Scandium

[yashua-p]

Folks, just why did this material fall out of favor? Several years ago it was all the rage and I bought two, the 386PD and the 329PD. I think that they are great. Were there undue problems with them? Just curious. There are only a handful in the catalog now. What happened?

regards

yashua

[Kanewpadle]

Originally Posted by yashua-p

Folks, just why did this material fall out of favor? Several years ago it was all the rage and I bought two, the 386PD and the 329PD. I think that they are great. Were there undue problems with them? Just curious. There are only a handful in the catalog now. What happened?

regards

yashua

Probably the cost. In the case of the 340PD, who wants to spend over $800 on a lightweight five shot revolver that hurts like hell to shoot?

[Chuck24]

Maybe now people are just calling them what they really are, Aluminum. The scandium is only present in trace amounts as a stabilizing agent in the metallurgic structure of the aluminum.

[DWalt]

My feeling is much like #2. Too expensive, too much recoil.

[yashua-p]

Originally Posted by DWalt

My feeling is much like #2. Too expensive, too much recoil.

Price wise, I must have bought at the right time and even the 329pd I shoot it with the beautiful wood grips. Recoil does not seem excessive on either. The 386pd seems to be the perfect balance between capacity and power. I am an old fart with neuropathy in my hands and don't care for excessive recoil but it just doesn't seem to be a problem with either revolver. They are easy to carry with not too much bulk to annoy and the weight isn't objectionable. I am really sorry that they are fewer in number in the catalog. I really thought they were the future for Smith. Early information indicated that the scandium was present only in trace but to me the whole line was a winner. I would like to see a revival in the product line but I am only a customer, not a bean counter. As for the 340, It did seem to be entirely too light. I did have a 642 that I gave to my daughter that was moving to SE Atlanta. That one I have considered replacing but with the 386pd and a M36 I haven't found the need as of yet.

regards

yashua

[regalsc]

Originally Posted by Chuck24

Maybe now people are just calling them what they really are, Aluminum. The scandium is only present in trace amounts as a stabilizing agent in the metallurgic structure of the aluminum.

I looked up scandium & when a small amount is combined with aluminum it increases the strength exponentially. I have 3 models all discontinued but they still make some revolvers & 1911's using scandium.

[Beemerguy53]

I can think of no greater deterrent to learning how to shoot well, than a lightweight revolver chambered for a serious cartridge.

Many years ago, I bought one of the first Model 640 revolvers chambered in .357 Magnum. I fired exactly 60 rounds through it at the range, cleaned it and sold it....and it was stainless steel. I wouldn't even consider owning a Scandium-framed piece...

[kpap]

My first 1911 I bought was a Sw 1911pd 4.25 barrel it is a great feeling gun, and just fun to shoot. I will never part ways with it. My wife bought it for me....

[OLDSTER]

I own the 360 ( scandium and 13+ ounces ) and love it. Granted it is not a .357, but a .38+P. I shoot it quite a bit, and shooting a box of .38 plinkers and a dozen Hornady Critical Defense once ( sometimes twice) a month is no problem. It's my favorite snub nosed ( I also own the 442, 60, and SP101 ). I do agree with the obvious; shooting .357 out of any light weight small revolver is not pleasant, but they are not intended to be "range guns"

[JcMack]

I think that in order to be labeled Scandium the gun needs to contain at least 3% of that material in the alloy. Some gun manufacturers were working on a lighter alloy called "Floatinium". The idea was abandoned as a string had to be tied to the trigger guard to keep the gun from floating away.
The weight savings on the scandium J frames just doesn't justify the almost twice the price of a standard alloy similar model.

[OLDSTER]

Originally Posted by JcMack

I think that in order to be labeled Scandium the gun needs to contain at least 3% of that material in the alloy. Some gun manufacturers were working on a lighter alloy called "Floatinium". The idea was abandoned as a string had to be tied to the trigger guard to keep the gun from floating away.
The weight savings on the scandium J frames just doesn't justify the almost twice the price of a standard alloy similar model.

You are correct re; the price of the 340 series with the titanium cylinder. However, the 360 scandium series with the SS steel cylinder was, when I bought mine, about the same prices as a 637 or 642

[kthom]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

I can think of no great deterrent to learning how to shoot well, than a lightweight revolver chambered for a serious cartridge.

Many years ago, I bought one of the first Model 640 revolvers chambered in .357 Magnum. I fired exactly 60 rounds through it at the range, cleaned it and sold it....and it was stainless steel. I wouldn't even consider owning a Scandium-framed piece...

