|
|
03-27-2010, 12:19 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 145
Likes: 15
Liked 58 Times in 30 Posts
|
|
640 +p+ rated
Sorry, no pics on this one.
I recently had dinner with my aunt and uncle. My uncle showed me his seldom carried, seldom fired 640 no dash. I drooled and admired the smooth trigger pull. The barrel isn't marked +p, but under the cylinder on the frame it is stamped "rated +P+"
Is that a common marking for this gun? I believe the serial is CEJXXXX.
Thanks for the info.
__________________
I have two trigger fingers
|
03-27-2010, 12:29 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 531
Likes: 1
Liked 53 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
It's common for the 640's. Mine reads, "TESTED FOR +P+".
|
03-27-2010, 12:30 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Free, NC
Posts: 988
Likes: 3
Liked 84 Times in 41 Posts
|
|
Did it say "rated" for +P+ or "tested" for +P+? If you have an opportunity to look again it may says "tested".
|
03-27-2010, 12:47 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 145
Likes: 15
Liked 58 Times in 30 Posts
|
|
Yeah, now that you guys say it, it read, "tested for +p+" Thanks for the info.
I couldn't get over the smooth trigger and the excellent lock-up.
Soooo much better than my 442-2 or my 360.
__________________
I have two trigger fingers
Last edited by aHFo3; 03-28-2010 at 06:02 PM.
Reason: tested not rated
|
03-27-2010, 01:00 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
|
|
+P+
Quote:
Originally Posted by aHFo3
Sorry, no pics on this one.
I recently had dinner with my aunt and uncle. My uncle showed me his seldom carried, seldom fired 640 no dash. I drooled and admired the smooth trigger pull. The barrel isn't marked +p, but under the cylinder on the frame it is stamped "rated +P+"
Is that a common marking for this gun? I believe the serial is CEJXXXX.
Thanks for the info.
|
I've read that there is no industry standard for +P+ .38 Special ammunition, but I don't have an authoritative link for you.
On the other hand, according to Smith & Wesson's manual for modern revolvers, +P+ should not be used in a S&W revolver.
Quote:
“Plus-P-Plus (+P+) ammunition must not be used in Smith & Wesson firearms. This marking on the ammunition designates that it exceeds established industry standards, but the designation does not represent defined pressure limits and therefore such ammunition may vary significantly as to the pressures generated.
|
Given S&W's blanket condemnation of +P+ and the lack of an industry standard for +P+ I am very surprised that your uncle's revolver is marked "rated +P+." I'd like to see a photo of the frame marking.
|
03-27-2010, 01:45 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 408
Liked 835 Times in 275 Posts
|
|
Some of the very first 640's produced had a serial number prefix of CEN, and were marked "Tested for +P+" on the frame inside the cylinder window. I have a couple of these, one ANIB and one that is my daily carry, and they are pretty smooth.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
03-27-2010, 03:48 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Free, NC
Posts: 988
Likes: 3
Liked 84 Times in 41 Posts
|
|
I believe it is just the early CEN sn guns that have that notation, as the later versions I have owned did not. There have been pictures of them before here on the forum clearly showing the notation. If anybody has one they don't need, I would be willing to buy or trade heavily.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
03-27-2010, 04:18 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 145
Likes: 15
Liked 58 Times in 30 Posts
|
|
It sure could've been a CEN and not a CEJ. My uncle has less than 100 rounds thru his. The smooth wood grips have a little wear, but the rest of the gun looks perfect. I remember firing 5 through it 15 or so years ago.
Does anyone manufacture +P+ 38 ammo anymore?
__________________
I have two trigger fingers
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
03-27-2010, 06:40 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 531
Likes: 1
Liked 53 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
As the next generation of these guns, the 640-1's, were .357 Magnums I don't see any problem with a limited use of +P+. Mine usually gets carried with +P though and mostly fired with reloads for practice.
I lobbied Smith & Wesson back in the early 80's to start building these. Wrote letters, made phone calls, then kept my promise and bought the first one I could lay my hands on.
