Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson Revolvers > S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present
o

Notices

S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present All NON-PINNED Barrels, the L-Frames, and the New Era Revolvers


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-30-2009, 10:05 AM
artu44 artu44 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Liked 24 Times in 7 Posts
Default Disappointed with the 340 scandium

An old range buddy of mine since late sixties in the meanwhile became a gun authority and a well known gun magazines article writer. This time he had to test a new .357 Fiocchi ammo, the Top Defence line Black Mamba (I wonder why they use always only silly names for sale appeal). After a couple of sessions he realized cylinder start to disappear as it would have been melted and gauged by burning scandium particles. Pics show it better than words. In the first, the ammo box, the muzzle blast and that nice firework like burning scandium (I suppose).
Obviously he wrote S&W to explain the trouble and they told him " Too lightweight bullet".
Is there anybody can add more?

Disappointed with the 340 scandium-titanium-05-jpg

Disappointed with the 340 scandium-titanium-jpg

Disappointed with the 340 scandium-titanium-07-jpg
Attached Images
File Type: jpg titanium-05.jpg (88.5 KB, 465 views)
File Type: jpg titanium.jpg (29.4 KB, 453 views)
File Type: jpg titanium-07.jpg (12.5 KB, 465 views)

Last edited by s&wchad; 02-05-2019 at 09:43 AM. Reason: original photos restored
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #2  
Old 07-30-2009, 10:26 AM
s&wchad's Avatar
s&wchad s&wchad is offline
Moderator
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Great Lakes State
Posts: 29,685
Likes: 12,670
Liked 33,601 Times in 7,844 Posts
Default Don't loan guns to your buddy.

Maybe that's why they put the warning in all cap's on the side of the barrel.



I will add that you can't use anything abrasive on the cylinder to clean it.
__________________
"I also cook."
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Like Post:
  #3  
Old 07-30-2009, 11:08 AM
Loco Weed Loco Weed is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 276
Likes: 3
Liked 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Not supposed to be shooting 110 gr bullets -- barrel is marked 125 gr or heavier. All the sparks are probably coming from the titanium cylinder, not the scandium frame. The more it is shot in that condition the worse the problem is going to get.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #4  
Old 07-30-2009, 11:27 AM
Dale53 Dale53 is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southwestern Ohio
Posts: 2,337
Likes: 209
Liked 1,195 Times in 457 Posts
Default

I believe that there is a limit to nearly everything. In my opinion, the S&W 642 represents the lower weight limit for a .38 Special revolver for several reasons. Reasonable wear and reasonable recoil are two that come to mind. The alloy frame with a steel cylinder is light ENOUGH for me and is totally practical. Those pictures illustrate it much better than I could state it regarding the use of a titanium cylinder - too light and not particularly durable.

I am not a particular fan of "trick" bullets either. A good 158 gr lead Hollow Point with a Plus P load is enough for me.

Every body has their opinion and that is mine. Kind of like the artistic term "the golden mean"...

Dale53
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #5  
Old 07-30-2009, 12:02 PM
Smee78 Smee78 is offline
Banned
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SC/TX
Posts: 618
Likes: 339
Liked 82 Times in 55 Posts
Default

Wow what a pic.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #6  
Old 07-30-2009, 12:26 PM
CAJUNLAWYER's Avatar
CAJUNLAWYER CAJUNLAWYER is online now
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On da Bayou Teche
Posts: 18,407
Likes: 18,440
Liked 58,599 Times in 9,622 Posts
Default

WOW!!!! Can you get him to keep shooting it to see how much more he can eat away the cylinder???
__________________
Forum consigliere
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #7  
Old 07-30-2009, 12:37 PM
samIam's Avatar
samIam samIam is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alexandria,MN
Posts: 368
Likes: 48
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by s&wchad View Post
Maybe that's why they put the warning in all cap's on the side of the barrel.


