340 pd Versus 442/642

[No Deal]

Hello all. I plan to buy a new revolver for daily carry. I am 5'10" and175 lbs, clothing range from shorts and t-shirt in summer, t-shirt and jeans all year, suits to work, etc. Has anyone carried both the 340 pd and 442/642 that could tell me if it's worth the extra $250 to save the 4 oz on the 340? How noticeable is the difference and does lighter weight make it much easier to carry? Both guns are lighter than my current sig p239.

[Dump1567]

I doubt you'd notice the weight difference. Get a no-lock 642 and throw on some Hogue bantam grips. That should reduce it by a few onces.

I find the airweights are bulkier than they are heavy.

If you don't mind an exposed hammer, Buds Gun shop sells a 360 in .38 spl. For about $450. I believe the weight is the same as the 340.

[TNDave]

Originally Posted by Dump1567

I doubt you'd notice the weight difference. Get a no-lock 642 and throw on some Hideout grips

This is the right answer

[Old cop]

I have the M&P 360 and the model 638 (shrouded hammer hump back) and have pocket carried both. My favorite is the 638, I do not notice the difference in weight and shoot it better than the 360. The 360 limits you in choice of ammo (no lead bullets) and costs over $200 more. For me you get a better buy with the 642/442 or 638.

[f2]

I've pocket carried a 642 and 342 AirLite Ti. The 342 is the same as the 340pd, weight wise, both having a titanium cylinder. The weight difference is very noticeable when pocket carrying and worth the extra bucks imho. I have hogue j-frame bantam grips on the 342 and they work best for 135 gr. Speer Gold Dot .38 spl +P loads. I now load full wadcutters, Federal GM38A with the +Ps on speed strips. 642 works great for ankle carry NY reload.

[P&R Fan]

I have a 340PD in my pocket right now. I replaced the rubber grips with Eagle Secret Service wood stocks (yeah, it's uncomfortable to shoot, but they work great) and I love it. I have a 642 I rarely carry anymore.
I don't really notice the weight difference, and I like the fact it's a .357 Magnum. It's probably my most carried gun these days, mostly as a backup. I think it's well worth the added cost.
Oh, yeah, plus I just think the thing is really COOL.

[jframe]

Just as a slight drift, I never realized that the Hogue Bantam rubber grips are lighter than the Uncle Mike's boot grips they come with, but I've heard it now from a couple of different sources. I bought some Saturday night and put them on my 642, and I believe they ARE somewhat lighter.

[PetersCustomLeather]

Originally Posted by f2

I've pocket carried a 642 and 342 AirLite Ti. The 342 is the same as the 340pd, weight wise, both having a titanium cylinder. The weight difference is very noticeable when pocket carrying and worth the extra bucks imho. I have hogue j-frame bantam grips on the 342 and they work best for 135 gr. Speer Gold Dot .38 spl +P loads. I now load full wadcutters, Federal GM38A with the +Ps on speed strips. 642 works great for ankle carry NY reload.

I agree completely! Sure an M&P 360 isn't that much more noticeable than a 642, as it's not nearly as light weight as a 340PD.

The 340PD and 342PD are both VERY light. Yeah, they are not that fun to shoot, but they are very nice to pocket carry! I sold a 342 and 340PD and kick myself for selling either or both. Especially the no lock 342PD! Ugh..... very hard to replace and a perfect pocket gun!

[Dump1567]

Also, whatever you decide, S&W is offering a $50 rebate on certain J frame revolvers.

[No Deal]

Thanks guys, great info!

[ar15ed]

in my humble opinion, the 340pd is the greatest carry revolver ever created! it is, by far the least intrusive, lightest thing out there that still packs 357 punch. my opinion is that carrying a gun is 99.99999% CARRYING a gun. weight is everything. most folks go through their entire life without ever even pulling out their carry gun, much less pointing it- or shooting it- at a threat. the 340pd can be a painful little beast if you fire it a bunch, but man, it is powerful, when, or if you ever need it, and (did i mention?!) it is LIGHT for all the time you are just carrying it!

[rondo]

Great topic, timely for me as I was about to buy a 442 without the IL. Looked real hard at the 340, but the IL is a deal breaker for me. Then I read about more non-IL models coming soon, so I put my plans on hold.

RE: 340PD vs. 442, looks like I'll be splitting the difference weight-wise and go with the M&P 340.

[PetersCustomLeather]

Originally Posted by rondo

Great topic, timely for me as I was about to buy a 442 without the IL. Looked real hard at the 340, but the IL is a deal breaker for me. Then I read about more non-IL models coming soon, so I put my plans on hold.

RE: 340PD vs. 442, looks like I'll be splitting the difference weight-wise and go with the M&P 340.

