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

[HCM]

I’m having a zero issue with my S&W M&P 340. It’s the model with the factory XS Big Dot Front sight and Laser grips.

I purchased this weapon from a S&W Law Enforcement dealer with the intention of getting it approved for duty use as a back-up weapon to replace my S&W 642.

The M&P revolver functions and groups fine, however. at 7, 15 and 25 yards it consistently hits to the right / 3 o’clock. The group moves further to the right as the distance increases. Approximately 3” at 7 yards, 6 “ at 15 yards , 8-10” at 25 yards etc.

The first time I fired the 340 I used Remington lead free Frangible . I thought the zero issue might have been the lead free ammo so tried with our duty round, CCI/Speer 135 grain +P .38 special as well as Remington and Winchester standard velocity 130 grain FMJ .38 special.

To eliminate the possibility this was shooter error, I shot the same ammunition through my S&W 642. The groups were centered with all three types of ammunition. I then tried dry fire with the laser grips and saw no pronounced movement to the right. Finally I had another experienced shooter/ Firearms Instructor shoot the 340 – all rounds were to the right for the second shooter as well.

I contacted S&W customer Service, they sent me a fed ex label and the 340 went back to S&W. A few weeks later the 340 was returned. the work order read : “Customer Complaint – Barrel Frame Line-Up” and “ Repaired Adjust Barrel Alignment.”

I took the 340 out to the range last Friday and it is still hitting consistently to the right with CCI/Speer 135 grain +P . I again had a second experienced shooter fire the weapon and again all rounds were to the right for the second shooter as well as myself. The barrel / front sight appeared to be centered.

S&W is sending another Fed Ex label but any thoughts / suggestions on cause and possible solutions would be appreciated.

.

[TR675]

Mine shoots left and the frame/front sight are lined up perfectly. I asked Claude Werner to take a look at it and he confirmed that it is the gun. According to Claude, this is not uncommon with the fixed sight snubbies.

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

[CCT125US]

Perhaps the rear notch is not machined properly. If the notch was machined off center to the right, relieving material on the left side of the rear notch would shift alignment. I would consult a gunsmith though.

[HCM]

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

I believe you are correct but I noticed little or no change in POI since it's last trip to S&W. The laser grips are great but I'm not comfortable relying on them 100% for a carry/ duty gun.

The Big Dot sight and it's improved / more visible sight picture was my main reason for purchasing the M&P.

[Tamara]

Back in the day, I would have said "Oh, the barrel's clocked," but that's not supposed to happen with the two-piece barrels.

[LtDave]

I've owned a bunch of j-frames over the past 35 years. So far, I've only managed to find 2 of them that have shot to the sights. And I had to file down the front sight on one to make it happen...

[FotoTomas]

Mine have all been regulated for heavier bullets but most shot pretty straight. The lighter bullets however would shoot high. Aim for the belly button to hit COM.

Some I would file the front sight to use the better designed lightweight JHP bullets. Most of the time I left'em alone and went back to 158 grain lead SWC hollowpoints. The current 638 I have is stuffed with a supply of those old FBI loads.

I truly do not know what to say if you have a newer model to fix. Like Tam mentioned a simple tightening or loosening of the barrel would fix it on the old models.

[Tamara]

The lighter bullets however would shoot high.

Buh-whuh? :confused:

[FotoTomas]

Buh-whuh? :confused:

Why confused?...

Never mind. My lack of recent target practice with the 638 is blocking my memory. :(

[HCM]

The 340 is again at S&W so we shall see.....

My first back up gun, a 640, used to shoot POA/POI with 158 grain loads and Low with 110 grain +P+.

[Chuck Haggard]

The 340 is again at S&W so we shall see.....

My first back up gun, a 640, used to shoot POA/POI with 158 grain loads and Low with 110 grain +P+.

Now that is normal behavior for that breed

[Tamara]

My first back up gun, a 640, used to shoot POA/POI with 158 grain loads and Low with 110 grain +P+.