Have to agree with S&W chad,Kinda like taking the family sedan to the local dirt track,then wondering why all the shocks and springs are bent and broken.
__________________
Garage Logician

Last edited by s&wchad; 02-05-2019 at 09:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #8  
Old 07-30-2009, 01:02 PM
pinkymingeo pinkymingeo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Liked 42 Times in 23 Posts
Default

I have thousands of rounds through my Ti/scan pocket guns without a hiccup, and have no doubt they're much, much more durable than Airweights. I'm not sure you can wear one out through normal shooting. My understanding is that 110gr bullets are not long enough to seal the b/c gap in the instant that the cartridge is at max pressure, which allows plasma cutting of the cylinder face and forcing cone. Hot gasses at tremendous pressure. Just read the manual and do what S&W suggests. The guns will last forever.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #9  
Old 07-30-2009, 01:12 PM
j2k22 j2k22 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Honolulu HI
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I have the same effects on my 340 cylinder- got careless and shot a bunch of old 110 gr SuperVel through it one day, found the cylinder looking just like the pictures. Not a huge deal- it has run flawlessly ever since. If I am paying attention, I only shoot 158gr loads, but I have so much old ammo that is out of the original boxes that sometimes a light bullet gets fired.
The pistol still does what I hired it to do- carry light and shoot hard.
Love it!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-30-2009, 01:49 PM
Spotteddog Spotteddog is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 3,952
Likes: 0
Liked 30 Times in 24 Posts
Default

The magic combination of short, jacketed and light bullets rears it's ugly head once again. Everybody does remember don't they? How a larger charge of powder is always needed for lighter bullets. Add the shorter bullet length not able to span the forcing cone cylinder gap during transition and SHA-ZAM. Light show, and metal goes bye bye.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-30-2009, 02:25 PM
allglock allglock is offline
Banned
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Se. Pa.
Posts: 1,330
Likes: 67
Liked 81 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Anyone think that would happen with .38s? in 110 gr.?
I thought the bullet weight had to do with the bullets loosening while shooting.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-30-2009, 03:45 PM
Spotteddog Spotteddog is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 3,952
Likes: 0
Liked 30 Times in 24 Posts
Default

IMHO?
I've specifically never run 110/125's in .357 out of a K because of it. In a .38 +P 110/125 it would be propellant dependent out of a Ti J. There are too many good loadings available that are within the guns parameters, to risk using something capable of irreparable damage. Again, JOMO?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-30-2009, 10:44 PM
Hook686's Avatar
Hook686 Hook686 is offline
US Veteran
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: May 2005
Location: California
Posts: 383
Likes: 161
Liked 61 Times in 40 Posts
Default

Would this surprise me with 110 grain bullets ?

No. I am aware that 110 grain bullet loadings have been noted to flamecut the top strap on 686 revolvers. I really do not see this as anything new. I never saw such a photograph of this occuring with a Sc-Ti handgun though. Quite enlightening. Nice photo. I just wonder how many shots to get such a good photo. After seeing the results once, I would have stopped and unloaded.
__________________
Hook686
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-30-2009, 11:38 PM
Papa's Avatar
Papa Papa is offline
US Veteran
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 37
Likes: 9
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Default

There is a reason for the warning on the side of the barrel.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-31-2009, 04:39 AM
artu44 artu44 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Liked 24 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hook686 View Post
Would this surprise me with 110 grain bullets ?

No. I am aware that 110 grain bullet loadings have been noted to flamecut the top strap on 686 revolvers. I really do not see this as anything new. I never saw such a photograph of this occuring with a Sc-Ti handgun though. Quite enlightening. Nice photo. I just wonder how many shots to get such a good photo. After seeing the results once, I would have stopped and unloaded.
Just to have some more tips, this is the correspondance between my buddy and S&W.

"Dear Sirs,
I was at the range to take pictures of muzzle flashes, shooting with the new line of Fiocchi “Black Mamba” defense cartridges (.380 Auto, 9x21, .40 S&W, .38 Spl, .357M and .45 ACP calibers).
To test the .38 and .357 caliber ammunition, I used my “old” S&W 340 PD.

The GFL Black Mamba .357 rounds are loaded with 110 grain bullets, and I was aware of the warning that “no less than 120 grs” ammunition should be used with this revolver, but I guessed that few rounds would be well tolerated by the handgun.

