Why did S&W stop making the Model 342 AirLite TI? Were there problems with it? I have one and carry it here in South Florida. Also have a Model 36, that I carry when up north visiting friends.

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

Because it was LOTS more expensive than the 442/642 and did not give up very much weight

Most users saw little advantage to owning one

What was the original list price. I bought mine used quite a few yours ago for $450 IIRC.

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

I have a theory, but its probably unprovable.

My boss and I had/have these guns and carried them on/off duty. While at the firing range during a qualification course (50 rounds practice and 50 round daylight qualification without a break with +P rounds) the guns became so hot that the frame/crane warped and the cylinder "jumped" the cylinder stop on both guns.

We photographed the guns and contacted S&W about the problem. They asked that they be sent in for inspection. Several weeks later the guns were returned with documentation that they were "repaired." When they were sent in they had four line addresses. When returned they had two line addresses. They had the same serial numbers, barrels, cylinders but obviously the frames had been replaced; however, S&W denied replacing the frames. Even when called on it they refused to admit that they were replaced or that that there was a problem with them. Shortly thereafter they were discontinued and the scandium frame .357 guns were released.

__________________
Bill

WCCPHD, that’s an interesting story. I can’t say the “denial” surprises me. As you probably well know, what goes on in the repair department of a big company is not always “documented” - and certainly not always released to the public. The good part is, I guess, that they fixed your problem - or did they? You didn’t say.

I don’t shoot 100 rounds at a time through my 342, or any other J-frame snubnose I’ve ever owned. I take it you’ve done this with other types of J-frames and not had that problem? Just curious. Not doubting you or implying you did anything wrong.

I think the guns were overpriced for the intended market and doubtless didn’t sell well. I’m not saying that they were “overpriced” because they weren’t great little guns. They were. I just don’t think the asking price was acceptable to the buyers for a .38. The same gun (basically) in .357 Magnum was another matter. That said, for my own use, I think between a 340PD and 342PD, I would take the 342 every time - unless I was working with others who carried .357s and was concerned about ammo commonality. It’s too bad S&W never bothered to make a 942PD.

Never had a problem with any other gun.

The issue was not with the "documentation." I believe, while I will never be able to prove it, is that the lawyers did not want a known problem to become public, potentially resulting in recalls and costly replacements. The law enforcement distributor that we bought the guns from pressed the issue to no avail.

I do know that S&W showed several of the .38 caliber 342's at shot that year with scandium frames that were not released to the public. I have an idea that the two sent in were replaced with scandium frames, but again they would not admit it.

We kept the guns and continued to qualify with them for several year and never had another issue with the replaced frames.

__________________
Bill

Great story! Not necessary to prove it, it happened... For many years, S&W was THE major supplier for LE handguns. They were known to go all out to assist LEOs. This seems like one of those times: the OP and his CO, both LEOs.

I picked one up my 342 secondhand. It's a beast to shoot, painful even with WCs and standard velocity service ammo. A very experienced officer on this forum shares this opinion. While the 340s are not easy to fire with magnum ammo, for some reason, they are less painful than the 342. YMMV.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

My 342 has stout recoil with .38 Special +P ammo. I only shoot it about once a year, just to remind myself the POI vs POA. The same gun in .357 Mag has got to be a real bear to shoot. I have seen peoples hands that looked like after shooting a whole box of magnum in a 340. Oh Jeeze...where the Hoopleheads right this time???? Personally I think they are not to smart.

My thoughts on why the 342 went out of production were, yes it was pricey and that kept it out of the reach of some. But S&W figured out that they could turn the same gun into a .357 Mag and charge a bunch more for it.

Oh by the way, my 342 has a four line address on the frame.

