Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 138

Thread: 340 vs 442/642

  1. #1
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"

    340 vs 442/642

    Interested in a J-frame...

    From what I can figure out, these are the key advantages in content that a 340 has over a 442/642:

    Blast shield on top strap - This is probably the single biggest deal for me, as without it, the frame is being eaten away. I wouldn't put a high volume of rounds through it, but having a scandium frame without it would bug me. Can anyone say whether the blast shield is the feature that makes it ".357 capable", or is there something structural about the 340 that's different?

    Protected ejector rod - Obviously, lots of people carry the 442/642 without bending an ejector rod, but it would make me feel that much better knowing there's insurance here against a possible damage mode that can severely impede function.

    Pinned front sight - Can be swapped out if desired without involving somebody who owns a mill. If a change was ever desired, this might cover a big chunk of the price difference. The 340 front sight looks a little nicer to start with, too.

    (I also read something about the rear sight channel being shaped better on the 340 - anyone able to confirm this and/or post photos?)

    Titanium cylinder - About three ounces lighter, makes it nicer for pocket carry, a little less pleasant to hang onto under recoil. Cleaning requires greater care not to damage the finish.

    Capable of 357 Magnum - Probably wouldn't shoot it much (or ever), but having it and not needing it doesn't hurt anything, while not having it and wanting it sucks.

    --------------
    Anything I've missed?

    All three seem to be available without locks often enough that a patient person can get one.

    My overall grasp of it is that, in essence, the 340PD has everything it's supposed to have, and costs roughly what any other typical S&W revolver costs. (I've been there done that on costing out manufactured systems, and it's often the case that simply being smaller doesn't make a system significantly less expensive to manufacture.) The 442/642 is decontented to get the price down to the point that it will still function while being able to compete in the market with Rugers, but it's basically the bare minimum. It functions, but it's difficult and expensive to make changes if desired, has an inherently limited service life of the frame, and greater risk of being sidelined due to mechanical damage. Is that completely out to lunch, or am I at least on paper?

  2. #2
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    In the desert, looking for water.
    Never heard of a lifetime limit on the +p rated 642 frames, but I don't know everything about them, obviously. If I wear mine out, it has a lifetime warranty. Of course, that could be worth as much as the warrantee on a worn out or damaged 3rd gen by the time I need to use it.

    If you like the sights on the 340, and don't mind the lighter and more fragile cylinder, en I'd say it's your huckleberry. If you don't want to spend that money, it's not like the 642/442 weigh all that much, or shoot bunny farts (unless you deliberately load them that way). .38 Special isn't a squirrel gun. .357 out of an airweight or lighter gun isn't happening in MY hand. YMMV.

  3. #3
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    I've carried a 642 as a bug since the mid 90's when it replaced my all steel 640. I had a problematic 340 M&P which S&W could not get zeroed for windage in 3 trips back to the factory. I've heard of others with the same issue. I'm currently issued a S&W 340 M&P which has been very good however, 50 rounds of +p gold dot every three months is bad enough, I have no desire to shoot .357 magnums out of it. I fired 5 magnums out of my prior personally owned 340 and that was enough.

    The M&P 340 has a steel cylinder so there is not much weight savings vs the 442/642 but you get the improved sights without having to baby a Ti cylinder. The Ti cylinder on the regular 340 needs to be pampered so you will likely need another j frame as a practice gun.

    There is nothing "decontented" about the 442/642. It's a basic steel and aluminum revolver. The basic j frames came first so the 340 is an upgraded "Cadillac" version of the J frame rather than the other way around. IMHO the biggest upgrade is the improved sights.

    The tooling and design costs on the 442/642 are long paid for. No special materials etc. The sights are traditional J frame. Orange nail polish on the front and black sharpie on the rear help as do laser grips.

    Another issue to consider with the super light SC/Ti guns is bullet pull under recoil / inertia with magnums and hot 38 loads. A related issue is the super light guns are more likely to have issues with recoil unintentionally activating the internal lock mechanism.

    The 340 M&P, 442 and 642 are still produced for LE sales without the lock though you may have to search a bit as they are done in batches. Buds Gunshop gets them regularly. Are you sure they still make no lock versions of the 340 PD ?
    Last edited by HCM; 09-05-2016 at 03:45 AM.