Beemerguy,

I mean no disrespect toward you at all. In fact, I am in pretty much full agreement with your statements above, except for one thing ... I cannot fathom selling that steel framed 640 just because it was a bear for you to fire with magnum loads. Mine works very well with .38 Special loads, including reasonable +P ammo. Perhaps the magnum cylinder needs a bit more attention when cleaning after firing only .38 Specials. That's never been any kind of problem for me, but then again, I see no reason to fire the magnum length rounds in mine.

I love the weight and balance of the 640 in the magnum chambering and prefer the 2 1/8" barrel over the shorter 1 7/8" barrel on my 640 in .38 Special chambering. I see no advantage using magnum rounds in either short barrel, though I do see some disadvantages. But my 640-1 with the magnum chambering shooting good .38 Special loads is and has been my main EDC since I finally found one and bought it. I believe the extra bit of strength in the frame will only increase the lifetime of the piece while shooting and using the +P .38 Special rounds in it. I personally have little use for the extremely light framed revolvers. I do own some standard airweight models that work well for carry and not much shooting. But I mostly only carry in a belt carried holster, so the additional weight and barrel length of the magnum chambered 640 is no issue at all for me. Everybody must figure out what's best for them and proceed!

[rburg]

Originally Posted by JayBird

I do agree with the obvious; shooting .357 out of any light weight small revolver is not pleasant,

Have you ever considered how unpleasant it would be for the poor sucker you have to shoot with it?

[rburg]

And I have a question I should know the answer to, but I don't. In the dungeon, someplace, I have a revolver. Its a 360 in 38 Special caliber. No, its not a 357. It also has the small frame window of the 38s, not the elongated window of 357s. It seems there was a run of 50 of these birds back in the early days of the guns. They apparently made a run of 50 frames with the small window and decided to use them. So they fitted titanium cylinders, either from 340-342s or maybe 337s. Just a gun very similar to my 337 but with a different model marking.

Now the question: Is it a scandium framed gun or just an aluminum?

[OLDSTER]

I own a 360 in .38+P. My favorite J frame They, in fact, have a scandium frame, with a carbon steel cylinder. Don't know why they are no longer made, but anyone I know that owns one feels fortunate.

[Harkrader]

I have several S&W revolvers with Scandium in the mix. One is a 329PD and except for heavier loads (anything above a 200-gr bullet at 1100fps - I know, I'm a wimp) it is not painful to shoot.

My 386NG or 386PD, even with a titanium cylinder installed is not hard to shoot with PD ammo.

I also have a S&W 1911Sc - one of my favorite carry guns - that is not at all hard to shoot, even with one hand.

My totally unscientific observation is that the frames are more readily subject to scratching and gouging damage, and I have been told they are unrepairable. I won't give mine up, but it does make me consider what I might buy if I wanted an heirloom gun to hand down.

[oldiegoldie]

386 sc mountain lite in .357. 3" barrel [I think]. nice shooting but I've put less than a box pf ammo thru it. 7 shot with hiviz fiber optic front sight.

[CCantu357]

Whatever happened to the titanium framed Smiths? I think they just made them in .22 and .38. I think they came out around '99 or so -called the Ti series. I always wondered why they never had a .357 like Taurus did, but soon after the line had been replaced by the Scandium (Si) models, which included both .357 and .44 Magnums.

[Donn]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

I can think of no greater deterrent to learning how to shoot well, than a lightweight revolver chambered for a serious cartridge.

Many years ago, I bought one of the first Model 640 revolvers chambered in .357 Magnum. I fired exactly 60 rounds through it at the range, cleaned it and sold it....and it was stainless steel. I wouldn't even consider owning a Scandium-framed piece...

In a way, I don't blame you, but we need to remember, these aren't target guns. They're close quarter, (point blank to ten feet), SD weapons. If I can engage in those parameters and stop the threat, recoil is a small price to pay.

[bountyhunter]

Originally Posted by Harkrader

My totally unscientific observation is that the frames are more readily subject to scratching and gouging damage, and I have been told they are unrepairable. I won't give mine up, but it does make me consider what I might buy if I wanted an heirloom gun to hand down.

I also read a lot of complaint threads about the clear coat on the frames flaking off or being easily damaged by cleaners.

[M1A]

I got a 325PD 4", some years back. .45 ACP. Except for the Hillary hole, I like it a lot. Recoil is no problem at all. I am very pleased with it.

[rock n roll kid]

with the scandium fame . love the gun but not just for the frame material . that being said , i DID want a gun with this material just for t he sake of having it before it went up in price or not being made anymore .

undoubtablly s & w has an angle for using this material . but all in all , its still cool to have one in my stable of handguns !