Mine has taken over duties protecting the kitchen, the most important room in the house. Since I got my M&P340 the 640 just doesn't get out much anymore.
|
03-27-2010, 09:27 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
My 640 is a "No Dash" model, Serial #CAC05XX and does not bear the +P or +P+ markings. Does anyone know if the "CAC" prefix indicates an earlier or later model of 640? Thanks!
|
03-27-2010, 10:16 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMRet
Some of the very first 640's produced had a serial number prefix of CEN, and were marked "Tested for +P+" on the frame inside the cylinder window. I have a couple of these, one ANIB and one that is my daily carry, and they are pretty smooth.
|
I didn't know that 640s existed with "Tested for +P+" on the frame. Now that I know, I'd love to own one! I think that they are especially interesting because they contradict S&W's warnings about +P+ ammunition.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
03-27-2010, 10:46 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Free, NC
Posts: 988
Likes: 3
Liked 84 Times in 41 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvchance
My 640 is a "No Dash" model, Serial #CAC05XX and does not bear the +P or +P+ markings. Does anyone know if the "CAC" prefix indicates an earlier or later model of 640? Thanks!
|
To the best of my knowledge, the +P+ notation was put on relatively few guns at the beginning of the run of 640's. There are more 640's that don't have it than do have it. I owned one identical to the New Product Introduction ad I posted above, and it did not have the +P+ notation.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
03-28-2010, 09:11 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico
Posts: 340
Likes: 85
Liked 25 Times in 16 Posts
|
|
I too have a "CEN*****" 640 no-dash marked "Tested for +P+" on the frame. Aside from some photos on this forum some time back, I have never seen another. Not that I'm looking to sell it, but is there a premium on the guns marked this way?
Like Stiab said, my 3-inch barrel 640 no-dash is not marked this way.
|
03-29-2010, 12:30 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: KY
Posts: 435
Likes: 1
Liked 33 Times in 17 Posts
|
|
Sorry about the ****** pic, but here's mine. My brother has one also.
I need to try and get some better pics someday. All the early production have the serial number prefix CEN and were marked TESTED FOR +P+. After about a year and a half or two Smith started using whatever the then current serial number prefixes were and stopped marking them for +P+. As I read on here awhile back they realized that they could maybe get themselves in trouble stamping that authorization on there so deleted it.
I've had some other 640s over the years but this is the only CEN one I've ever had. The 640 is my all time favorite Smith and I will get another one or two someday.
Oh, and the action on mine and my brother's is just amazing for a factory standard production revolver. We've both replaced the factory smooth wood grips with UM rubber grips.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
03-29-2010, 08:24 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Posts: 10,607
Likes: 3,109
Liked 22,694 Times in 5,866 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Sobieski
I didn't know that 640s existed with "Tested for +P+" on the frame. Now that I know, I'd love to own one! I think that they are especially interesting because they contradict S&W's warnings about +P+ ammunition.
|
I disagree that there is a contradiction here.
It does not say approved for +P+, it does not even say rated for +P+. All it says is tested for +P+. They do not tell you if it passed or failed that test.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
03-29-2010, 11:53 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Free, NC
Posts: 988
Likes: 3
Liked 84 Times in 41 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny Crocket
Oh, and the action on mine and my brother's is just amazing for a factory standard production revolver. .
|
I agree, the actions on every centennial I have ever owned have been great, maybe because they do not have a hammer block.
And I have always though the "Tested for +P+" was a contradiction from the position S&W later developed. When you read it in the original ad, it certainly infers that the gun is OK to shoot with +P+. And I believe that it is OK.
|
03-29-2010, 12:05 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: georgia
Posts: 263
Likes: 4
Liked 29 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
I have a 3" one like in the advertisement.S/N BFZ 12XX.Not marked +P+,Spec.Ord.1178.Definetely a KEEPER!
|
03-29-2010, 12:12 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sw pa
Posts: 937
Likes: 364
Liked 609 Times in 249 Posts
|
|
I own a CEN prefix that has tested +P+.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
03-29-2010, 01:37 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Picked up my first 640 Saturday. No dash, 3' barrel. .38. Looking forward to shooting it. But it does not have the CEN prefix, and does not have the +p+ stamping.
