Comparing Smith and Wesson 340PD and 642
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2024
- In this video we compare two lightweight carry revolvers. Both J Frame from Smith and Wesson.
The S&W 642 aluminum frame in 38 SPL +P vs the S&W 340PD Scandium frame in 357 magnum. A comparison of weights, length, width, etc. Then a compare and contrast of the two guns. Hope this helps you in your choice of the two guns. Both great carry options. Leave questions in the comments.
Bought a used 340PD with CT laser grips today and can’t believe how well this pistol shoots for being lightweight. I ran 20 rounds of 38SPL+P 130 grain and it shot great and very manageable recoil. Very happy with my purchase.
where is everyone finding these used? literally I get the craziest look by the guy behind the counter when I ask if they have any used 340pd for sale
I have both guns and love em. Shot J frames forever...
You have aftermarket grips on the 340PD that increases the weight by well over an ounce. The stock weight is around 11.4. I have the 360PD. Just to let you know the frame on the 340PD is alloy with just a trace of scandium. If that frame was pure scandium that revolver would cost over 100k. Scandium costs way more than gold by weight. Good review. Thanks for sharing!
Someone else told me that about scandium guns. After shooting it some with 357 magnums, I wonder if the stock rubber grips help cushion the blow.......
@@murphyfirearmstraining3630Unless the rubber grips cover the backstrap like Hogue grips the answer is no, that backstrap will slam into the web of your hand under magnum recoil. My no lock 340PD has the factory magna wood grips w/a grip adapter for max concealment, and it’s loaded w/110 grain +P for better control. It’s carried in a Blue Force pocket holster to keep the printing to a minimum.
@@oldcop18 it definitely does bite with magnums. I agree that the grips and ammo matter a lot with this gun.
I wore out my S&W Model 642 after just ~7,000 rounds. I really liked it though, I want basically the same gun, but one that will not beat itself to death with just standard 38Spl +P ammo... so this seems like the right choice. I want that 357 Mag added durability over a 642, however I still just plan to shoot 38Spl through it... even for concealed carry. My 642 cylinder arbor hole egged out so bad, it reached a point where the timing made the revolver unreliable. Bullets started tumbling, and I had failed primer strikes because the firing pin was hitting too far to the side rather than dead center. I noticed the 340 has a steel bushing in this location to prevent this specific type of wear. This revolver is very cool in that it should not only be more durable than the 642, but it's also even lighter than the 642.
Did you try to get S&W to fix it? I think the 340 will be more durable shooting 38 out of it for sure. I think S&W doesn't expect the typical user to every surpass 1,000 rounds with a gun like this. We are probably at 3,000 rounds of 38spl with ours, but it will be a while before we get that high in the round count.
@@murphyfirearmstraining3630 I don't think their warranty covers natural wear and tear such as that... I'll probably just scrap the frame, and sell off the individual parts. Between the slightly more durable scandium alloy frame, and steel bushing, I'm betting this one can be shot to my heart's content with 38Spl all day long and never wear out. That's exactly what I want, especially since I do get a bit attached to my carry guns. It's cool to be able to shoot the 357 Mag as well, but I really just want a durable 38Spl.
@murphyfirearmstraining3630 I got one today! I went with the M&P 340 because I like the slightly heavier steel cylinder, instead of the titanium cylinder. I read the titanium is more susceptible to erosion.
just picked up that 340PD, thank you for this video.
I have carried a 642 daily since 2010. Honestly I would like to see a full diameter barrel and an ounce heavier.
When the scandium revolvers first came out a gun store owner handed me one. It frankly didn't feel real
It is unreal how light it is for a 357 magnum.
Both great guns and very concealable. They do kick pretty hard when fired but nothing you can’t handle. ❤
The bullet weight is due to heavier bullets, dislodged into the forcing cone
340pd with original grips is only 11.4 ounces
Got this one used with G10 grips, just reporting what it weighs as outfitted. Were the original rubber?
@@murphyfirearmstraining3630 yes they are. I also have G10 from vz on my 360pd
@@KB1992NAI Me too. The VZ's only add one ounce. The Houges are much heavier.
I own several j frames and often carry a 442 with a crimson trace laser boot grip on it, my only complaint about them is the finish, it's beyond cheap.
You can see the wear on ours as well. Bit it is a great carry gun.
So Cal Deputy Sheriff here: Most of us carry a 642 or 442 as our backup as well as our off duty pistol. We use Speer Gold Dot 135 grain .38 spl +P.
Regarding the finish, I put my 642 in an ultrasonic cleaner. It completely took the clear coat right off; bare aluminum looks awesome. I don’t really care about the finish. Just shoot it and learn to do speed reloads and index the cylinder before each shot.
Been practicing with wheel guns all my life, my grandfather would make wax bullets for his revolvers so us boys could target practice in the alley behind his house in the River Quay, he was reading Bill Jordan literature to us nightly, to this day out of all the autoloaders I own I often more than not carry a model 66 smith or a model 15 combat masterpiece stoked with FBI load, I also keep gold dots in my J frames or Corbon dpx, thank you for your service and Merry Christmas.
My 360PD did not fit in one of my j-frame holsters due the larger outer diameter at the muzzle. I have an Airweight model 637 that fits it fine. I whittled out the part of holster that shrouds the barrel so the 360PD will fit. Its not a big issue since i now pocket carry it with a different type of holster.
I guess it varies from holster to holster, but it fit mine that I previously used for for a 642. Of course, that's why we all own dremel tools right.
I have a 386 Air Lite
beautiful firearms, but me personally , i would rather buy a 20 year old revolver than one with a locking mechanism ... i mean, i bought the ruger so that wasn't necessary, unless thats is what you were looking for ...
I agree. However, ruger doesn't make one this light, so it's a compromise. If you are looking for an all steel gun then ruger, kimber, colt, etc are all great options without a lock.
You can get the 642 without the key 642-1 the one with the lock 642-2
My 340 PD came without a lock. Most LEO's don't want the lock so now Smith makes some that way My gun store ordered mine with no lock and with a green fiber optic site This was like 5 years ago I just love this gun
That 340 with hot 357 loads has to be a reakl handful to shoot. My model 60 is all stainless and 22 ounces and with hot 357 loads most people I've let shoot it don't shoot it twice. I can handle it pretty well but a gun of about 1/2 its weight may be a bit much for me
Yes sir, it is "brisk" recoil. I will have a range video of it soon.
I put 5 magnum rounds through my 340PD & never did that again. It’s carried w/+P because fast & accurate follow up shots are a must in a fight.
I’m really considering getting the 360 but they’re so expensive. I’ve been carrying pistols for 20 years and weight definitely matters. When carrying these 2 pistols, can you tell the difference in weight? Thank you.
Honestly, no. I carry heavier guns 90%of the time, so both of these feel like nothing. I carry the 340 over the 642 because I like the grips better, that's the only reason.
I never shoot 38 spl in .357 I handload so I can make mild .357 loads
I handload as well, but my mild 357's are still over 38special pressures. Does keep you from having the carbon ring though.
@@murphyfirearmstraining3630 exactly.. There are some .357 mild loads with cast bullets that are pretty mild. most likely in the 38 spl +P pressure range.