Yes.

Mid-bore Smythes are regulated for std. vel. 158gr projectiles. Anything that exits the muzzle faster will hit lower.

[HCM]

The 340 M&P came back from S&W two days ago. Got in a quick trip to the indoor range today - 30 rounds of 135gr +P GDHP at 7, 15, and 25 yards.

There is noticeable improvement but it is still hitting to the right . POI is about half as far to the right as before this trip to S&W.

Call me picky but this is not acceptable for a gun that costs nearly $800. :(

[shootist26]

The 340 M&P came back from S&W two days ago. Got in a quick trip to the indoor range today - 30 rounds of 135gr +P GDHP at 7, 15, and 25 yards.

There is noticeable improvement but it is still hitting to the right . POI is about half as far to the right as before this trip to S&W.

Call me picky but this is not acceptable for a gun that costs nearly $800. :(

$800 ?!

holy shit!

[HCM]

That includes the S&W branded CT laser grips but still.....

[Tamara]

$800 ?!

holy shit!

The scandium that gets sprinkled in the aluminum alloy for the frames to keep the .357s from stretching them like taffy is like a squillion dollars an ounce; combine that with factory nights and the CTC grips and you've run up the options list on your basic ~$400 Model 442 pretty quickly, all for the pleasure of getting stress fractures in your metacarpals from firing magnum loads...

[NETim]

For those of you who don't know what a "squillion" is, let me help you. For instance, if you took one squillion dollars, spent it all on 442's and then laid them end to end, they would reach Proxima Centauri and back. Or to put it in slightly more concrete terms, it's the number of hits you'd get if you would Google "what gun should I get for my wife?"

[DanH]

For those of you who don't know what a "squillion" is, let me help you. For instance, if you took one squillion dollars, spent it all on 442's and then laid them end to end, they would reach Proxima Centauri and back. Or to put it in slightly more concrete terms, it's the number of hits you'd get if you would Google "what gun should I get for my wife?"

Now, I always thought "squillion" was the amount of money that would cause you to squeal when you got the bill.

[JAD]

Now, I always thought "squillion" was the amount of money that would cause you to squeal when you got the bill.

Dude, that's like five bucks for a lot of the guys on this forum.

[Chuck Haggard]

Dude, that's like five bucks for a lot of the guys on this forum.

Word!

[Tamara]

Dude, that's like five bucks for a lot of the guys on this forum.

Heh. :D

[Nephrology]

The scandium that gets sprinkled in the aluminum alloy for the frames to keep the .357s from stretching them like taffy is like a squillion dollars an ounce; combine that with factory nights and the CTC grips and you've run up the options list on your basic ~$400 Model 442 pretty quickly, all for the pleasure of getting stress fractures in your metacarpals from firing magnum loads...

I would be very enthusiastic if S&W would finally start shipping the 442/642s with night sights standard, or at least a dovetail. It's ludicrous that the only way to get decent sights on those things is to send them to a smith who will charge you at least the price of the gun to mill down the original FSP and replace it with something worth a darn.

[Tamara]

I would be very enthusiastic if S&W would finally start shipping the 442/642s with night sights standard, or at least a dovetail. It's ludicrous that the only way to get decent sights on those things is to send them to a smith who will charge you at least the price of the gun to mill down the original FSP and replace it with something worth a darn.

Part of the reason that they're so cheap as they are is that everything to do with those guns was fully depreciated when cars still had carburettors. Just about any change they make will probably bump the cost up to where they're priced like real guns. :o

[LSP972]

It's ludicrous that the only way to get decent sights on those things is to send them to a smith who will charge you at least the price of the gun to mill down the original FSP and replace it with something worth a darn.

Just what sort of shooting do you plan to do with yours?

I'm curious, because for thirty years I fired an annual (sometimes bi-annual) 60-round qual course, which included 15 rounds at 25 yards, with a variety of .38 J frames... and never shot less than 90%.

