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...

.