Which J-frame?

[El Cid]

I bought an M&P 340 several years ago and loved it for pocket BUG use. At the time the no-lock version wasn't an option. I did have an issue during dry fire where the trigger started binding and got VERY heavy. It was never modified and after a thorough cleaning the trigger returned to normal. It's been replaced for pocket duty by a G43 - the snub stays in the safe most of the time now.

I still like the idea of having a snub in the event I need one. What I'd like to do this year is get another snub but without the lock this time. I figured I'd keep the current 340 to use as a training gun. My question is about the Performance Center Pro 640. Yes it's heavier (good for shooting - bad for carry) but the bbl is a smidge longer and it has real sights. Is there anything else I'm missing?

I'm very limited on my wheel gun knowledge. Is there anything I should consider between these two? Thanks!

https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearm...ries-model-640

vs.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearm...-internal-lock

[Screwball]

Out of the two you linked... 640 is also cut for moonclips.

How are you going to carry it? If how you originally planned (pocket), I’d go with the lighter gun with the shorter barrel.

Even if not cut for moonclips, it is a nice package. Pop in the Apex Duty/Carry kit, and you get a nice pull with an extended firing pin. If you want to get creative, send the cylinder out to TK or Pinnacle, and convert to 9mm. [emoji41]

Mine was a 642-1, which is there no-lock version. Picked it up back when the first runs of no-locks came out, and very happy with it. Redid it in NP3 Plus, but also have a 9mm cylinder... so sort of a convertible between it and .38.



I personally recommend the internal hammer over exposed or shrouded. Just more compact and easier to carry in deeper places. I also prefer the shorter barrel, as it makes pocket and other non-belt methods a little easier. Unsure what are to your requirements, but if you do go with a titanium cylinder, the loaded weights come out to about the empty weights of a similar revolver with steel cylinder. Drawback being you need to be careful with maintenance.

[GJM]

I personally recommend the internal hammer over exposed or shrouded. Just more compact and easier to carry in deeper places. I also prefer the shorter barrel, as it makes pocket and other non-belt methods a little easier. Unsure what are to your requirements, but if you do go with a titanium cylinder, the loaded weights come out to about the empty weights of a similar revolver with steel cylinder. Drawback being you need to be careful with maintenance.

What is this maintenance that you refer to? I blow the lint off my 337, and plan to run a bore snake through it soon. What else are folks doing to a J that is carried a lot and shot infrequently? I know you are not supposed to hit the Ti cylinder with anything abrasive.

[Screwball]

What is this maintenance that you refer to? I blow the lint off my 337, and plan to run a bore snake through it soon. What else are folks doing to a J that is carried a lot and shot infrequently? I know you are not supposed to hit the Ti cylinder with anything abrasive.

Last sentence is exactly what I was talking about... but being neither of the guns he was looking at had one, just left it noted instead of going into it.

Other thing is that it isn’t recommended to shoot Magnums with bullets under 120 grains due to erosion. I personally wouldn’t be shooting 110 grain .357s, but if it were something that someone was interested in... not the gun for them.

Weight difference between the titanium cylinder and steel cylinder is nice, but preferred to get to 9mm over the weight savings (before I looked at the conversion, did look at titanium cylinders for the weight saving... plus I like trying different things). But I also feel that an Airweight is light enough... mileage may vary.

[GJM]

Last sentence is exactly what I was talking about... but being neither of the guns he was looking at had one, just left it noted instead of going into it.

Other thing is that it isn’t recommended to shoot Magnums with bullets under 120 grains due to erosion. I personally wouldn’t be shooting 110 grain .357s, but if it were something that someone was interested in... not the gun for them.

Weight difference between the titanium cylinder and steel cylinder is nice, but preferred to get to 9mm over the weight savings (before I looked at the conversion, did look at titanium cylinders for the weight saving... plus I like trying different things). But I also feel that an Airweight is light enough... mileage may vary.

I notice the weight difference enough between my 337 and a Bowen tuned and sighted 340, that I carry the 337. With Winchester wadcutters it is pleasant to shoot, and hits an eight inch at 30 yards on demand.

[OlongJohnson]

I like the enclosed hammers myself, recently picked up an M&P 340 no lock, but 337 if you're into that.

I also kinda dig the 3" model with real sights for a "kit gun," although I have zero experience with one.

[Willard]

Been down this road. At the end of the day, for me, the price differential between the no-lock 442 (well under $400) and the M&P 340 or 340PD (can be up to 2X tariff), combined with the lack of any substantial benefits beyond a slightly lighter weight makes it a no brainer. In my mind, beyond the 442, it is the point of diminishing returns, unless you have extra money you don't like having around.

WRT 640 Pro, I have one and I couldn't even successfully load all 5 rounds into any of the moon clips that came with the gun without mangling them so badly they wouldn't function and were trash can ready. So, for me, moon clips are no advantage. It obviously has better sights, would stand up to a longer regiment of shooting, but is too heavy for pocket carry, and if you're going to belt carry, why not go with something with more capability? I'm keeping it because I'd lose money on a sale, but if I did it over, I'd just get 2 442s instead for slightly more.

For me, the 442 no-lock hits the sweet spot and is really hard for the other models to beat.

Finally, I prefer the one-piece barrel of 442 over two-piece of 340. YMMV.

[Edster]

Out of the two you linked... 640 is also cut for moonclips.

How are you going to carry it? If how you originally planned (pocket), I’d go with the lighter gun with the shorter barrel.

Even if not cut for moonclips, it is a nice package. Pop in the Apex Duty/Carry kit, and you get a nice pull with an extended firing pin. If you want to get creative, send the cylinder out to TK or Pinnacle, and convert to 9mm. [emoji41]

Mine was a 642-1, which is there no-lock version. Picked it up back when the first runs of no-locks came out, and very happy with it. Redid it in NP3 Plus, but also have a 9mm cylinder... so sort of a convertible between it and .38.



I personally recommend the internal hammer over exposed or shrouded. Just more compact and easier to carry in deeper places. I also prefer the shorter barrel, as it makes pocket and other non-belt methods a little easier. Unsure what are to your requirements, but if you do go with a titanium cylinder, the loaded weights come out to about the empty weights of a similar revolver with steel cylinder. Drawback being you need to be careful with maintenance.

This may be a bit of a tangent but could you explain having both the Lasermax and Crimson Trace on one gun?

And how do you like the Lasermax?

Edit: D'oh. A few minutes of research and it seems the Lasermax might be a white light. I assumed it was another laser. My bad.

[Sigfan26]

I REALLY like my 340PD. Not from a shooting perspective (from that perspective. It sucks. It’s uncomfortable, has horrible sights, a shitty factory trigger, and I’m just happy to be able to hit a silhouette target at 25 yards). I really like it from the perspective that I have NO reason to be unarmed (outside of metal detectors and pat downs) since I own it. My previous 642s and 442s were nice, but noticeable (as far as weight) in my pocket. The 340PD is almost unnoticeable. I wish I could find a decent price on a 342PD (10% lighter). For a symbolic gun (the type that sits in a desk drawer in a study) I could justify an all steel J Frame (lord knows they are easier to shoot). I just don’t live the J Frame lifestyle to justify one for primary carry (and there is NOTHING wrong with the J Frame Lifestyle. I just tend to feel more secure in social environments with an auto and a couple extra mags)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

Duplicate