining about the accumulated recoil of 50 rounds of service ammunition to try for impressive groups.

These days, I don't even worry about distance shooting with it; its a bad-breath-distance BUG, and I practice accordingly.

.

[JodyH]

Just how accurate are you trying to be?
USPSA headshots at 25Y at a moderate pace is what I want out of my pocket sized guns. 3x5 card at 25Y out of my "real" handguns.
The 360 requires a lot more concentration on grip and a smooth trigger pull than my identically set up 442, despite the 360 having a much nicer fiber optic front sight.
I tend to steer the shots straight right when I let my finger overcome my grip, I rarely do that with my 442 and never have that issue with an all steel J frame.

[JR1572]

I have a Scandium Ti 360 and find that the light weight is detrimental to accuracy in a way I've not encountered before. Even with a Apex trigger kit the trigger weight is too much for the gun weight and it's extremely easy to steer the gun with the trigger, far easier than it is with a 642/442 weight gun.
The Ti cylinder also lacks momentum and it seems to negatively effect trigger pull on the 2nd through 5th shots of a fast string where a stainless cylinder seems to be helping you by adding it's momentum to the rotation.

JodyH, you seem to be very well versed in this topic. Here's my question:

Keep my no-lock 442 and make do with it's front sight, or upgrade to the 360 to have front sight options and .357 chambers that I will never use?

JR1572

[JodyH]

My 360 with its nice front sight stays in the safe. My 442 with its Testors red model paint front sight is in my front pocket right now.

[JR1572]

My 360 with its nice front sight stays in the safe. My 442 with its Testors red model paint front sight is in my front pocket right now.

Excellent.

JR1572

[Dagga Boy]

USPSA headshots at 25Y at a moderate pace is what I want out of my pocket sized guns. 3x5 card at 25Y out of my "real" handguns.
The 360 requires a lot more concentration on grip and a smooth trigger pull than my identically set up 442, despite the 360 having a much nicer fiber optic front sight.
I tend to steer the shots straight right when I let my finger overcome my grip, I rarely do that with my 442 and never have that issue with an all steel J frame.

Pretty solid shooting. I was hoping that big dot front sight helped to keep it inserted in whatever cranial orifice is available to help my ability to do head shots with a j frame.

[Hizzie]

Or have a competent gunsmith make the FS better.


http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae322/strangler366/Guns%204%20Sale/DSCN1330.jpg (http://s984.photobucket.com/user/strangler366/media/Guns%204%20Sale/DSCN1330.jpg.html)


Don Williams of The Action Works performed his magic on this one.

[MGW]

Exactly which model are you looking for?

Standard 340 no lock. Not the PD model.

[MGW]

USPSA headshots at 25Y at a moderate pace is what I want out of my pocket sized guns. 3x5 card at 25Y out of my "real" handguns.
The 360 requires a lot more concentration on grip and a smooth trigger pull than my identically set up 442, despite the 360 having a much nicer fiber optic front sight.
I tend to steer the shots straight right when I let my finger overcome my grip, I rarely do that with my 442 and never have that issue with an all steel J frame.

Are you referring to the standard 360 or the ti cylinder PD? I thought I read earlier that you had a 360PD but could be wrong.

If it's a standard I didn't think there would be that much difference in shooting one compared to a 442. I might need to reconsider.

[LSP972]

USPSA headshots at 25Y at a moderate pace is what I want out of my pocket sized guns. 3x5 card at 25Y out of my "real" handguns.



That's quite a bit more ambitious than my "goals", these days.

Although, in my salad days I was pretty good at dropping wadcutters into a 2" by 3" oval, trigger-cocking-only, from 50 yards; so I have a bit of an understanding regarding the nuances of a DA revolver trigger. What you said about cylinder mass was indeed important there… but reversed. IOW, the extra mass of an N-frame cylinder tended to disturb one's sight picture during timed strings. That's why you never see an N-frame PPC bull gun.

Anyway; I think we all can agree that these little critters are not easy to shoot with any degree of repeatable accuracy. Oh, the guns are capable of it; but holding on to one that is set up with proper (i.e., small/skinny) concealment stocks can be dicey indeed.

.

[MGW]

Is this the one you are referring to: M&P340 (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_792048_-1_757768_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y) (SKU: 103072)?

Yes sir. That's the one.

[JodyH]

Are you referring to the standard 360 or the ti cylinder PD? I thought I read earlier that you had a 360PD but could be wrong.

If it's a standard I didn't think there would be that much difference in shooting one compared to a 442. I might need to reconsider.

I have a Scandium/Titanium 360, and yes I have shot a cylinder full of .357 Silvertips through it... A cylinder full.

[LSP972]

Interesting. I haven't actually handled one of these (scandium frame & yoke, stainless cylinder); I see its halfway in weight between a standard AirWeight and an AirLite… IOW, 2 ounces less than a regular 642/442.

And the Ti-Scan examples are over a grand now. Wow.

.

[LSP972]

Thank you so much, Mr. Enabler...:D

Now I gotta look.

.

[MGW]

I need to ask a follow up question. Has anyone had the XS front sight installed on a standard j frame? Is see their are a few companies doing this. Standard rate seems to be around $125. Would be far less expensive than a 340 if it works well.

[Chuck Haggard]

I need to ask a follow up question. Has anyone had the XS front sight installed on a standard j frame? Is see their are a few companies doing this. Standard rate seems to be around $125. Would be far less expensive than a 340 if it works well.

I know a couple of gunsmith types that wouldn't touch that mod, it's apparently not as easy to do as one might think.