The attached Pic #1 shows the very FIRST round of GFL Black Mamba .357 Magnum - 110 grs.: an enormous shower of white sparks from the cylinder gap.
I checked the digital pictures only later on my PC, and in the meantime many shooters on the range wanted to try the little revolver and so a total of 34 rounds were fired.
After the shooting, routine cleaning the revolver, I found that the titanium cylinder surface was vastly damaged (Pic #2), and the erosion, as you can see in the picture #1, had begun with the very first round!
The revolver was purchased in 2003, but was used sparingly (about 500 rounds of .38 Spl Wad Cutter, Standard and + P, but no more than 10-15 .357 Magnum rounds).

Can you please give me some insight on why this level of damage has occurred to the handgun? A bad surface treatment of my 340 PD may be the reason of the damage I have witnessed, or ALL titanium cylinders are so “soft” that they cannot withstand 34 rounds of .357 Magnum ammunition with a standard 110 grain bullet?

Consider that the GFL Black Mamba loading is well within CIP specs and reportedly have had no problem in any other commercial handgun."

S&W answered

"Hi. the reason why we recommend you don't shoot .357 magnums under 120 grain in that gun is because the quick burning powder that is associated with the lighter grain bullets presents the possibility of eroding the face of the titanium cylinder. This only applies to the .357 magnum round, below 120 grain is fine for the .38 special."
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-31-2009, 05:52 AM
Spotteddog Spotteddog is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 3,952
Likes: 0
Liked 30 Times in 24 Posts
Default

Well,
Then I feel I have and adequate amount of safety margin in my 342PD.
Never running anything lighter than a 150 grain hard cast lead full wad cutter. And most times running a 158 LSWCHP G/C +P.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-31-2009, 06:25 AM
XTrooper's Avatar
XTrooper XTrooper is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NE PA
Posts: 1,390
Likes: 528
Liked 808 Times in 228 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artu44 View Post
...........I was aware of the warning that “no less than 120 grs” ammunition should be used with this revolver, but I guessed that few rounds would be well tolerated by the handgun.
It's obvious he "guessed" wrong, but he did learn a valuable lesson. Warnings apply to EVERYONE including gun magazine writers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by artu44 View Post
Can you please give me some insight on why this level of damage has occurred to the handgun?
This is an easy one. Because he disregarded the damned warning prominently displayed on the revolver!

Personally, I would have been embarrassed to send such a letter to the factory and wouldn't have been nearly so polite in my answer to one.
__________________
Steve
NJ State Trooper (rtd)
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #18  
Old 07-31-2009, 08:23 AM
s&wchad's Avatar
s&wchad s&wchad is offline
Moderator
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Great Lakes State
Posts: 29,685
Likes: 12,670
Liked 33,601 Times in 7,844 Posts
Red face Don’t put bio-diesel in your Ferrari

Owners Manual:
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/other/S&W_Revolver_Manual.pdf
.
(From Pg. 12)
“CAUTION:
Do not use Magnum loadings with bullet weights of less than 120
grains - This will reduce the possibility of premature erosion in
titanium alloy cylinders.”
.
Here’s a warning about the care of titanium cylinders. If your friend previously cleaned the cylinder face with anything abrasive, he compounded the problem.
__________________
"I also cook."
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-31-2009, 08:39 AM
flop-shank flop-shank is offline
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Rust Belt Buckle/Mich
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Liked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale53 View Post
I believe that there is a limit to nearly everything. In my opinion, the S&W 642 represents the lower weight limit for a .38 Special revolver for several reasons. Reasonable wear and reasonable recoil are two that come to mind. The alloy frame with a steel cylinder is light ENOUGH for me and is totally practical. Those pictures illustrate it much better than I could state it regarding the use of a titanium cylinder - too light and not particularly durable.

I am not a particular fan of "trick" bullets either. A good 158 gr lead Hollow Point with a Plus P load is enough for me.

Every body has their opinion and that is mine. Kind of like the artistic term "the golden mean"...

Dale53
Dale you're definately entitled to your opinion and I hope I can disagree without coming across as disagreeable.

You said Airweights are light enough for you, but you aren't everyone. I like and take advantage of the weight savings my 360 PD offers. In a jacket pocket ounces count and any more weight would cause too much sagging to fill my needs. There is a need and niche for these guns even if they don't particularly fill yours.

Titanium cylinders are plenty durable. Don't shoot .357s less than 120 gr. per the warning right on the gun itself. I clean mine with a nylon bore brush and Breakfree CLP. After at least a thousand rounds the gun is as tight as the day I got it and the cylinder doesn't have a single scratch on it's face. It's a matter of following the manufacturers directions and nothing more.

