340 vs 442/642

[jslaughter]

This is a Great thread! I have a 638 with over 2k through it. I love this gun, but it has a lock (yuck). I'm looking for a 340, 442/642 for better concealment, no lock for pocket carry.

[NickA]

Based on a perusal of recent threads and what people have been buying, looks like the good 'ol J-frame is the current "PF hotness" 😁 All we're missing is a J-frame grip thread, I think.
Anxiously waiting to see if this is awesome or if it creates a singularity that kills us all in da streetz.

Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk

[JJN]

For the more budget minded, check out the 360J. Lots of great features if you don't mind the hammer. https://www.slickguns.com/search/apa...rms_wikiarms=0

[Hauptmann]

Based on a perusal of recent threads and what people have been buying, looks like the good 'ol J-frame is the current "PF hotness" �� All we're missing is a J-frame grip thread, I think.
Anxiously waiting to see if this is awesome or if it creates a singularity that kills us all in da streetz.

Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk

I think J-frames are perfectly fine for civilian personal defense away from home(hopefully won't have to shoot enough to reload) provided that you shoot it well. Personally, I do not shoot hammerless DAO airweights well, and I would rather go with something that I can shoot accurately out to 25yrds. I think it is especially critical that you be able to very accurately shoot the pistol well considering the low capacity, and difficulty in reloading a revolver. So, the smallest I am willing to go is my classic S&W model 60 all stainless .38spl. It has just enough weight to keep the recoil down so that I keep the gun steady even under stress, and it of course has the exposed hammer so that I can go into SA mode. Shooting bowling pins at 35yrds is no problem with this pistol.

[NickA]

I think J-frames are perfectly fine for civilian personal defense away from home(hopefully won't have to shoot enough to reload) provided that you shoot it well. Personally, I do not shoot hammerless DAO airweights well, and I would rather go with something that I can shoot accurately out to 25yrds. I think it is especially critical that you be able to very accurately shoot the pistol well considering the low capacity, and difficulty in reloading a revolver. So, the smallest I am willing to go is my classic S&W model 60 all stainless .38spl. It has just enough weight to keep the recoil down so that I keep the gun steady even under stress, and it of course has the exposed hammer so that I can go into SA mode. Shooting bowling pins at 35yrds is no problem with this pistol.

Totally agree. I've had a 642 for several years but have barely shot it, and almost never carry it because I know how hard it is to shoot well.
That said, all this talk has me planning to break it out and at least do some dry fire.
Being a hard pistol to master (or at least be competent with), working with it should boost skill overall, I'd think.

[Dagga Boy]

I think J-frames are perfectly fine for civilian personal defense away from home(hopefully won't have to shoot enough to reload) provided that you shoot it well. Personally, I do not shoot hammerless DAO airweights well, and I would rather go with something that I can shoot accurately out to 25yrds. I think it is especially critical that you be able to very accurately shoot the pistol well considering the low capacity, and difficulty in reloading a revolver. So, the smallest I am willing to go is my classic S&W model 60 all stainless .38spl. It has just enough weight to keep the recoil down so that I keep the gun steady even under stress, and it of course has the exposed hammer so that I can go into SA mode. Shooting bowling pins at 35yrds is no problem with this pistol.

For the "it is my only gun, single snub carry", the all steel guns make sense. It sort of is the case for things like the 640 PRO. Works really well entangled and if you have to shoot it they are more "real" gun like. For a majority of folks CCW needs balanced with risk, it is not a horrible choice, especially for "non dedicated" users. By the same token, "uber-dedicated" snub devotees who live a snub lifestyle and train with the "one gun" mentality on them, I have seen a few folks do some amazing stuff with them.

[UpDok]

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?

I don't think it has been mentioned yet in the thread but I think the hammer & trigger pivots were "missed"

It may be a small practical point, but the 340/340PD series has steel hammer and trigger pivots pressed into the scandium/aluminum alloy frame, while the 442/642 series has integral aluminum hammer & trigger pivots that are one piece with the aluminum alloy frame. The 340 is made of higher cost materials and is stronger and lighter weight. the 442/642 is cheaper, heavier, and not as strong.

I own both a 642 and a 340SC. I carry the 340SC more because it is lighter weight.

[OlongJohnson]

That's a huge deal for a mechanical engineer, thanks for posting!

[Willard]

I don't think it has been mentioned yet in the thread but I think the hammer & trigger pivots were "missed"

It may be a small practical point, but the 340/340PD series has steel hammer and trigger pivots pressed into the scandium/aluminum alloy frame, while the 442/642 series has integral aluminum hammer & trigger pivots that are one piece with the aluminum alloy frame. The 340 is made of higher cost materials and is stronger and lighter weight. the 442/642 is cheaper, heavier, and not as strong.

I own both a 642 and a 340SC. I carry the 340SC more because it is lighter weight.

I haven't dug into the guts of my 442, so not arguing the point, but post 29 in this thread states the pins in the 442/642/etc are steel. If you're correct, that could well explain the failure and his initial assumptions regarding same. Would be interesting to know for sure.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-failure/page3

[Imaposer2]

I don't think it has been mentioned yet in the thread but I think the hammer & trigger pivots were "missed"

It may be a small practical point, but the 340/340PD series has steel hammer and trigger pivots pressed into the scandium/aluminum alloy frame, while the 442/642 series has integral aluminum hammer & trigger pivots that are one piece with the aluminum alloy frame. The 340 is made of higher cost materials and is stronger and lighter weight. the 442/642 is cheaper, heavier, and not as strong.

I own both a 642 and a 340SC. I carry the 340SC more because it is lighter weight.

Interesting, although I'm not sure how much difference it makes in practical terms if only using the gun with .38 Special as most will do, as opposed to the .357 it was beefed up to handle ...

Just out of curiosity, would you happen to know the weight difference between the 642 and the 340?

I remember back in the day when S&W first introduced the Scandium .357 revolvers, and they were all the rage in the local market, and commanded the prices to show for it, I handled a few at various gun shows. While, side by side comparisons did show a difference in weight, I couldn't justify the price difference for what amounted to such a small difference. And since I knew I wouldn't be using .357 in a gun that light anyway... Well, I don't have a Scandium S&W. I guess I'm an oddball because in my normal J frame carry methods I really can't tell much difference between my 640 and my 638. Sure, holding one in each hand I can tell a noticeable difference, but I can wear either all day pretty much just as easily and quickly forget they're there. And the 640 is easier to shoot to me. Of course, I don't pocket or ankle carry, and I can see that a few ounces would make a difference in either of those modes. But my J frames are normally either in a Smartcarry or IWB/AIWB and in those locations I can't really feel much difference.