Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 138

Thread: 340 vs 442/642

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by mkmckinley View Post
    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.
    I'm with you 110%. The Ti-Scan Js are simply better done than the current plain-vanilla 642s/36s/whatever. Their problem is because they ARE so light weight they are simply painful- very painful- to shoot. That, and the communist lock, of course. I bought this 360PD with the lock in 2002. I have carried it almost every day since then. For the first few years, I shot it a lot too. Several thousand rounds; 15 full-patch .357s, the rest wadcutters or semi-wadcutter bullets; had it fail me once, because I had improperly de-activated the lock; fixed that with The Plug, and haven't looked back.

    By whacking off the hammer spur, this piece actually "hides" a bit better in trouser pockets, because the Centennial-copy 340 frame is larger due to its covering the elliptical hammer in the Centennial Js.

    The thing is, if you DO have to fire these little hogs for real, the pain/etc. ain't gonna be that bad... you'll be too worried/scared/whatever. Which is why I, and a lot of other folks, practice with an all-steel J frame; the one I use is a first-edition M-640, purchased in the early 90s.

    This 360PD hasn't been shot in years... but I guarantee you it will, right now, if it must.
    Attached Images Attached Images     

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post


    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.



    I have had my 442 since 2000. Having played with the .357 versions in the past, I have absolutely ZERO desire to ever shoot a full house .357 through an Airweight J Frame ever again. I shoot a fair amount of .44 magnums and consider the recoil of the .357s in J Frames to be far worse.

    The single biggest factor in improving performance of the J Frames in my observation/experience is the addition of CT laser grips. The substantial performance increase in accurate shooting is very hard to ignore, as well as having the ability to make hits in less than optimal lighting conditions.

    Frankly I consider the CT grips to be pretty much mandatory on J Frames used for personal defense.

  3. #13
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    I don't see the point of buying a 357 revolver to be a ballistic one. I see the advantage being the longer ejector rod, and thus more reliable ejection. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet.

    With that said, the way I would approach this is based on what you're hoping to get out of the gun:

    How much will you train with it? Given that, will the better sights of 340 not make a difference? If your capabilities will negate it to being a belly gun, the better sights are a wasted expense.

    Will you be carrying reloads? Is this something you hope to accomplish in a fight, or are you carrying a speed strip for purposes of post-fight topping off? If the latter, then the longer ejector rod of the 340 is a wasted expense...

    Do you frequently travel with the gun sans ammo and need to pick up a box of ammo at your destination? If not, the greater ammo selection of the 340 is a wasted expense....

    Consider a j-frame class as part of the purchase cost. If you bought a 340 can you still get yourself into a class with DeBethencourt or the likes? If not, buy the 442/642 and go to a snub class, as opposed to buying the 340 and not buying a class...

    Are you going to run Crimson Trace grips regardless of whichever gun you buy? If so, the better sights on the 340 are a wasted expense....
    Last edited by TGS; 09-05-2016 at 12:40 PM.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Hambo View Post
    For that difference you could mill the front sight and add an XS and still have ammo money left over.
    I have the Big Dot on my 638:
    Name:  XSon638.jpg
Views: 1734
Size:  18.2 KB
    A friend milled it for me but if I do another one I will probably just file it, it really is a simple objective and to mill it the clamping is not really straight forward. I had to clean it up with a file anyway, and stippled it to cover the marks. The main drawback is that it is glued on, and when it depletes getting it off without busting the vial might be iffy.

  5. #15
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    E. Wash.
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    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 ?
    You can get the no-lock 340PD still. I've posted this before -- this is who I got mine from.
    http://www.gunsinternational.com/gun...n_id=100576692

    For me, I got the 340 pd because I thought it would carry easier in a pair of dress slacks pockets, vs. the heavier 340 M&P (which I didn't try), or the 442/642, which I had. It is a carried-a lot, shot-a -little gun, but I usually get 10-rounds or so through it every month or so. I think if you're looking to pocket carry in heavier trousers or belt carry, the 442 is fine, at least to start with. It was an LCP replacement for me.

    I think if you get a 340 pd you should get either a steel or aluminum j-frame, too, to practice with.
    Last edited by idahojess; 09-05-2016 at 01:55 PM.

  6. #16
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Quote Originally Posted by idahojess View Post
    You can get the no-lock 340PD still. I've posted this before -- this is who I got mine from.
    http://www.gunsinternational.com/gun...n_id=100576692

    For me, I got the 340 pd because I thought it would carry easier in a pair of dress slacks pockets, vs. the heavier 340 M&P (which I didn't try), or the 442/642, which I had. It is a carried-a lot, shot-a -little gun, but I usually get 10-rounds or so through it every month or so. I think if you're looking to pocket carry in heavier trousers or belt carry, the 442 is fine, at least to start with. It was an LCP replacement for me.

    I think if you get a 340 pd you should get either a steel or aluminum j-frame, too, to practice with.
    D&L Hunting is a good dealer. I've gotten a nice deal on a hard-to-find item from them before.

    Sounds like it would be a decent plan to pick up a 640, get some trigger time and training, and if it's working for me, get something lighter to carry and keep fresh with the 640.

