Why doesnt S&W offer Aiweight J-frames with a Ti cyl.? It would cut 2 ozs. I believe? I want to put a Ti Cyl. in my 442, but figured I would ask the question before I did it.

they do, 342, 337.

I can only offer my own rude thoughts on this matter. I think they don’t because they couldn’t justify enough of a mark up. This is the same reason they won’t make a simple version of a J in .327 Federal Magnum. It has to be all fancy pants or they can’t yank us for max pricing. I would love to see a plain jane 640 in a six shot .327 mag but I don’t see it happening.

And I thought the 342 was another Scandium frame???

They are Expensive Scandium.... 442 is just cheap alloy.
With the 442s going for $389 now, whats another $25-$50 or so for a Ti cyl.?
I was just wondering if the Ti cyl. doesn't mate well with the cheaper alloy? (maybe the extra vibration of the Ti Cyl. could cause the alloy frame to crack)? Just a thought....

Airlite Ti.

__________________
NRA - All Day

Carry one every day . . . . .

Correction, they did. The PD and Ti guns with titanium cyls haven't been made in years.

__________________
Don't kiss smiling dogs!

.............anyone??

I see no reason whatsoever one cannot swap out a Ti cylinder for a steel one. Brownells used to have them for around $75. I wanted to buy a 638 put in a Ti cylinder and remove the lock. But and here's the BIG but. the cylinders available are chambered for .357 not .38. The thought of accidentially putting a .357 in a revolver not originally rated for it (al la a 638) scares the snot out of me-so I put that idea on the back burner. Plus I already have a 337.
Maybe I'll buy a 638 and put my 337 cylinder in that.............-naw got too much other stuff to buy.

__________________
Forum consigliere

The Ti/Al guns were fine from every perspective except one: they were expensive .38 +P guns and there were greater sales to be made putting the Ti cylinders into magnum revolvers once S&W figured out how to use scandium alloy for the frames of those guns. The 442 and 642 (and similar) stayed because they had a very different price point and market segment.

Personally, I'd rather have the 342 than the 360, and I do have several of them.

Well we know the alloy frames crack, but would it be more likely to crack with the additional vibration, of the Ti cylinder?
Thats the question, I really want answered.

My 386sc has a titanium cylinder which they later went to SS. To be honest it is a pita to clean and I wouldn't have minded the few extra ounces of the heavier cylinder...and that is on an L frame.

__________________
NRA Certified Instructor

The 342Ti Airlite was introduced in either 1998 or 1999, I don't remember which. I bought one of the first ones and have been carrying it 16/7/52 since then. It's been fired plenty, mostly with +P loads. It has never had any problems. But if you look for more data, and search here and other likely places, you will find that failures with the .38Sp and .44Sp Airlites are virtually nonexistent. That is not true, btw, with the .357Mag and .44Mag versions.

You guys are not reading what I am writing. I want to put a Ti. cyl. in a 442 which has an alloy frame (Not Scandium)!
The alloy cracks easier than Scandium. Do you think that is why they never put a Ti cyl. in the 442 alloy frame?

You are not reading the responses

Smith & Wesson DID put a Ti Cylinder in a 442/642 frame......it is called the 342.

342 Frames are not Sc alloy, they are identical to the 442/642 frames(of the smae day) in metallurgy.

__________________
NRA - All Day

colt_saa is correct--a revolver with an aluminum-alloy frame and a titanium cylinder did exist, but it was called the AirLite Ti.

S&W used the term Airweight only for revolvers with aluminum-alloy frames and steel cylinders (carbon or stainless), like the 37, 637, 38, 638, 442, 642, etc. They later introduced models like the 337, 342, etc., with aluminum-alloy frames and titanium cylinders, and called them AirLite Ti. Finally, they introduced models like the 340 with an aluminum/scandium-alloy frame and titanium cylinder, and called that the AirLite Sc.

I thought all the 3XX Airlite series revolvers were scandium frames. They started out with the picture of the atom on the side and were a similar but different shade of light gray than the regular aluminum alloy frames for the 6XX Airweight frames. Personally I don’t see why you couldn’t put a titanium cylinder on a regular aluminum alloy frame. The new Airweights are all +P rated so the minor weight change in the cylinder shouldn’t do anything as long as you stick with .38’s. I would hesitate to run .38 +P through it only because that is getting to be a handful of recoil in a now even lighter gun. And I don’t think you are talking about running the volume of ammunition through it that it would take to start wearing it out. Lastly, I’m not sure you would really feel the minor weight difference as you carry it. I would try a lighter weight grip and or trying 110 grain ammo before going all mad scientist with a J.