I orange paint my front sight on the 642s, add a CT laser grip and call it good.

[NEPAKevin]

FWIW, I use a 642 for practice and a no lock ScanTi for carry. Once and a while I run some +ps through the 342, 'to see if I still feel.'

[LSP972]

I need to ask a follow up question. Has anyone had the XS front sight installed on a standard j frame? Is see their are a few companies doing this. Standard rate seems to be around $125. Would be far less expensive than a 340 if it works well.

My 342 has one. On the newer barrel shrouds that are cut for it, its a no-brainer; you just need the proper size punch.

On an older, one-piece barrel with integral front sight, it will be a tricky job requiring much finesse; i.e., expensive.

Sorry if you already knew this, but I'm not sure what your definition of a "standard J frame" is... most of the two piece barrel examples I've seen are cut for a replaceable front sight blade.

.

[NEPAKevin]

My 342 has one. On the newer barrel shrouds that are cut for it, its a no-brainer; you just need the proper size punch.

.

Have not done one myself, but from reading and videos, I thought you also have to drill the hole in the new sight for the pin and sometimes fit the sight if it is oversized?

[LSP972]

The hole for the pin is already drilled in the barrel rib. My 2002 vintage M-360PD and 1998 vintage M-342 have this; the 360PD with a red insert Baughmann-type blade. It came like this out of the box. I have an undercut Baughmann blade with a tritium vial that drops right in. Dunno who made it, but the hole was already drilled (and in the proper place). The Big Dot on my 342 came on the gun, so I have no idea if it needed drilling first.

Yes, the need to drill the hole in the replacement sight would indeed complicate things. Fitting the blade to the slot in the rib is much less stressful; basically, just some careful file work.

.

[JodyH]

A super sharp drill bit and a finger drill from a hobby shop works really well. It's slower than a power drill but harder to screw it up. Insert new sight into slot, clamp it with a hobby c clamp then drill 1/2 way through the new front sight from each side. Insert roll pin with a drop of red locktite for added security.

[Mike Pipes]

I need to ask a follow up question. Has anyone had the XS front sight installed on a standard j frame? Is see their are a few companies doing this. Standard rate seems to be around $125. Would be far less expensive than a 340 if it works well.

Gregg I have a pair of 642's with the XS big dot installed by Clark Custom Guns in Princeton La. If I remember right it was about $100 ea 4 or 5 years ago...cya mike

[MGW]

A super sharp drill bit and a finger drill from a hobby shop works really well. It's slower than a power drill but harder to screw it up. Insert new sight into slot, clamp it with a hobby c clamp then drill 1/2 way through the new front sight from each side. Insert roll pin with a drop of red locktite for added security.

Does the stock site need to be cut down?

[MGW]

Gregg I have a pair of 642's with the XS big dot installed by Clark Custom Guns in Princeton La. If I remember right it was about $100 ea 4 or 5 years ago...cya mike

I've read that the 340 has a U shaped rear site. Is it different from a 442/642?

[NEPAKevin]

There are two types of front sights on J-frames. One is a pinned sight where the barrel has a cut milled with a pin that holds the sight in place and the other is integral to the barrel. The latter was not intended to be serviced and AFAIK requires removing the sight and either milling in a mounting such as a dove tail, or attaching a new sight with an appropriate adhesive procedure. When I last looked at XS tritium sights for J-frames, they had three models. RV-0001N-4 0180 and he RV-0001N-3 .205 for pinned sights and the SW-0020N-3 which is epoxied after the old sight is removed.

[SWAT Lt.]

I've read that the 340 has a U shaped rear site. Is it different from a 442/642?

Yes, it's deeper and rounded at the bottom like a true "U" in the frame. Much better than the standard notch on the 442/642. If you go to their web site and click on the 360 view you can see it pretty well.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765779_-1_757768_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

You can Google it also and find some pics.

[MGW]

Thanks for the info LT. I couldn't get a good enough picture to really tell if there was a difference.

[TheNewbie]

I believe the Ruger LCR in .38 weighs less than the 642, and is close in weight to the 340pd. However I am not sure how much bigger the LCR is size wise.

[Whiskey_Bravo]

Hey what are your guys thoughts on a M&P340 with Gold Dot 135 Gr. +P Vs. a Glock 43 or Ruger LCR 9mm loaded with a modern duty round?

Interested in one of these options as a backup weapon to be carried in a pant pocket.

[Mike Pipes]

Nuttin carries like a J frame....cya mike

[MGW]

Hey what are your guys thoughts on a M&P340 with Gold Dot 135 Gr. +P Vs. a Glock 43 or Ruger LCR 9mm loaded with a modern duty round?

Interested in one of these options as a backup weapon to be carried in a pant pocket.

The 43 is a little easier to carry. It's flatter obviously and works really well in cargo shorts. The J frame is still easier to draw from a pocket. It's also easier to make a j frame not look like a gun in a pocket. Hope that makes sense.

[Whiskey_Bravo]

The 43 is a little easier to carry. It's flatter obviously and works really well in cargo shorts. The J frame is still easier to draw from a pocket. It's also easier to make a j frame not look like a gun in a pocket. Hope that makes sense.

That does make sense. Although I just heard we are getting external carries by October. The Blauer ones that looklike a uniform shirt. They have a napoleon pocket hidden behind the front top flap pockets. A 43 looks made for that kind of pocket. ...but I have always wanted a M&P 340

[MGW]

Me too. I've yet to find one I'm willing to drop the cash on though. I came this close to selling a P220 and buying one. It's my last Sig though but rarely gets shot. The 340 would at least get shot and carried. Decisions.