I verified this today. The 340PD and 340 M&P are both in their catalog already, but none in stock. I'm excited about this, I will be getting a 340PD with no damn lock!! YES!

[SAFireman]

I carry a 340 daily, and YES the weight makes a difference. I don't practice with more than 10 357 rounds per session, but I run plenty of 38 special 130gr RNL through it. I hope that I don't ever have to use it, but the weight makes it easy to be certain that it is there when it is needed. I am certain that if it is ever needed, I will not even notice the recoil, but the receiving end will know the difference.

Just my .02 and as always YMMV....I would trade out my ILS version for the no-lock version without hesitation....anyone wanna trade?

[J. W.]

My vote goes to the 442/642.

Personally, I find my 442 to be light enough and have no desire for a gun that weighs less. (or a .357 snub for that matter) Personally, I think the .357 looses too much of its muzzle velocity in the 2" barrels to be worth the extra recoil and blast. To each his own, but J-frame .357's aren't my thing.

Just my 2 cents.

[PetersCustomLeather]

Originally Posted by J. W.

My vote goes to the 442/642.

Personally, I find my 442 to be light enough and have no desire for a gun that weighs less. (or a .357 snub for that matter) Personally, I think the .357 looses too much of its muzzle velocity in the 2" barrels to be worth the extra recoil and blast. To each his own, but J-frame .357's aren't my thing.

Just my 2 cents.

JW,

I really like the 340PD for carrying... the weight makes it feel like its almost not there, compared to my 642 that I for sure know is there!

In a 340PD, I still carry the same ammo.... Gold Dot 38's for the Short BBL guns..... I dont love the beating of the 357 in the 340pd!

I can practice with my 642 and a tiny bit with the 340 but carry the 340. My wife can carry the 642 if she wants.

[Tackelbarry]

I think you will be very happy with the 340 series if that is what you choose. That being said, if you are going to carry the gun I highly recommend the 340 M&P. Being retired L.E. and now running a firearms training company I will only carry a gun that has a front night site attached. I understand this is a close up "get off me now" gun, as are all defensive pistols, but the night sight really does draw your attention when you are under stress or duress. Also, statistically and from professional experience, most violent confrontations happen after dusk and during hours of darkness.
I carry a 340 M&P in a DeSantis front pocket holster, as my back-up, every day. It is very accurate and hitting 6"x8" steel targets out to 25 yards is easy. I like it so much I bought a second of the same. Bottom line, if you are spending that kind of money, go all the way and get a gun with night sites. Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Scott Jens
Check Six Training LLC
Home_Page
C.H.P.D. (ret.)

[Fuego]

I like the 340PD. I have the older, slimmer, smaller Crimson Trace laser grips on it. I carry in a DeSantispocket holster, and the gun carries very discretely.
The slight reduction in weight does make it easier to carry.

[Roger S&W]

You guys kept referring to "no-lock" earlier....what exactly does that mean?

Pardon my revolver newbie question

[JumpinJack]

I've owned a 340 but sold it and got a 342 (couldn't stand the hole) I also own a 638 and a 642. The weight makes a difference for pocket and ankle carry. Shooting them is a big difference. I'm probably going to have to sell my airlites due to arthritis in my hands. These light weights are beating me up too bad to shoot anymore.

[P&R Fan]

If you look just above the cylinder release on new S&W revolvers you'll see a little hole with an arrow and an "L". That's the lock. It apparently locks the trigger and hammer (if it has an external hammer). The cylinder can be opened but the gun cannot be fired. I say "apparently" because that's what I've read. I've never activated it on my 340PD, so I don't know first hand.
The lock came into effect in about 2002. Most of us hate the lock, and value the ones that are lockless. We live on the edge and are willing to trust our own training rather than a mechanical lock. Go figure.
I even run with scissors.

[Roger S&W]

LOL So, the "lock only applies to models with an external hammer....that won't be me then.

What about trigger pull? The same for internal vs. external hammer? About 10-12 lbs???

[Roger S&W]

I think I'm leaning torward the 340M&P now cause of the night sights and only 2 oz. heavier than the 340PD which that HIVIZ is fiber optic....you know what that means? Could break easily, esp. for a carry gun???

[P&R Fan]

The lock is on the concealed hammer guns too, including the 340PD I have in my pocket right now.
I understand the company is making some without it now, in fact there's a thread on here about it somewhere.

[Roger S&W]

Oh yeah, I just saw that thread, wow...apparently everyone hates "the lock" and newer models have been released without it. Thanks for the tip. What is it anyway? A safety feature? Does it somehow negatively affect the functioning of the gun? Or just something you feel is unneccesary?