I'm not sure what constitutes a "trick bullet", but there are numerous cartridges available that take advantage of the latest technology and work very well when paired up with a scandium snub. The Barnes X bullet as loaded in Corbon DPX is nearly peerless in it's ability to expand at low velocities even in it's .38+P loading. Speer's SB .357 is what I carry and it also expands reliably from a 1 7/8" barrel. Both of these bullets also do something better than a LSWCHP in a gun as light as a scandium snub; they stay firmly seated in their case during recoil. I'm guessing that bullet pull is an issue with the FBI load or any other hard kicking lead bullet in scandium guns.

Last edited by flop-shank; 07-31-2009 at 08:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #20  
Old 07-31-2009, 04:02 PM
M29since14 M29since14 is offline
SWCA Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 11,907
Likes: 10,039
Liked 10,047 Times in 4,758 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artu44 View Post
An old range buddy of mine since late sixties in the meanwhile became a gun authority and a well known gun magazines article writer...



"...I was aware of the warning that “no less than 120 grs” ammunition should be used with this revolver, but I guessed that few rounds would be well tolerated by the handgun."

He guessed wrong. End of story.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #21  
Old 07-31-2009, 06:55 PM
robotoid's Avatar
robotoid robotoid is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 617
Likes: 1
Liked 32 Times in 18 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artu44 View Post
?




That is messed up!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-31-2009, 07:04 PM
FHBrumb's Avatar
FHBrumb FHBrumb is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Menasha, WI U.S.A.
Posts: 184
Likes: 3
Liked 19 Times in 10 Posts
Default

I'm very happy to own an all stainless Smith and Wesson Revolver.

I'd never have guessed that less than a box of ammo ended with that much damage.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-31-2009, 08:22 PM
Zilmo's Avatar
Zilmo Zilmo is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Puyallup
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Default

I tend to go by the manufacturers recommendations, and generally don't have issues like this. I don't run diesel in my Ferrari, and I don't reach under the lawn mower when it's running.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #24  
Old 08-05-2009, 09:59 PM
Gearhead Jim Gearhead Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 383
Likes: 17
Liked 140 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zilmo View Post
I tend to go by the manufacturers recommendations, and generally don't have issues like this. I don't run diesel in my Ferrari, and I don't reach under the lawn mower when it's running.
Well shucks, you're no fun to be around!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-05-2009, 10:01 PM
Zilmo's Avatar
Zilmo Zilmo is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Puyallup
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhead Jim View Post
Well shucks, you're no fun to be around!
Unfortunately, you sir are correct! I do however, still have all of my fingers, and the Ferrari runs great!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #26  
Old 08-06-2009, 12:34 AM
Sgt 127's Avatar
Sgt 127 Sgt 127 is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: High Desert Nevada
Posts: 656
Likes: 12
Liked 459 Times in 148 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zilmo View Post
I tend to go by the manufacturers recommendations, and generally don't have issues like this. I don't run diesel in my Ferrari, and I don't reach under the lawn mower when it's running.
Interestingly, I DO run diesel in my VW Jetta TDI and it seems to work fine....I'm with you on the lawnmower though....
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-09-2009, 10:46 PM
carbon_15 carbon_15 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Maybe that's why they put the warning in all cap's on the side of the barrel.

Then why does my 520 look like this after 10 (!) 125gr cast HP's...no barrel warning there
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 520-2.JPG (88.1 KB, 819 views)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-10-2009, 01:13 AM
Dale53 Dale53 is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southwestern Ohio
Posts: 2,337
Likes: 209
Liked 1,195 Times in 457 Posts
Default

flop-shank;
No, I don't find you disagreeable, at all. I guess I am just a wimp. .38 Plus P's in an alloy frame snubbie are enough recoil for me. I'm one of those people who like to actually shoot my carry gun (so that, God forbid, if I ever have to use it for defense I can be effective with it) and frankly, I can't tolerate the likes of a .357 Magnum in an Air Lite revolver. So, I guess that will explain my lack of enthusiasm for the Air Lites.

I DO believe that it is nice to have a choice and S&W has certainly provided those.