  4. #4

    Sight pictures

    Is this the sight pic you wanted?
    Name:  WP_20160905_07_22_29_Pro.jpg
Views: 5070
Size:  28.6 KBName:  WP_20160905_07_21_27_Pro.jpg
Views: 5007
Size:  17.2 KB
    I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
    The lunatics are running the asylum

  5. #5
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    I'm currently issued a S&W 340 M&P which has been very good however, 50 rounds of +p gold dot every three months is bad enough, I have no desire to shoot .357 magnums out of it. I fired 5 magnums out of my prior personally owned 340 and that was enough.
    Like HCM I fired 5 rounds of .357 in a friend's 340 and had all the fun I could stand. The truth is that I'd had enough by three rounds, but I couldn't look unmanly. I'm not an engineer but all the blast shield says to me is, "This caliber in this frame is a bad idea."

    On Bud's a 340 CT is almost $300 more than a 642 CT. For that difference you could mill the front sight and add an XS and still have ammo money left over.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    I'm currently issued a S&W 340 M&P which has been very good however, 50 rounds of +p gold dot every three months is bad enough, I have no desire to shoot .357 magnums out of it. I fired 5 magnums out of my prior personally owned 340 and that was enough.
    Same here. I bought a 340 and sold it because I guess I am just a wuss, but the recoil with even standard pressure .38spl was pretty darn uncomfortable. Once I got into .38spl 135gr+P GDs, it got even worse. .357mags felt like each shot was breaking my hand. Accuracy broke down severely with each shot as the natural tendency to compensate for recoil and the upcoming pain caused extreme trigger jerk and handling issues. Plus, with the short barrel it's like having a flash bank go off in your face(heaven forbid that you shoot without ear pro). After that experience, I went back to an old 1980s model 60 stainless which is a pleasure to shoot, and I can shoot accurately well out to 50yrds. The 642 isn't as bad as the 340, but it still brings out bad performance due to the recoil discomfort.

  7. #7
    I just picked up the M&P 340 no lock with the big dot for $670 locally. The Airweight 340 goes locally for $400. My air weight has a set of Crimson trace LG-405 grips 250.00 currently at Optics Planet.

    https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....0-ACP-vs-38-Sp "There is no reason to go with .357 mag in a J-frame, as the significantly larger muzzle blast and flash, and harsher recoil of the .357 Magnum does not result in substantially improved terminal performance compared to the more controllable .38 Special bullets when fired from 2” barrels. "

    So basically you pay for the weight savings which come at a premium regardless of the endeavor. It is noticeable. You also get a tritium dot up front which is replaceable. And the best part is with the 340 M&P you get a rear sight that matches the Big Dot which you won't get with the add on Big Dot and an Airweight 340.

    I haven't priced it but I imagine if you purchased a Big dot and had the front sight milled on a 340 the cost savings would be lost.




    .
    I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
    The lunatics are running the asylum

  8. #8
    I bought a no-lock M&P 340 a couple years ago. I carried and shot a standard J-frame enough to realize I wanted better sights so for me the upgrade was worth it. I believe even with steel cylinder the M&P 340 is a little lighter than a 442 and whatever they do to allow it to handle .357 presumably mean its more durable even if you're just shooting .38+P. I also like that if push came to shove I could use .357. Subjectively the 340 seems a little better finished and smoother but that might just be my own bias. For something I carry almost every day and expect to last a lon time I can justify the expense. Hell it cost about same as my iPhone that even Apple only expects to last 2 years.

  9. #9
    Site Supporter KevH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Contra Costa County, CA
    The 340M&P has higher visibility sights and a stainless cylinder coated in PVD. Realistically that is its only advantage. Having a shrouded ejector rod is a meaningless option on these guns. I have yet to find someone that has ever shot more than a couple cylinders full of 357 Magnum in these guns.

    The 442 is cheaper and to be honest the sights are not that bad. My buddy has a 340PD (titanium cylinder) and even with the XS sights I find I like my 442 better, especially if you back up beyond 15 yards.

  10. #10
    Generally happy with the 340 as a BUG. 357 is overkill and painful, run Gold Dot 38 +p.

    Uncrimped range fodder can pull and bind cylinder, but not unique to this gun.

    Bought this over the others due to having a no lock option in stock when i needed a new J frame. The sights are worth it, though hard to swap between this and back to standard j without a bit of range time and dry fire to reorient.

    Largely though not carrying a j frame these days, as much as the niche has some utility the small bottom feeders are more freqently indicated.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •