I'm thinking about putting a titanium cylinder in my M&P340 and turning it into a 340PD. Is this doable and if so, where would I go to find the cylinder?

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

Midway USA has them in stock. $130

I will have my M&P 340 after the 10 jail wait here in California. Can't wait to shoot it. I love my 640-1 and 649 with the 135 grain Gold Dot. Now the titanium cylinder might be something to look into after I have a few hundred rounds down range

Tony P

I just got done doing the exact swap you are talking about, a month or so ago ,got the ti cylinder from midway..the cylinder gap was non existant when I installed the titanium cylinder so I had to stone the forcing cone/barrel to achieve 3and a half thousandths. Sweet combo with the groove rear sight and front XS standard dot tritium..11.3 oz of pocket cannon.

I installed a TI cylinder is my 396. Trigger was rough when I made the swap as the ratchet wasn't fit to the gun or hand. Simply swapped out the ratchet with the original and all was good. Nice thing about the new style ejectors is the move from cylinder to cylinder much better than the pinned ones where pins never lined up one to the other. Enjoy.

Thanks for the input everyone. I'll likely have a gunsmith do the work b/c I'm not mechanically inclined and would screw this up.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

There are negatives, IMHO, in so doing. By installing a Ti cylinder, you restrict your ammo choices tremendously. Even though your gun will not be so inscribed on the barrel, you may not safely use ammo with less than 120gr bullet. This is a strong point of the M&P: the ability to use 110gr Magnum ammo which I find to be perfect in this gun.

Also, I find the 340 to be much more "shootable," more so than it's 2+ additional ozs. would indicate. Every time I write this, it seems someone answers me that he is only going to fire +P ammo so the ammo caveat will not apply to him. Then why choose a .357 lightweight snub?

BTW, I own 2 M&P 340s and have just bought 2 340 PDs (I'm a J-hound, remember? ). I have a pretty good idea of this subject. Good luck and good shooting. Stay safe, partner.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

P.S. Should you decide to go this route, I'd have a gunsmith install that cylinder. It's a carry piece and I'd prefer a pro to give it an OK.

I'm not as knowledgeable about all the models available by Smith & Wesson so I'll ask you guys does Smith still offer a production 38 in an AirLite? Might this be the reason why people who like 38 Special would do this swap making an AirLite from a scandium framed 357? What would be a real sweet option would be a titanium cylinder in 38 so as to not lose the velocity shooting 38 out of a 357 chamber. I personally carry 357 short barrel gold dots but if I could find a new titanium 38 cylinder I'd probably carry the 38 Gold Dot short-barrel offering. To some of us lightweight is almost as important as caliber/ velocity..

I got a Ti .38spl cyl from Numrich's several years ago and had it fitted to my custom 9mm 360J, making it a convertible. I doubt they still have any but if you hunt around you might find one. As far as velocity loss shooting .38s from a .357 cylinder, you're not talking about a miniscule difference, if any at all, I would never concern myself with it..

__________________
Don't kiss smiling dogs!

Look I'm not recommending this to anyone but here's what I did. I put a Ti cylinder on my 642. I swapped the ratchet the cylinder came with for the original ratchet. I guess from the comments of the other posters above I got lucky because everything fit and functions perfectly. I think I saved about 2.5 ounces. Actually I love it.

So why you shouldn't try this at home. Because it's a 357 cylinder and the gun is 38 special +P rated. I'm the only one using the gun so I can keep track and not put any full 357 loads through it. Since I'm a reloader, I did try some 38 special level in 357 cases and it worked fine. That's what I shoot mostly at the range.

But don't do this because it could be disastrous if someone else got your gun, etc.

Attached Images

	IMG_1917.jpg (128.4 KB, 32 views)
	IMG_1918.jpg (126.9 KB, 36 views)

__________________
Accuracy supercedes Speed

ok stupid question time,will one be able to fire 357 in this cylinder?ive got the same 642 ridgewalker has.would this be ok on a limited basis?

I wouldn't, cylinder might be ok but rest of gun probably won't.

__________________
Chewy

I tried to be clear about this in my post but I guess I wasn't. The 642 is rated for 38 special +P ammo. You can see this on the side of the barrel in the picture I attached of my gun. The stock cylinder that comes with the gun will chamber 38 special ammo but the longer 357 magnum cartridges will not fit. This is standard practice to protect the user from firing too powerful a round for the gun.

I tried to warn that the Ti cylinder I used to replace the stock cylinder was designed to chamber 357 magnum rounds. My opinion is firing full strength, commercially available 357 magnum ammo from a revolver rated for 38 special could result in disastrous failure of the gun, possibly the barrel and/or frame exploding. My point in my post above is I don't recommend anyone doing this because users or bystanders could be seriously injured or killed by firing more powerful ammo than the gun is rated for.

__________________
Accuracy supercedes Speed

oki understand that.i was just thinking the majority of the explosion pressure is in the cylinder so with titanium being stronger?i wont do this,just wondering.tia

TI is not stronger than steel. About the same, but with a somewhat shorter fatigue life. The cylinder would take 357 all day long. I personally suspect the frame would be fine also, but, its service life may well be shortened by developing end shake. Then frames are stamp forged out of the same batch of stainless, I can not for the life of me imagine why one would get an inferior heat treatment when there would be zero monetary savings to do so and a logistic and liability problem with positive tracking of frames. No design changes like the 696 and model 69 where there was a major change to beef up forcing cone are and the meet at barrel to frame junction. Your gun though and it is best to play to safe side.

I have a model 10-2 that sports a recessed 19 cylinder and now a 2 1/2" 357 barrel. Oh, ya, the frame has also been milled for adjustable sights, making it have less steel on top strap area. Maybe a 1000 rds of 257 so far with no problems, but, that was a personal experiment of mine and it is just a drag around boat, truck going somewhere I wouldn't want a nice gun to go.

I worry far more about cylinders than I do about frames. The stress on the frame is longitudinal and the cylinder keeps containment. Frames get broke after the cylinder lets go. Except for cracks under barrel and there is a lot of theories on that type failure.