[gnystrom]

I have owned, shot, and carried the 340PD since they came out. I am not recoil sensitive and I find there is very little difference between the 442 and the 340PD shooting 38 sp. The real advantage I see is lighter weight and stronger frame. In my case the disadvantage is not using metal brushes or harsh chemicals on the Ti. cylinder, which is something I never do anyway regardless of finish on the gun.

My 340 has been cleaned, holstered, and drawn a hundred times or more with no visible wear on the frame or cylinder.

As for the cost? It is up to the buyers wallet and desire to own that particular model that determines the buying price.

[colt_saa]

Originally Posted by yashua-p

Folks, just why did this material fall out of favor? Several years ago it was all the rage and I bought two, the 386PD and the 329PD. I think that they are great. Were there undue problems with them? Just curious. There are only a handful in the catalog now. What happened?

regards

yashua

Smith and Wesson still manufactures Scandium revolvers

I am probably in the minority, but I do not believe that Scandium framed firearms have fallen out of favor with those of us that they first found favor with

At the moment I have 10 or 11 Scandium framed revolvers and you would be hard pressed to get me to sell them

I think that Scandium is the greatest thing to happen in N and L frame revolvers since the introduction of stainless handguns. Scandium drops the weight of a 4", 8 shot 327 or a 329 or 357 to about what a 4" model 19/66 weigh. It makes carrying the bigger guns a pleasure vs. a chore

[colt_saa]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

I can think of no greater deterrent to learning how to shoot well, than a lightweight revolver chambered for a serious cartridge.

Only an instructor that is a idiot would hand a Scandium framed revolver chambered in a Magnum cartridge to a novice student

When any shooter comes to me for training the first firearm they shoot is a K-22 Masterpiece loaded with Aguila Super Colibri. This ammunition has no powder, no recoil and is hearing safe in most firearms. The report is comparable to a loud childs cap gun

This initial event allows me to observe the student's skills without anything in the way. This also puts the Novice Student's mind at ease over fear of recoil or muzzle blast. With Novices I even recover the projectile so they get to keep the first bullet they shot

As Student's abilities dictate they are moved to full power 22LR, then light 38s, then full power 38s etc. until their skill levels are safe and effective with the firearm that they own.

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

Many years ago, I bought one of the first Model 640 revolvers chambered in .357 Magnum. I fired exactly 60 rounds through it at the range, cleaned it and sold it....and it was stainless steel. I wouldn't even consider owning a Scandium-framed piece...

357 Magnum in a J-frame is not for everybody. There is nothing wrong with knowing your limitations and staying within them.

A Scandium framed, 357 Magnum J-frame is not supposed to be fun to shoot. It is supposed to be light enough that you always have it with you and powerful enough to save your butt when you accidentally walk into something unexpected.

Smith and Wesson makes many dozens of other models for recreational shooting

[colt_saa]

Originally Posted by CCantu357

Whatever happened to the titanium framed Smiths? I think they just made them in .22 and .38. I think they came out around '99 or so -called the Ti series. I always wondered why they never had a .357 like Taurus did, but soon after the line had been replaced by the Scandium (Si) models, which included both .357 and .44 Magnums.

Smith and Wesson never produced Titanium framed revolvers.

Firearms like the 242Ti, 296Ti, 331Ti, 337Ti etc. are all Aluminium alloy framed revolvers with Titanium cylinders

[Kifaru]

Like anything that is a commodity, I'm sure the price on scandium fluctuates according to supply and demand. Perhaps rather than anything inherent in the design or customer satisfaction, the more limited number of Sc guns currently in the catalog might have more to do with the ones who count the beans than anything else.

[Triathloncoach]

I had 360 in 357 that I pocket carried. I tired the 357 route and it was just no darn fun. Then one day I dropped it on a concrete driveway. No damage, no bang. But I thought why am I carrying this expensive gun to shoot 38s. So I traded it. I missed it and recently bought the 360 in 38. I love it and it's about half the cost. I'm carrying it today as a matter of fact. I'm not in love with my holster

[Cal44]

Originally Posted by JcMack

I think that in order to be labeled Scandium the gun needs to contain at least 3% of that material in the alloy. Some gun manufacturers were working on a lighter alloy called "Floatinium". The idea was abandoned as a string had to be tied to the trigger guard to keep the gun from floating away.
The weight savings on the scandium J frames just doesn't justify the almost twice the price of a standard alloy similar model.

Next they will use Unobtainium which is mined on the planet Pandora.