  7. #17
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    The Keystone State
    Quote Originally Posted by LSP972 View Post
    I'm with you 110%. The Ti-Scan Js are simply better done than the current plain-vanilla 642s/36s/whatever. Their problem is because they ARE so light weight they are simply painful- very painful- to shoot. That, and the communist lock, of course. I bought this 360PD with the lock in 2002. I have carried it almost every day since then. For the first few years, I shot it a lot too. Several thousand rounds; 15 full-patch .357s, the rest wadcutters or semi-wadcutter bullets; had it fail me once, because I had improperly de-activated the lock; fixed that with The Plug, and haven't looked back.

    By whacking off the hammer spur, this piece actually "hides" a bit better in trouser pockets, because the Centennial-copy 340 frame is larger due to its covering the elliptical hammer in the Centennial Js.

    The thing is, if you DO have to fire these little hogs for real, the pain/etc. ain't gonna be that bad... you'll be too worried/scared/whatever. Which is why I, and a lot of other folks, practice with an all-steel J frame; the one I use is a first-edition M-640, purchased in the early 90s.

    This 360PD hasn't been shot in years... but I guarantee you it will, right now, if it must.


    LSP - on the one hand, I really appreciate all the info you and everyone else has been providing on this thread. HOWEVER, I thought I'd be able to make an informed decision easily, but it just keeps getting harder. I will only be buying ONE j-frame, ever. I will be using it for MOSTLY bug duty, but I suspect it will also become #1 more as I get older (I'm 68 now) and begin to appreciate it more. A very good buddy, retired LEO, is lobbying - hard - to get me to buy the M & P 340 over the 642. When I stand there in his store and do the dry fire comparisons, the 340 is a clear winner, in MY honest opinion. The sights are waaay better and the trigger feels like a pro job. The 'other' two things are the ability to shoot .357 (which I like) and, damn it - it just LOOKS better. So many guys tell me the triigger on the 642 does get better and the sights can be "enhanced," which is true. May I ask for your opinion?

    Thanks - much appreciated!

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by 11B10 View Post
    LSP - on the one hand, I really appreciate all the info you and everyone else has been providing on this thread. HOWEVER, I thought I'd be able to make an informed decision easily, but it just keeps getting harder. I will only be buying ONE j-frame, ever. I will be using it for MOSTLY bug duty, but I suspect it will also become #1 more as I get older (I'm 68 now) and begin to appreciate it more. A very good buddy, retired LEO, is lobbying - hard - to get me to buy the M & P 340 over the 642. When I stand there in his store and do the dry fire comparisons, the 340 is a clear winner, in MY honest opinion. The sights are waaay better and the trigger feels like a pro job. The 'other' two things are the ability to shoot .357 (which I like) and, damn it - it just LOOKS better. So many guys tell me the triigger on the 642 does get better and the sights can be "enhanced," which is true. May I ask for your opinion?

    Thanks - much appreciated!
    Not LSP, but I am a total convert to the M&P340 as "The J frame". Wayne and I are both using them extensively for back up and discrete carry. Both have APEX kits and no locks. I am using Mike's boot grips for carry and I have a set of real Spegel wood boot grips if I want it to look good. It is really the state of the art snub in my mind with its sights, materials, construction, etc. Do I like shooting it a lot...no. It is the bottom end of light and I have 640's as trainers if I want to shoot a bunch. I think they are just very "capable" while in the lightest, smallest package I would every use.
    Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
    "If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    I don't see the point of buying a 357 revolver to be a ballistic one. I see the advantage being the longer ejector rod, and thus more reliable ejection. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet.

    .
    It hasn't been mentioned because it doesn't occur until the barrel becomes three inches long. The Ti-Scan/ M&P snubbies still have 1 7/8 inch barrels , even in the .357 caliber versions.

    The better sights are NOT a wasted expense to some of us... regardless of whether you use it as a "bellygun" or a Wimbledon competitor.

    Other parts of your post are pretty well correct... but why diss the guy's choice? I have almost a dozen J frames; most of which are pre-95 examples, two of which were built in the 60s. I carry the Ti-Scan... because of the less weight.

    Something wrong with that, too?

    BTW, not trying to beef you here, because I really don't give a shit what anybody else thinks about me or mine. But you were kinda-sorta telling that fellow he was being dumb- at least, it appeared that way to me- and I don't think he was. If that wasn't your intention, then I apologize.

    .

  10. #20
    Add me to the list of folks who shot 5 rounds of magnum through mine and felt the bruise forming on my trigger finger (from the guard striking it) after the first shot. Carry ammo was either 135gr Gold Dots or 110gr Corbon DPX.

    I used it only as a second gun to my Glock or a primary when lounging around the house in shorts and a t-shirt. I bought my 340 before the no-lock versions were available and that was my only regret. It's now hanging out in the safe though because I discovered my G43 to be basically the same size. The 340 may see use as a jacket pocket gun during winter but for all other pants/shorts pocket duty the G43 does what I need with 9 rounds of 9mm and a light/laser.

    To give an idea of size comparison (this is w/o the TLR-6 and +2 mag)
    Last edited by El Cid; 09-05-2016 at 08:09 PM.

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
  •