Yes, the newer guns with the wider front sight are easier to get a flash sight picture with- but the old skinny front sights are not useless. You do gotta squint pretty hard at the 25, though...;)

They're belly guns, for Pete's sake.

.

[Nephrology]

Just what sort of shooting do you plan to do with yours?

I'm curious, because for thirty years I fired an annual (sometimes bi-annual) 60-round qual course, which included 15 rounds at 25 yards, with a variety of .38 J frames... and never shot less than 90%.

Yes, the newer guns with the wider front sight are easier to get a flash sight picture with- but the old skinny front sights are not useless. You do gotta squint pretty hard at the 25, though...;)

They're belly guns, for Pete's sake.

.

Well for starters I'd love to be able to see the front sight in low light conditions.

[LSP972]

Well for starters I'd love to be able to see the front sight in low light conditions.

Okay. Sounds like you're using one for a primary. In that case, there are several options... but you already know about those.

My point was, the "target group" of these guns is not the serious pistolero; it is cops who need a back-up or off-duty piece, Chip and Muffy who are afraid of/unable to operate a semi-auto, and old farts like me who need something to keep a miscreant off our back.

Part of my retirement dream was to completely forego the hassle of carrying a "real gun"; shorts, T-shirt, flip-flops, and an airweight J frame with a Speed Strip would be my new uniform. The human garbage that Katrina blew in here killed that idea.

I still wear the shorts and flip-flops, but had to go with Hawaiian-style shirts for the extra concealment needed for the service piece.

MY point here is...if you use a J frame for a primary, you shouldn't squawk about having to spend more money getting it "right" for you. IMO, anyway...

.

[Nephrology]

MY point here is...if you use a J frame for a primary, you shouldn't squawk about having to spend more money getting it "right" for you. IMO, anyway...

.

Most modern firearms, big and small, include a front sight that is easily swapped for a replacement part. I do not think it is controversial to suggest that S&W consider following this lead, given that they already clearly are aware of the inadequacy of the sights as they ship.

I'm not asking for a 20rd 9mm in a .380 sized package - just the same gun, same size, and maybe a little bit more foresight with regards to aftermarket modifications. I do not find this controversial.

[LSP972]

I'm not asking for a 20rd 9mm in a .380 sized package - just the same gun, same size, and maybe a little bit more foresight with regards to aftermarket modifications. I do not find this controversial.

Neither do I.

But it IS unrealistic.;)

.

[FotoTomas]

Neither do I.

But it IS unrealistic.;)

.

Why unrealistic? Look at the Night Guard revolvers. Look at the versions with the light tubes. Look at the one with a pinned sight such as the New Model 60.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_764932_-1_757767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

I admit I am happy with my 638/no lock as is with its slightly better sights and +P capability compared to my older Model 38. Even so I would like a front night sight on it BUT the Kahr PM9 has one and is the primary pocket pistol I carry now. I will get by.

[LSP972]

Why unrealistic? Look at the Night Guard revolvers. Look at the versions with the light tubes. Look at the one with a pinned sight such as the New Model 60.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_764932_-1_757767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

I admit I am happy with my 638/no lock as is with its slightly better sights and +P capability compared to my older Model 38. Even so I would like a front night sight on it BUT the Kahr PM9 has one and is the primary pocket pistol I carry now. I will get by.

I thought we (GJM, anyway) had established that some of the newer guns have the replaceable/interchangeable front sight capability? My 342, of 1998 vintage, and my 360PD, of 2002 vintage, both have that feature. I'm assuming that the source of the complaint here is that the lower "tier" offerings- 442s, 642s, etc.- have fixed front sights milled into the barrel, like they did it on the pre-95 guns.

I say unrealistic for two reasons: first, its a belly gun. Not everyone may share this opinion, but if you need better sights to be able to make a COM hit at 25 yards, then you need more gun IMO. And while I understand the desire for a visible-in-dim-light front sight, again... its a belly gun.