Frankly, I have compassion for the OP with his cylinder erosion problems. I try to "do what's right", like follow warnings, etc, but must admit that on occasion, I have erred. That seems to be a seriously tough penalty to pay. But-t-t, such is life!

Dale53
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-10-2009, 01:25 AM
Gress's Avatar
Gress Gress is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Lesson here- Take all the factory restrictions seriously.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #30  
Old 08-10-2009, 10:27 PM
DAdams's Avatar
DAdams DAdams is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: East TN
Posts: 350
Likes: 14
Liked 113 Times in 47 Posts
Default

I would rather an M&P 340 with stainless cylinder and gain a couple of ounces, and Stick with 135 gr + in either 38 or 357..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #31  
Old 01-29-2013, 02:38 PM
The Annoyed Man The Annoyed Man is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale53 View Post
I believe that there is a limit to nearly everything. In my opinion, the S&W 642 represents the lower weight limit for a .38 Special revolver for several reasons. Reasonable wear and reasonable recoil are two that come to mind. The alloy frame with a steel cylinder is light ENOUGH for me and is totally practical. Those pictures illustrate it much better than I could state it regarding the use of a titanium cylinder - too light and not particularly durable.

I am not a particular fan of "trick" bullets either. A good 158 gr lead Hollow Point with a Plus P load is enough for me.

Every body has their opinion and that is mine. Kind of like the artistic term "the golden mean"...

Dale53
I own the M&P version of this scandium J-frame .357, and I've had none of these problems:


This model has a stainless steel cylinder, coated with what appears to be melonite. The worse that has happened is a little bit of what I would call "scorching" on the front face of the cylinder, which is apparent in this picture. I have fired 110 grain .357 Winchester White Box in this gun, as well as my 125 grain .357 Critical Defense carry load, and even a 158 grain jacketed soft point white tail hunting load.....which beat the hell out of my hand, but didn't seem to hurt the gun one bit.

I initially bought the M&P340 when I was shopping for a PD model, but the store I bought from didn't have the PD. I "settled" for the M&P. The reason I initially thought I had "settled," was because I really had my heart set on the additional 2 oz less of weight that the PD offers compared to the M&P. But in hindsight, 2 oz doesn't matter a hill of beans when you're comparing an 11 oz gun to a 13 oz gun—both are insanely light—and I'm actually happier for having the more robust cylinder of the two pistols.

I also prefer the huge Trijicon "express" front sight on the gun. This is not my primary carry weapon, and all of my carry guns have Trijicon sights on them, but with the exception of the orange Trijicon HD sights on one of my semiautos, this system on the M&P340 works better than the rest of of them.

The M&P340 is the best snubby I've ever owned, and that includes an 642 I used to own, and a 2" 640, plus the 642CT that my wife still owns (and never carries because she can't handle the trigger pull....something about carpel tunnel...).
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #32  
Old 01-29-2013, 07:29 PM
CWH44300 CWH44300 is online now
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 3,060
Likes: 24,410
Liked 5,766 Times in 1,275 Posts
Default

Well I guess after looking at that photo,
none of my guns are flame cut... lol
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-29-2013, 07:35 PM
Robinett_11B's Avatar
Robinett_11B Robinett_11B is offline
US Veteran
Absent Comrade
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 751
Likes: 83
Liked 142 Times in 54 Posts
Default

To echo the couple other posters above in regards to the stainless cylindered M&P340...if I were to get a 340, it'd be the M&P over the Sc/PD. The titanium just has too many extra care/ammo considerations for me to want to deal with. I don't buy revolvers to be complicated and the extra 2oz shouldn't make much of a difference when I used to carry a 15oz Airweight in the pocket with no issues.

I'll also echo that the OP obviously messed up and shouldn't be disappointed with his 340 when it was 100% his/their fault for not following S&W's warnings for that particular gun.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-29-2013, 09:24 PM
Fuego Fuego is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Beaverton OR USA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Liked 24 Times in 20 Posts
Default

I carry my 340PD at least 10,000 times more than I shoot it. This little guy, loaded wiith 135 Gr. JHP will stop a cannibal. I am confident of that.