[BRush]

Not for everyday paper punching - I like steal for that. But a great niche set up for when going light is preferred. I like my 329PD with 44 special loads. Really would like to find one in 45 ACP/AR.

[M1A]

S&W 325PD 4" .45ACP
[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[357magWheelGunner]

My 329PD..love this gun...

[tmon]

Scandium principal sources were imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine.

[kaaskop49]

I was not aware that Sc guns had fallen out of favor. From recent threads, there seem to be not a few posters who like and carry their M&P 340s. I have two and absolutely adore them. Don't know where I've been, these guns have been out there for years.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

[Blowncar]

Originally Posted by BRush

Not for everyday paper punching - I like steal for that. But a great niche set up for when going light is preferred. I like my 329PD with 44 special loads. Really would like to find one in 45 ACP/AR.

I love my 629pd loaded with healthy 44 specials too, it replaced my minty LH 24-3 as the nightstand gun of choice. It doesn't get as much range time as some others but it actually gets carried in the outdoors wherein most of my other N frames are too nice to expose to other than safestorage or a nice range outing. CCW is a tricked out 1911.

[SAFireman]

When Texas first began the CHL, I bought a 640-1 in 357 Mag. It is pretty heavy for pocket carry in light pants (chinos)....it was doable in Levi's or Wranglers, but still very noticeable. When the very first Scandium models were released, I bought a 340sc in 357 magnum. I had some trial and error to find a load that worked well in the gun and did not beat you to death. I had some LE issue 125gr barn-burners that would bruise my hand in one round - it was like being hit with a ball peen hammer! I have since moved to a mid-range 158gr JHP and they are more comfortable to shoot - and the 340sc is a dream to carry.

IIRC - Scandium is used extensively in aerospace structural assemblies. (not just S&W's).

[BAM-BAM]

I generally carry a 3913/14......but on hot muggy summer days in "The Burgh".... a 337PD in a nylon holster will often be the gun of "choice" in the pocket of my cargo shorts......... I generally keep it to standard .38hp's.

A joy to carry..... if that's all you can carry....................

[Mister_Smith]

You won't see me selling any of my scandium J guns, I have no complaints (the Model 43C is all aluminum though, no scandium):

[turbo38gn]

Love my scandium framed guns. Not sure how many I have, but I know it's a bunch. I've learned over the years, just because it can shoot 357 mag..... doesn't mean you have to shoot 357mag... and just because it shoots 44mag...... you don't have to shoot 44mag. There's a reason for 38sp and 44sp .....

I made one major mistake when I sold my PC327, 2" barrel, my first shot was with black talon 357mag loads.... I couldn't put it back in the bag fast enough. Went out and traded it almost immediately... what a dumby!!! What's even crazier.... I traded it for a 460 xvr!!!!!!

[oldsman70]

Love my scandium framed guns. Not sure how many I have, but I know it's a bunch. I've learned over the years, just because it can shoot 357 mag..... doesn't mean you have to shoot 357mag... and just because it shoots 44mag...... you don't have to shoot 44mag. There's a reason for 38sp and 44sp .....

I made one major mistake when I sold my PC327, 2" barrel, my first shot was with black talon 357mag loads.... I couldn't put it back in the bag fast enough. Went out and traded it almost immediately... what a dumby!!! What's even crazier.... I traded it for a 460 xvr!!!!!!
__________________
Jack C.

I too have a 327 PC I love it Just do not like to shoot 357 mags in it , 38 p is just fine , I don't care it cost 1200 bucks I wanted it LOL

[4Given]

*** What's with these strange white dots on scandium frames?
What purpose do they serve?

Just purchased a new scandium frame S&W 360J in 38 Spcl.

I surprised myself and like it more than I thought I would.

LOVE stainless....always will, but this new scandium J-Frame fills a special niche.

Added a Hi-Viz sight, Apex trigger kit and CT Laser Grip.

Size and weight is just right for IWB and OWB carry (for me). Loaded with Speer 135 gr Gold Dots and the CT grip, it tips the scale at 17.7 oz; exactly 3 oz more than the empty stock weight of 14.7 oz.

I agonized over buying this rig due to the ugly lock.
I'm totally over my OCD thing about the lock after seeing it in person. It may be the black color or the strange white scandium dots, but the lock seems to visually coexist just fine.

[colt_saa]

Originally Posted by 4Given

*** What's with these strange white dots on scandium frames?
What purpose do they serve?

Hammers, triggers and other parts are made of a hardened steel. They can not pivot on Scandium pins without a very rapid degradation of the action.