Second, S&W was forced to drastically change its manufacturing processes in order to stay competitive. The milled/machined internal parts of the pre-95 era are long gone, because the factory artisans who crafted those guns all retired and could not be replaced economically... hence we now have MIM parts and other production shortcuts/expedient measures. I would imagine that the extra machining steps needed to create an integral slot for a replaceable front sight would push the cost of these plain vanilla/bottom "tier" offerings past the point S&W marketing wants it to be. The "better" guns now all feature it, yes?

I had a PM9. Okay little pistol. But have you ever considered what is likely to occur if you must make a contact shot? And let's be real... these little guns are mainly for last-ditch defense, where your attacker stands a good chance of being on you physically.

There is a perception that the pre-95 J frame revolvers (when they went to the so-called "magnum" frame) are better than the new MIM offerings. In all fairness, I have put over 5K rounds through my 360PD in the 11 years I've owned it- mostly .38s of various power levels, but a few .357s- and that puppy is still good to go; MIM parts and all. Plus, its ultra light weight makes it a joy to carry. I have several older J frames, including a 1967 vintage 37, that I really enjoy. But the bottom line, I think, is that the current offerings are just as good, from a reliability/durability standpoint. If you want a better front sight, just pay the extra money for the "deluxe" models.

.

[Chuck Haggard]

Part of the reason that they're so cheap as they are is that everything to do with those guns was fully depreciated when cars still had carburettors. Just about any change they make will probably bump the cost up to where they're priced like real guns. :o

Astute observation.

The bonus being that a guy can then later spend the money on something like a CT laser grip and basically get a low-light capability and better "sights" for distance.


Not sure where the "belly gun" thing comes from except folks who haven't taken the time to be able to shoot these guns well. I'm not the world's greatest shooter, but I have two 642s that I have to qual with twice a year and I clean the KS KLETC C-POST qual with both guns every time.

Doing some of the sight improvements that Claude talks about for pocket guns helps my day light sight picture a lot, CT grips work really well when I shoot these guns in low light or indoors.

[Tamara]

I thought we (GJM, anyway) had established that some of the newer guns have the replaceable/interchangeable front sight capability? My 342, of 1998 vintage, and my 360PD, of 2002 vintage, both have that feature. I'm assuming that the source of the complaint here is that the lower "tier" offerings- 442s, 642s, etc.- have fixed front sights milled into the barrel, like they did it on the pre-95 guns.

I've got an '05-vintage 432PD and, while it has the newer sleeve-and-liner style two-piece barrel assembly, the front sight is machined integrally with the barrel sleeve. Like you, I am assuming that there is a cost savings associated with this in the shape of fewer machining steps and a lower parts count, as I recollect the 432s being priced the same as the 442s.

[LSP972]

Not sure where the "belly gun" thing comes from except folks who haven't taken the time to be able to shoot these guns well.

The "belly gun thing" goes way back; a lot farther than you or I. It refers to the small size and intended use; up close and exceedingly personal. As noted in an earlier post, I qualified annually, during a thirty-year career with one, out to 25 yards. That doesn't mean this genre of handgun would be my first choice for most tasks.

Yes, a well-made example has much inherent accuracy. But unless the game is determining group size in a Ransom Rest, inherent accuracy is meaningless. Practical accuracy (what a given shooter can make the gun do) is what matters. And most folks simply do not shoot J frames well at much past 7 yards, because of the triggers and the fact that there isn't much to hang on to.

I would be hesitant to fault an experienced pistolero for choosing something like this for a primary; I'm sure he/she would have valid reasons. But I think we can all agree that said experienced pistolero can do better "work" with a service piece; particularly in regards to distance shooting and multiple targets/assailants. Most folks who do carry a mouse gun as a primarly/only, do so out of convenience. That was my retirement plan; the spiking crime rate here changed all of that.