I carry constantly. I shoot monthly. An Airlight is an easy gun to carry, and unpleasant to shoot. But it is there when and if you need it.
__________________
Fuego
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #35  
Old 01-30-2013, 01:29 AM
riverrat38 riverrat38 is offline
US Veteran
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: La Conner, WA
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 8,945
Liked 2,149 Times in 961 Posts
Default

S&W should put that photo of the Titanium cylinder in the manual. It would be a real "grabber"!

Best,
Rick
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #36  
Old 01-30-2013, 04:07 AM
jaymoore's Avatar
jaymoore jaymoore is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: US of A
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 6,980
Liked 2,474 Times in 1,144 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riverrat38 View Post
S&W should put that photo of the Titanium cylinder in the manual. It would be a real "grabber"!

Best,
Rick
Yah, but the sales guys would have a fit.



The only problem I have is that the revolvers hold up better than the shooter. But nice to carry they are.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-30-2013, 04:19 AM
DAinTX DAinTX is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Family ranch in Texas
Posts: 470
Likes: 6
Liked 167 Times in 119 Posts
Default

OK, so....disregard a clear warning from the manufacturer, which unsurprisingly leads to a problem, and then complain that you are 'disappointed' in the product??? Good thinking .
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-30-2013, 07:56 AM
snubbyfan's Avatar
snubbyfan snubbyfan is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: WVa East Panhandle
Posts: 28,590
Likes: 70,879
Liked 81,379 Times in 18,440 Posts
Default

I just think it's kinda sad to see a nice little lightweight carry snubby getting willfully damaged like that. If your buddy wants to get rid of another snubby, I'll take it.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-30-2013, 08:25 AM
beemerphile beemerphile is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Danielsville, GA USA
Posts: 738
Likes: 27
Liked 401 Times in 152 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FHBrumb View Post
I'm very happy to own an all stainless Smith and Wesson Revolver.

I'd never have guessed that less than a box of the wrong ammo ended with that much damage.
Fixed it for you.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-30-2013, 09:54 AM
photoman's Avatar
photoman photoman is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 5,056
Likes: 522
Liked 1,907 Times in 787 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samIam View Post
Kinda like taking the family sedan to the local dirt track,then wondering why all the shocks and springs are bent and broken.
Hmmm. That sounds kinda fun.
__________________
Centennial Every Day
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-30-2013, 02:07 PM
Snowwolfe Snowwolfe is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 339
Likes: 12
Liked 193 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Why in the world would anyone drag up a thread that was started 3 1/2 years ago? lol
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-30-2013, 02:59 PM
poordevil poordevil is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yuma
Posts: 801
Likes: 176
Liked 436 Times in 261 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carbon_15 View Post
Maybe that's why they put the warning in all cap's on the side of the barrel.

Then why does my 520 look like this after 10 (!) 125gr cast HP's...no barrel warning there
That looks like lead splatter and not gas cutting
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #43  
Old 01-30-2013, 04:48 PM
JParanee JParanee is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 116
Likes: 17
Liked 168 Times in 46 Posts
Default

I have three revolvers that have titanium cylinders and I have not had issue with any

Your friend made a stupid mistake. It is written on the barrel for a reason and to hand the gun around and let people shoot it until that much damage occurred is really kinda dumb

They did have to reload after every 5 shots so the damage should have been noticed

If my car has a 10000 rpm redline and I sit in my drive way and tach it to 14000 rpms for an hour and the engine lets loose is it the engines fault ?

Last edited by JParanee; 01-31-2013 at 01:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-30-2013, 06:10 PM
OLDSTER's Avatar
OLDSTER OLDSTER is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 10,146
Likes: 14,187
Liked 12,739 Times in 3,480 Posts
Default

Very interesting and informative thread !!!
__________________
John
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-31-2013, 01:51 AM
jaymoore's Avatar
jaymoore jaymoore is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: US of A
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 6,980
Liked 2,474 Times in 1,144 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwolfe View Post
Why in the world would anyone drag up a thread that was started 3 1/2 years ago? lol
Other than the good photos? And a fair amount of entertainment value?