[rondo]

Roger,

There is a "sticky" thread at the top of this forum that is all about the lock. More info than you ever wanted to know all in one place.

[Dump1567]

Originally Posted by Roger S&W

Oh yeah, I just saw that thread, wow...apparently everyone hates "the lock" and newer models have been released without it. Thanks for the tip. What is it anyway? A safety feature? Does it somehow negatively affect the functioning of the gun? Or just something you feel is unneccesary?

The concern is the lock engaging on its own on guns with heavy recoil (ie: like the 340pd) and seizing-up the gun.

There have been documented cases of this.

A gunsmith can remove the internal lock mechanism (I usually do it on my guns). Some feel this is a liability issue as you've disabled a "safety feature". And if you're ever in court for a self-defense shooting, this could come-up.

Hence why most prefer a model with no lock (the way the gun was originally designed).

A search will reveil countless discussions on this topic.

[Roger S&W]

Dump, that was most appreciated, you gave me an overall idea of the main potential problem and pointed me in the right direction for further research. Thanks again, sir.

[Roger S&W]

So, if I'd like to buy a newer revolver with "no lock" the way to verify this is by looking at the acronyms that follow the model type? When I place my order at Buds, I'll need to specify or verify this---- For example here : (Which I got from a recent thread here)

From the S&W Distributor RSR:

SW103043FC S&W 43C 1.875" 22LR BL AL CENT NO IL


SW103061FC S&W 340PD AIRLT SC 357 1.875" NO LCK


SW103072FC S&W M&P340 1.875" 357 BLK SC NO LCK


SW103351FC S&W 351C 1.875" 22WMR BL AL NO IL


SW103810FC S&W 642 1.875" 38SPL STS CENT WO/IL


SW150544FC S&W 442 1.8725" 38SPL MATTE BL WO/IL

[Roger S&W]

Looks like it may be very tough to find one according to some members here.

[Roger S&W]

Just wanted to thank the OP and all members as this thread helped me alot. I just went ahead and ordered the 442 NO LOCK at Buds for $438.00!!!

[Roger S&W]

Originally Posted by Dump1567

Also, whatever you decide, S&W is offering a $50 rebate on certain J frame revolvers.

Dump, thanks for pointing that out, man! Just ordered my 442 NO LOCK.

[Dump1567]

Originally Posted by Roger S&W

Dump, thanks for pointing that out, man! Just ordered my 442 NO LOCK.

Good choice. I have a 642.

You can also replace the grips with something lighter and knock-off a few more onces from the weight.

I like the Hogue bantam.

[Poohgyrr]

Originally Posted by Roger S&W

. :::: ordered the 442. ::::

Congrats. For myself, that is the best combination of light weight vs more recoil in a carry revolver. Those Airweights have been very popular for a long time.

[Roger S&W]

Originally Posted by Dump1567

Good choice. I have a 642.

You can also replace the grips with something lighter and knock-off a few more onces from the weight.

I like the Hogue bantam.

The grips the 442 comes with are not rubber? I think I'd prefer rubber grips if it doesn't. Yeah, 442 seems like a great carry revolver at a decent price and it's a NO LOCK!

[Dump1567]

Originally Posted by Roger S&W

The grips the 442 comes with are not rubber? I think I'd prefer rubber grips if it doesn't. Yeah, 442 seems like a great carry revolver at a decent price and it's a NO LOCK!

The 442 originally came with Uncle Mikes boot grips (rubber). Not sure what the model you ordered comes with.

The Uncle Mike boot grips have some weight to them. The Hogue bantam grips practically weighs nothing.

442 with Uncle Mike Grips:


Here's the Hogue. (I'm sure there's other lightweight grips out there).

Hogue Bantam Grips with Top Finger Groove S&W J-Frame Round Butt Rubber Black - MidwayUSA

[Roger S&W]

Ah, thank you. Very nice. You guys are very generous and helpful to revolver newbies.

Oh, are snap caps recommended for dry firing a revolver with an internal hammer like the 442?

[jds3]

If you plan to pocket carry the 342/340 platform is well worth the additional bucks. Other than that, you will not notice much difference.

[Roger S&W]

Those Bantam Hogue thin rubber grips shown above are two piece panel type grips? Where's the screw to secure them? Do they just simply snap into place? If so, how secure is that for EDC?
If I go with the the Hogue Rubber Monogrip, does that take alot away from concealabilty? Alot of extra weight? They just slip on?
I bet they're comfortable though especially for the backstrap part of the hand.

[No Deal]

Well the first page of this thread actually addressed my question. Thanks to those who responded about the topic. Roger, thanks for derailing the thread into your personal discussion of lock v no lock, 442 grips, etc.