It does have some other numbers on the side of the butt, and another 3 digits on the inside of the yoke, opposite the modle number. All look like a machine engaving though, they are not stamped in. Pictures up this evening.
On a side note, anyone know where I can buy some smooth magnas? Someone replaced them with Hogue, and I would like to get the original smooth magnas on here and a T Grip. Never have used one, but people seem to like the combo.
Last edited by Kirtsky; 03-29-2010 at 04:58 PM.
|
03-29-2010, 05:58 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: sw ohio
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bummer
I own a CEN prefix that has tested +P+.
|
Me too, liked the first one so well, I bought another. One to carry, and one to keep in the safe. Didn't get a box or papers with either one, sure would like to have them though.
__________________
Get off my lawn.
|
03-29-2010, 09:44 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
|
|
thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny Crocket
|
Thank you for posting the image of the +P+ marking.
|
03-30-2010, 12:39 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: KY
Posts: 435
Likes: 1
Liked 33 Times in 17 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Sobieski
Thank you for posting the image of the +P+ marking.
|
Your welcome.
It was taken with my iPhone. Not the best quality, but all I have.
|
03-30-2010, 10:23 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central PA.
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 981
Liked 760 Times in 237 Posts
|
|
I had a very early Mod 640 with a CEN prefix that was marked tested for +P+. I sold it years ago.
A few years ago I picked up another one. It has a BN? prefix and it's not marked with the +P info.
Most of the Mod 640s are not marked that way, only the earliest ones.
You can shoot whatever 38 special you like in this revolver. Nothing to worry about.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-03-2010, 05:02 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: subduction zone
Posts: 141
Likes: 43
Liked 66 Times in 28 Posts
|
|
here's mine- model 640 .38 special, "cen" serial number:
|
04-03-2010, 06:32 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Grab Your Ankles
Posts: 2,973
Likes: 852
Liked 628 Times in 343 Posts
|
|
That is absoluletly SWEET!!
I know Dan aka DC7 had/has one of these or was looking for a "CEN" Prefix 640-1..
You have to know that these would be the last of the "Small Frame" 640 Centennials & "CEN" would be the prefix for "Centennial"
__________________
MightShowYouHisSmith&Wesson
|
04-03-2010, 08:14 AM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 408
Liked 835 Times in 275 Posts
|
|
These were actually the very first 640's, then they went to the regular serial number prefix and did away with the "tested for +P+". According to page 263 of SCSW 3rd edition under Model 640 .38 Centennial Stainless, "Early production guns reported with serial numbers prefixed CEN."
I carry one of these, and I'm getting ready to sell another really nice one if anybody is looking.
|
04-03-2010, 09:43 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Grab Your Ankles
Posts: 2,973
Likes: 852
Liked 628 Times in 343 Posts
|
|
I'm Wrong Again!!
__________________
MightShowYouHisSmith&Wesson
|
04-03-2010, 10:07 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Georgia
Posts: 606
Likes: 102
Liked 388 Times in 110 Posts
|
|
CEN 43xx rides on my ankle every night at work. The pants leg has kept the smooth stocks protected.
|
11-12-2020, 10:51 AM
|
Junior Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 66
Likes: 63
Liked 87 Times in 26 Posts
|
|
I know this is an old thread but I recently picked one of these up and was hoping that someone might have a better handle on how many were actually built?
|
11-12-2020, 10:57 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Coastal NC
Posts: 2,941
Likes: 2,351
Liked 4,677 Times in 1,603 Posts
|
|
Have a retired ATF friend and he recalls an order his agency got from S&W for those M640's. At the time, their duty load was the 'Treasury Load', .38 110 gr. JHP +P+, as they were trying to stay away from the 'magnum' labeling to more closely appeal to the PC side of things.
__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
11-13-2020, 07:26 AM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 27,041
Likes: 1,058
Liked 19,227 Times in 9,392 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by S391
I know this is an old thread but I recently picked one of these up and was hoping that someone might have a better handle on how many were actually built?
|
No one knows. The frame marking was scattered across the CEN prefix guns, and I recall reading here about lower numbered guns without it and later numbered ones with it. So the best you can guess is more than a few hundred and less than ten thousand.