Hey, for many years I was guilty of using mine as a sole off-duty piece. Its presence defused a couple of potentially bad situations, but I never had to actually shoot somebody with it. As my experience grew, I eventually relegated its place to that of back-up; both on and off duty. It remains such in my retirement; except when "lounging" around the house.

But that is another thread...:D

.

[LSP972]

I've got an '05-vintage 432PD and, while it has the newer sleeve-and-liner style two-piece barrel assembly, the front sight is machined integrally with the barrel sleeve. Like you, I am assuming that there is a cost savings associated with this in the shape of fewer machining steps and a lower parts count, as I recollect the 432s being priced the same as the 442s.

I haven't examined a recent-production 442 or 642 in quite a while. Are they now coming with the two-piece barrel/shroud arrangement? My 342 and 360PD have that; but I have seen some early to mid 2000s-vintage 642s that still featured the one-piece barrel with integral front sight.

S&W changes things so often it is practically impossible to keep up. I am acquainted with a couple of majorly serious S&W collectors... and they pretty much remain constipated all the time...;)

.

[Tamara]

I haven't examined a recent-production 442 or 642 in quite a while. Are they now coming with the two-piece barrel/shroud arrangement? My 342 and 360PD have that; but I have seen some early to mid 2000s-vintage 642s that still featured the one-piece barrel with integral front sight.

Last I was paying attention, the 442/642 were still using old school one-piece crush-fit barrels, but that was some a while back.

Smith collecting being such a broad field, I dialed mine back to mostly early-'70s and older guns and sold off all the newer stuff except for a bare handful of working guns, so I don't really pay any attention to new 442s in a showcase these days. I ASSuME they're still using one-piece barrels, but they may have still been using up NOS five years ago, the way the .mil is still awarding Purple Hearts that were in storage from 1945, and have since gone to two-piece without me noticing. :o

[BN]

I haven't examined a recent-production 442 or 642 in quite a while. Are they now coming with the two-piece barrel/shroud arrangement?
.

I have a recent (within the last couple of years) no lock 442. It has the one piece barrel with the invisible integral front sight. :( I got it when S&W replaced my Model 37 that hit way off to one side.

[Rich]

Mine shoots left and the frame/front sight are lined up perfectly. I asked Claude Werner to take a look at it and he confirmed that it is the gun. According to Claude, this is not uncommon with the fixed sight snubbies.

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

I've bought a few J fames since the 80`s.

M37 in 38spl only.

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

M640 in 357mag
M649


The M642-2 was bought last year.


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

148gr WC was pretty close and highly accurate


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

[Tamara]

I've bought a few J fames since the 80`s.

M37 in 38spl only.

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

M640 in 357mag
M649


You need more Js. I got some you can borrow, if necessary. ;)

[JAD]

You need more Js. I got some you can borrow, if necessary. ;)

O contrailer, he's got too many. Those things are obsolete at distances greater than physical insertion. I'll take that 37 off your hands and dispose of it.

[Rich]

I've owned a bunch of j-frames over the past 35 years. So far, I've only managed to find 2 of them that have shot to the sights. And I had to file down the front sight on one to make it happen...


Double post my bad

[Rich]

You need more Js. I got some you can borrow, if necessary. ;)

Really I was so surprised when I shot the M37 for the first time.
I heard all the stories? hard to shoot and accuracy sucks and so on.

The heavy steel frame 357magnum loaded with standard 38spl or even mild +P are fun to shoot at long periods

[Rich]

O contrailer, he's got too many. Those things are obsolete at distances greater than physical insertion. I'll take that 37 off your hands and dispose of it.

I agree some what.

I just hope I never have to use my BUG or my Pistols for that matter.

[HCM]

After 3 trips to S&W with no improvement I got frustrated and traded this M&P 340 in towards a SCAR - 17.

My 1990's vintage 642 with the "invisible" front sight will have to do !