Well I learned something today..... I always thought the 342 was a Scandium frame.................DUH.........Sorry!

No, my friend, you are not reading what we are writing.

The Ti cylinders were put into alloy J frames. The 4442 frame is identical to the 642 frame which was identical to the 342Ti frame. S&W did "put a Ti cyl. in the 442 alloy frame" - it was called the 342. We assume you are talking about a .38Sp titanium cylinder. Be advised that this is gunsmith work.

Hopefully we've cleared up misunderstandings on the first point.

The appearance was different due to different finishes on the underlying aluminum alloy.

The 342 and its exposed hammer sibling, the 337, were all +P rated. You are correct that the recoil impulse from one of these guns, with +P ammo, is very sharp but very short in time duration.

That's pretty funny...I posted my response without getting to yours...

I bought a Ti Cylinder from Midway. It’s a 357 Titanium Cylinder…I used the original ratchet. Cut over 2 oz off weight. Performs flawlessly.

To my mind the 342PD is the bomb - all the good and none of the bad. I also have a 296 44 spl that weighs less than a 2” M60.

Attached Images

B5369131-36D2-48B9-A323-8F978AAF6823.jpg (130.5 KB, 51 views)

__________________
213th FBINA

You can always do it yourself. Titanium cylinder and center pin in an aluminum Airweight 637-2. I've converted three of them to 9x19mm.
12.5 ounces. Kicks like a mule.

Attached Images

20210309_095610.jpg (96.2 KB, 46 views)

Don’t think allglock needs any advice nowadays.

__________________
Sure you did

I think you're right.

I enjoyed you resurrecting this old thread enough that I have a new 442 and Ti cylinder inbound. Have a cylinder install video you'd recommend?

DGRenzi is a single poster that hasn't been back. Anyone recommend a helpful cylinder install guide they used??

It's so simple thar it doesn't require a guide.
Remove the yoke screw.
Drop the yoke assembly out.
Remove the centerpin and star from the titanium cylinder (remember - left hand thread)
Do the same for the original cylinder.
Swap the centerpin/star assemblies.
Reinstall the yoke assembly and yoke screw.
You're done.
Takes about 5 minutes.

And you now have a .38 rated revolver that will chamber and fire 357 magnums.
No Thanks.

__________________
Forum consigliere

"And you now have a .38 rated revolver that will chamber and fire 357 magnums.
No Thanks".

I've got three of them. Solution is simple - don't put .357 magnum cartridges in them.

A search should pull up my old (maybe 2011 or so) post about installing a titanium cylinder in a 442. Worked very well. Still have and occasionally carry the revolver. I will try to find a link.

[PICS] Titanium cylinder on 442


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Six of them on three Airweight 637-2 J-frames.

Attached Images

2018-10-10 12.46.51.jpg (70.3 KB, 10 views)

It's labeled 38 Special, I would never sell it that way, and I don't put 357 in 357's...so I'm not real worried.

Got a hold at my FFL today. So my new 442 and a 1975 M36 must sit until Saturday. But my Ti cylinder awaits!

Was thinking I'd get the original 442 Cylinder cut for 9mm moon clips. Is that possible? I think so since my gunsmith showed me his converted j-frame. But can an Air-weight shoot 9mm safely?

I don't know why that's something you're worried about. Its a .357 cylinder, it will contain a .357. Worst thing that might happen is shooting the gun out of time after a while or flame cutting the top strap.

People have converted Airweights to 9mm and .38 Super by just reaming the cylinder of a standard .38 and I've never heard of anything happening other than sticky ejection and hands sore from stout recoil. If a .38 Airweight can handle a steady diet of 9mm and 38,500 PSI 9mm +P a few. 357's aren't doing diddly squat.

I installed one of those Ti cylinders on my 642, makes for a great carry gun. My 342 has a Ti cylinder too.

Attached Images

IMG_20211012_203448879.jpg (97.2 KB, 20 views)

"But can an Air-weight shoot 9mm safely?"

I've got three of them that do.

Lazarus, always nice to see a Heinlein fan.

Well, my "forum matching 442ti" is ready for range day. Swap went really smooth.
Have to thank my Wife for peeking into my Amazon wish list a few years back. Wheeler files, Grace screwdrivers, gunsmith hammer, roll pin and regular punches, padded vice jaws, bench mat...she bought it all! Smart idea for Christmas. Now for some pics.

Ti

OEM

Ti

OEM

Attached Images

	442 Ti Cylinder.jpg (139.9 KB, 86 views)
	442 Stock.jpg (138.9 KB, 83 views)
	442 Ti Cylinder weight.jpg (142.6 KB, 82 views)
	442 Cylinder OEM.jpg (145.4 KB, 82 views)