Those white dots are stainless pins that the internal parts pivot on.

[Neumann]

A small amount of scandium adds stress crack resistance (fatigue) to aluminum comparable to that of steel. S&W still makes "scandium" framed handguns, although some have been discontinued.

I have a 4" S&W 1911PD with a scandium frame, 30 oz, which makes a nice carry tun. I recently added a TRR8 N-framed, 8-shot .357 Magnum revolver to the mix. The TRR8 has a scandium frame but a stainless steel cylinder, and weighs 35 oz dry. There are none of the erosion problems found with titanium cylinders, and the revolver is very easy to shoot with full .357 Magnum loads. The tensioned barrel makes it one of the most accurate handguns I've fired. It would be on the light side for .44 Magnum, if available, but I think I could manage it.

The 329PD .44 Magnum has a titanium cylinder and weighs only 25 ounces. That would be brutal. Recoil is bad enough with a 40 oz steel version with a 3" barrel. The 2-5/8" 327 also has a titanium cylinder and weighs 25 oz. The recoil is probably okay, and it would be light, if bulky, for EDC. I'm not ruling it out for future consideration. .357 Magnum makes a SD round with authority.

My philosophy for personal defense is based on "carried a lot, shot a lot."

[Mister X]

I'm a fan of the scandium alloy guns themselves, but not their lofty price tags.

I owned a couple of 340 M&P's a few years back, but really disliked the XS dot night sight and found myself babying them and overly concerned about superficial issues more than I should on an EDC pocket gun.

I sold them and bought a couple of 642's which were half the price. If they ever offer the 340's with a blade sight at a more reasonable price, I would probably switch.

[Cal44]

Originally Posted by Mister X

I'm a fan of the scandium alloy guns themselves, but not their lofty price tags.

I owned a couple of 340 M&P's a few years back, but really disliked the XS dot night sight and found myself babying them and overly concerned about superficial issues more than I should on an EDC pocket gun.

I sold them and bought a couple of 642's which were half the price. If they ever offer the 340's with a blade sight at a more reasonable price, I would probably switch.

I like the idea of getting a 340 M&P but share your concern that they are too nice and to expensive for every day use.

I have an LCR 357 which will do everything a 340 will do, and cost less and if I scratch it or something it doesn't matter.

It's a tool, and kind of ugly to start with.

Frankly I think the LCR 357 is the best 357 magnum small carry gun out there. A few ounces heavier than a 340 makes it easier to shoot, and enough lighter than a M60 or M640 that it works fine in a pocket.

[joe44va]

Scandium costs about $122,500 PER POUND. Not something you spread around like peanut butter.

[grover99]

I like to buy and sell guns but like a lot of you you have some guns that will never be sold or traded. My 1911 PD gunsite is it for me. The cost when I bought it was not much higher than any other S&W 1911. Great gun to carry and to shoot. Does tend to show holster ware more than some of my guns. When I am gone I hope my son likes it as much I do.

[LittleCooner]

Interesting thread and read. Well, here is my story. I only have one light weigh gun, a 396-1. It is a constant companion. Very rare that the old gal and I are not together. I have spent 45 +/- years in the woods in my chosen profession. Purchased a 44 Charter Arms bulldog that now has not blue left on the gal, as it was a constant companion for 30 + years, in the summer, loaded with two rounds of # 9 shot in front of the other three 200 grain 44 specials. It saved my life once, it was 2 feet away, ready to strike and had 13 rattles on the end (eastern diamond back that I almost stepped upon). The stopped making the 396 some where around 2004 or 2005 and I begin to wonder why I did not buy one, so I finally found one, very slightly used and, in all places, in a Cabelas gun room. The charter bull dog sits in the night stand and the 396-1 is my new companion. 19 oz. in a Ray (Lobo leather) pancake which was the first one ever he put a safety snap upon. It is my only CCW and it is my favorite S&W gun. No, I do not shoot it a lot, thats for the 69, 629-2, 28-2, etc when I want to go to the range and bang away, but some days, I never know it is sitting on my right hip, just above my billfold. These guns have a purpose and I love the weigh and balance, far superior to the old Charter Arms bulldog. I can not believe they do not make this gun any more. It would be the last gun sold if had was forced to sell all the different handguns around this place.

[retiredbadge8091]

337PD, love mine... +P included.

[regalsc]

I have the 337ti the earlier version of the 337pd but in the silver grey color frame. I'm not sure that the 337 has scandium mixed in with aluminum alloy. All the scandium frame revolvers I own or have seen have the blast shield.