__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220
|
11-13-2020, 11:26 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: North Central Texas
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 925
Liked 2,173 Times in 836 Posts
|
|
Wouldn't 38spl +P+ simply bump it into the 9x19 class..........or was the inference truly closer to .357Magnum than 9mm?
Last edited by tenntex32; 11-13-2020 at 11:28 AM.
|
11-13-2020, 03:52 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Under the Tonto Rim
Posts: 1,661
Likes: 13,633
Liked 2,532 Times in 936 Posts
|
|
tenntex32, I chronographed some .38 Spcl. +P+ years ago, IIRC it was Federal. I'd have to dig through a lot of old chronograph notes to find the details, but do recall velocity was unimpressive. Not close to .357 at all. Even standard pressure 9MM in the short barrel revolvers was much more impressive than the .38 +P+ I tested.....
__________________
NRA Life, COTEP 640
|
11-13-2020, 04:36 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Central Montana
Posts: 13,812
Likes: 13,010
Liked 39,872 Times in 10,126 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by colt_saa
I disagree that there is a contradiction here.
It does not say approved for +P+, it does not even say rated for +P+. All it says is tested for +P+. They do not tell you if it passed or failed that test.
|
If it was tested for +P+ and failed it would be in a scrap metal bin. What they could find of it anyway,
|
11-13-2020, 04:55 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: North Central Texas
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 925
Liked 2,173 Times in 836 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock185
tenntex32, I chronographed some .38 Spcl. +P+ years ago, IIRC it was Federal. I'd have to dig through a lot of old chronograph notes to find the details, but do recall velocity was unimpressive. Not close to .357 at all. Even standard pressure 9MM in the short barrel revolvers was much more impressive than the .38 +P+ I tested.....
|
I kinda figured as much considering the chamber pressures typically associated with the 9x19 and .357Magnum cartridges.
I wonder if someone has access to the exact pressure test round S&W used for proof testing........and what they felt a 38spl+P+ round actually was at the time?
I'm extremely curios as to the details. If I were an owner I would feel them actually stamping a pressure rating instead of +P+ would have been more beneficial.
Last edited by tenntex32; 11-13-2020 at 04:59 PM.
|
11-13-2020, 05:22 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,139
Likes: 28,011
Liked 33,996 Times in 5,311 Posts
|
|
I used to qualify with +P+ .38 Specials in my old Model 36. It was a 147 grain Hydra-Shok that did about 950 fps. Not very impressive.
J frame .38s are strong little boogers. The five shot cylinder puts the bolt cuts between the chambers and there is no forcing cone to speak of. They would probably hold up better than K frames.
__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
11-14-2020, 08:44 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 8,836
Likes: 19,810
Liked 11,988 Times in 5,438 Posts
|
|
I agree, the J-frame is actually a very stout design. I think its issues with durability typically come from the aluminum frame versions.
__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
11-16-2020, 09:24 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: yonder
Posts: 2,229
Likes: 4,236
Liked 3,568 Times in 955 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by S391
I know this is an old thread but I recently picked one of these up and was hoping that someone might have a better handle on how many were actually built?
|
I have a 640 that has the same "Tested For +P+" marking, and a CEN77XX serial #. I have seen one in the 78XX range. Not sure how many were produced.
attachments..
The 1990 catalog states that the all new 640 is RATED for +P+. So you're legally covered if you try +P+ and it blows up.
The warning on the Winchester "Ranger" +P+ box is an interesting read.
Last edited by jughed440; 11-16-2020 at 09:41 PM.
|
11-16-2020, 10:29 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: ALBUQUERQUE, NM
Posts: 13,945
Likes: 8,135
Liked 25,521 Times in 8,586 Posts
|
|
Just today I bought some 38+P.
The seller had some +P+ That he really wanted to sell me!
Why didn’t I buy some?
Read the posts on this thread!
I’ll be shooting these mostly in several J Frames.
Yes, several are 357s. Some aren’t.
If I want to shoot 357, what can I do?
I have 357 ammo!
__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|