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

One of my local gun stores buys large lots of "evidence" guns, LE turn-ins and estate sales.
Every 3 months or so they have a large "bargain bin" sale where the lesser quality firearms are just chucked into wooden footlockers and placed on the sales floor for the customers to paw over.
Several months ago I was doing the pawing a found a 342 Ti laying at the bottom of the box, clear coat nearly gone, but still nice and tight. Best thing was the price. I took it home for the princely sum of $225.....I figure it rode some LEO's ankle for a few years.
I carry it with the new Hornady 90 gr Critical defense load and it still kicks like a mule!

I had a old 340 PD with lock when it first came out when they discontinued the 342. When 340 PD had serial numbers on the side of the frame. After only 50 rounds of 38 spl AE the frame cracked above yolk. Many yrs later I bought the same gun with no lock had Teddy Jacobson last year do an action job and longer firing pin don't shot it much always worried about cracking it. So light like I said in another post if I can do it again I would buy 642 and send it off to Action by T. Or I would buy 642 no lock performance center gun shot the heck out of it and if it brakes right back to smith and 642/442 are a lot cheaper for what I need it for. I don't think that cylinder is total titanium in 340 pd. I think its alluminum with titanium coating I think not sure not worth it. Plus bullet jump or crimp whatever never had that but 150 grain swc to heavy for 2 inch BBL. I think if you wanted a gun to come close to 342 better off with 642 even if they came back out with 342 be a lot of money now.

^^^^What he said. A lot of thought and experience went into that post. It made me examine my aluminum frame J-mags. Took a while, BTW... All is OK at the moment, no cracks per visual inspection. Have relied on the steel cylinder M&Ps for the past 2 years. When I get around to buying the Golden Sabre magnum rounds, I'll again try out the 340 PDs. Other posters have said they do not "crimp jump." Hope so. Great post, Dragon 1!

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

The 342TI was superseded by the 340PD.

Even for people who intended to shoot 38 Special, the 340PD gave the option of shooting 357 Mag if the buyer ever changed his mind.

They probably cost about the same to make, and therefore needed to be similarly priced.

Kaaskop49 thank you so much I wasted a lot of money on bad mistakes on pistols over the years. The M&P 340 with stainless steel cylinder with black coat great with AO sight I like that sight even the smaller one I like. Thank you again for your nice post I really appreciate it.

Or the 696, 610, 632, ....

After reading all this I think I’m glad I have my Two 442s for carry. They fit me good. I shoot them pretty good. Haven’t had any problems.I think I’ll stick with that.

Attached Images

6D982534-179B-4351-800A-C3462B7C1A71.jpg (60.3 KB, 24 views)

__________________
Two Handguns every day

Picked up a pre-lock 342 (CFC70XX) about 2000. Shot it a lot the first 5 years or so without problems. I then shot it this July and after that when I took the cylinder out to clean it, I noticed that the barrel of the yoke (part that is in the center of the cylinder) had a crack about half way round the circumference. Sent it to S&W and got it back (no charge) only two weeks later with a new yolk fitted (very good service).
I did note that the new yolk was steel, rather than the original aluminum. Guess they don't have anymore of the original type and so they used a yolk from a 642. I can't really tell the slight difference in weight as compared to the original configuration, and the revolver is one of the best for ankle carry. As far as cosmetics, my gun has very little finish wear on either the cylinder of the rest of the frame.

My EDC is the no lock 340PD and I’ve had it a couple of years. My last range trip consisted of 75 - 100 rounds of standard pressure and +P absent any problems, it was no fun to shoot. Saving weight is a major concern so I really like this small, light J frame is just what the doctor ordered.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

I’ve carried a 342Ti since 2001 and love it. Mine went back for a new yoke several years ago, because the cylinder was jumping the stop lug. I do have a 340PD as a back-up, but I’ll keep carrying the Ti until it gives up the ghost.

According to the 2004 Gun Digest Annual, MSRP on the 342Ti was $734. MSRP on the 340PD was $799.

I suspect S&W dropped the 342’s because they considered it redundant. The 340PD is the same size/weight, with magnum capability, for less than a 9% up-charge.

__________________
"I also cook."