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]

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]

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]

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]

SCANDIUM J Frame

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.