I don't mind refreshing useful threads, but often it gets done for the strangest reasons!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-31-2013, 02:06 AM
357-RevolverGuy's Avatar
357-RevolverGuy 357-RevolverGuy is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 1,305
Liked 1,960 Times in 664 Posts
Default

I sure wish we could see a video of what happened. Any chance of that?
__________________
Ephesians 6 (Armor of God)
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-31-2013, 10:21 AM
66snub's Avatar
66snub 66snub is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: SouthWest Michigan
Posts: 583
Likes: 284
Liked 338 Times in 194 Posts
Default

Ok, so beyond the scuttlebutt of the damage and disregard for the warning, you still have a damaged gun. What is the end result? Can this gun be fitted with another cylinder and returned to faithful duty or is it now a "truck gun"? These are beautiful guns and I would be lying if I said that I haven't coveted one of my own at the LGS.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-31-2013, 12:34 PM
M29since14 M29since14 is offline
SWCA Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 11,907
Likes: 10,039
Liked 10,047 Times in 4,758 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwolfe View Post
Why in the world would anyone drag up a thread that was started 3 1/2 years ago? lol
Well, there is obviously some entertainment value to the thread, but more likely he was reading about his gun and felt compelled to comment about his judgment that the stainless cylinder was the superior choice - maybe looking for others to agree... ?

I don't. I bought the 340PD because I wanted the lightest possible gun of that type that still conformed to the normal pattern. (had sights, usable stocks, etc.) I knew when I bought it that it was stretching the envelope, in my opinion anyway, but I have been happy with mine. As Jaymoore says, when using proper ammunition it holds up better than THIS shooter!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #49  
Old 02-01-2013, 04:32 AM
jaymoore's Avatar
jaymoore jaymoore is offline
Member
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: US of A
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 6,980
Liked 2,474 Times in 1,144 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M29since14 View Post
...[H]e was reading about his gun and felt compelled to comment about his judgment that the stainless cylinder was the superior choice - maybe looking for others to agree... ?...
Well it is a pretty first good post, having finally gone back to check where this thread got renewed. But maybe we won't hear from him much if he only posts when he is "The Annoyed Man". After all, he has been lurking since 2009!

ETA: It's quite possible he's been annoyed since Sept 2009 because of this very thread. In which case he's also patient...

Last edited by jaymoore; 02-01-2013 at 05:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-11-2013, 10:27 AM
Alnamvet68 Alnamvet68 is offline
Banned
Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium Disappointed with the 340 scandium  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,745
Likes: 448
Liked 1,089 Times in 543 Posts
Default

After reading the several threads regarding blast shields, ultra light J frames, exotic metals, and factory warnings painted on guns that essentially warn that these premium metal, uber high cost snubbies are very much ammo dependent, and failure to RTFFM of arms will lead to damaging the gun, and perhaps permanently. Well, I trust and enjoy my J frames ever since I first carried one back in the 60's, and have never had issues with either the all steel or Airweight models, especially anything related to what seems to be the focus of these threads. While it is true that many semi-autos can be ammo dependent, the worst that can happen is you get a FTF, a stovepipe, or a FTE....either way, a simple diagnostic of the problem resulting in changing ammo is all it took to get your semi back up to speed; and no damage to the gun. I guess what I'm saying is that I would not spend the kind of money required to buy a lighter than air revolver knowing what I know now about these exotic metals and alloys. I only own one of these "esoteric" guns, and it's a 360 J .38 cal only, an oddball gun not even in the S&W catalog, with a stainless steel cylinder and scandium frame. It remains in my safe, unfired, blast shield and all. The other 360 J I had I sold....I'll keep the one in the safe as a curiosity piece, much like a circus freak, an oddity, but most certainly I will not use it as a carry piece knowing what I have learned so far from these threads. Before I spend near 4 figures for a J framed S&W, I'd rather buy a 642 and a 638, ILS and all, with money left over to buy quite a bit of ammo.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
340, 357 magnum, 380, 642, 686, cartridge, commercial, fiocchi, scandium, smith and wesson, snubnose, titanium, transition

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Disappointed in 22a 1 dslyr1 Smith & Wesson Semi-Auto Pistols 6 10-02-2015 01:17 PM
Disappointed with new M&P 9 CavScout 00 Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 94 03-15-2015 10:04 AM
A little disappointed with S&W CS KevinCH The Lounge 1 04-10-2014 10:37 PM
Very Disappointed in S&W stevegartx Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 7 07-25-2012 05:40 PM
Very Disappointed massworc Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 9 06-08-2010 12:47 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:34 PM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)