Would be nice if I could buy a 642 setup like a 640 pro. Better yet, a 340 or 342.
Would be nice if I could buy a 642 setup like a 640 pro. Better yet, a 340 or 342.
Originally Posted by Bigghoss
Something like this: https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-642-0?
Last edited by Willard; 09-17-2017 at 08:29 AM.
Nope. I want the dovetailed sights, not the typical crappy snubby sights.
Take a look at M&P 340 Big Dot widened rear channel no lock. It's the best they have going right now if seeing sights are an issue. Scandium frame and Steel cylinder. I saw one earlier this week for just under 600 but they are gone now.
I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
The lunatics are running the asylum
I don't have trouble seeing the sights. I just want better ones. Smith and Ruger both have models with good dovetailed sights and it's time that became standard rather than a special model. Or at least way more common. I realize that that will add significant cost to the guns so I can see the current J-frames with mediocre sights carrying on for the value the represent.
I think I've read somewhere too, that the scandium frame's benefit vs the aluminum is that the pivot pin in the frame is stronger or more secure in the frame.
Very intriguing. I'd like to see something on that. Supports some of the posts I've seen on 442/642 breakage and appearance of frame on the scandiums vs aluminum (can see the pins vs can't), but have seen/read nothing substantive.
I did recently pick up a Pro and hope to get it to the range this week. So far, it seems pretty well executed. With some SLIP2000 and dry firing with snap caps, the action has improved dramatically. Overall, the gun seems well put together. No issue with canted barrel or other problems I've read about. Initially, it was rough to close on some cylinders. However, the gun seems to have worked that out of its system. Would prefer it wasn't MIM and had a pinned barrel, but I have older S&W J's with much worse timing/lock up, so I won't fault it until I have an actual functional reason. Hopefully, I won't. Will see how it shoots.
Last edited by Willard; 10-18-2017 at 07:00 PM.
Seeing the pins vs not isn’t a scandium difference. Pins you see are stainless steel. Pins you don’t see are aluminum. Don’t know whether the aluminum pins are scandium alloy, but in any case, they are used consistently on guns that sell for hundreds less than the ones with stainless pins.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
I think we are in agreement. Pins are visibly different. I'm not saying (despite how may my post may have appeared) that scandium is the difference in pin materials. I'm saying scandium framed guns have pins you can see (regardless of pin material). Aluminum frames have pins you cannot (regardless of pin material). Perhaps, that is in line with what you typed and the aluminum framed guns have aluminum pins, while the scandium framed guns have pins of some other material (steel, etc). Regardless, there is a difference in the pins of the scandium and aluminum framed guns. I know not what it is.
Scandium frames are aluminum with .1% to .5% scandium alloyed with aluminum. The decimal of .1% and .5% is .001 and .005 My point is that the amount of scandium is minute. Although this alloy is stronger than aluminum without the trace amount of scandium, I can't help but think that maybe the whole idea is a gimmick used by S&W. I say this because recent advances in "regular old metallurgy" have produced gun metal that will more than suffice for stresses imposed by ammo loaded to SAAMI specs. Let me add that S&W most likely knows what it's doing, and I have to admit that the scandium alloy is an extra measure of strength in a lightweight .44 Mag revolver.
Reply With Quote