S&W AirLite Sc J Frame: Is the .357 Magnum Overkill?

D

Data

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2023
Messages
181
Reaction score
175
Just like the title says, Do you think the S&W Airlite Sc (Scandium /Titanium J Frame is a bit overkill? I am specifically referencing the model(s) 340PD, and 360PD. Nowadays, it seems that most gun folks are straying from the high-powered .357 ammunition in favor of the standard and reduced pressure cartridges; furthermore, it appears to me that most owners of the 340 PD & 360 PD are most likely stoking their sub 12oz J Frame with the .38 special +P, standard, and reduced pressure loadings... ala the Short Barrel (SB) Speer Gold Dot 135gr. +P and various brands of .38 Special 148gr. Wadcutter. That being said, it makes me wonder why Smith & Wesson stopped producing the Model 342 PD & 337 PD chambered for a .38 Special +P. Obviously, the .357 Chambering gives you greater versatility as you can shoot the .357 as well as .38 special and +P rated, so long as the gun is chambered for the .357 cartridge. Me and everyone who has shot the high-powered .357 loads through 340 PD and 360 PD will tell you they kick like a Mule! I love the .357 cartridge, but I concede that it's a bit overkill for the ultralight sub 12 oz Scandium frame J frame. Honestly, what compelled Smith to do such a thing? It seems to me that they should add the 337 PD & 342 PD to their product line again. Definitely, I would buy the latter two in a heartbeat if they should ever come to market again. Lastly, I think my question here is ... Should Smith & Wesson stop making the 340 PD & 360 PD and replace them with the 337 PD & 342 PD chambered in .38 Special and rated +P? What are your thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Register to hide this ad
When Smith & Wesson standardized the lineup to the new J-magnum frame it obsoleted the 337/342 models. The cylinder window on the J-magnum is .10 inch longer to accommodate the longer .357.

As a matter of production economy they aren't bringing the old models back, and the reinforcements on the new frames are certainly welcome for longevity.

Besides, the price premium for the scandium models has been very good for the company's bottom line. Ask yourself this: Why hasn't Smith introduced a titanium cylinder to the 442/637/642/etc. .38 Special Airweight models?

Cause there is way more profit in selling scandium J-frames. There is your answer.

You can do like many of us here on the forum. Fit a titanium cylinder to your Airweight .38. It gets you to within a quarter of an ounce of the 3XX series for a hundred dollar part.
 
My S&W 649 (heavy, stainless steel) J frame stays loaded with the Speers SB 38 spl +P rounds. When I first bought it I tried 357 mag loads and decided they weren’t going to work out

Can not imagine shooting 357 mag in any light weight J frame.
357 mag loads go in my S&W 28 and S&W 520 N frames.
 
My favorite carry load is Federal's "C357B" which is the full house 125gr. SJHP. It kicks super hard and stings a bunch but it's do-able for me. Accuracy is very good, but the follow-up shots are not as quick as the .38s. However, Federal is no longer producing this load or perhaps out of the production cycle for the time being. As always I will keep my eyes out for this particular load. As a result, I have switched over to the .38 Special 148 gr. Wadcutter, but for my backup rounds they are the Speer SB .38s in the 135 gr.+P as they are much easier to load into a cylinder due to the tapered bullet profile. Lastly, I can see why most people choose not to shoot the harsh .357 Magnum load out of a Scandium J Frame. If I could turn back the clock I would have purchased the 337 & 342 PD models years ago. However, I will never sell my 340 PD or 360 PD.
 
Last edited:
burneyr said:
... the price premium for the scandium models has been very good for the company's bottom line...
Click to expand...
This/\/\
The 340 sold for hundreds more than the 342 and presumably had a much higher profit margin. Why would S&W want to slash into their own profits?

I had a 340Pd and sold it. The recoil with magnums was too much for me and my 342Ti suits me just fine. I've carried it daily for over 20 years and like it so much I picked up a 342Pd and a 337Ti as spares!
 
Chad, your findings are opposite mine! My 342 and 337 kicked so badly that I will prolly never fire them again. I carry my M&P 340s daily and find them tolerable with 110gr magnum loads, the bullet weight that the PD models can't handle w/o substantial damage.

Wish I could find a magnum load for my PDs, but a recent poster reported crimp jump with the R-P Golden Saber .357s in this model. Got a box of 145gr Silvertips somewhere, if I could only get around to trying them out. With the hard-kicking 340s of either persuasion, a 50-round box is tantamount to a lifetime supply. :eek:

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103
 
kaaskop49 said:
Chad, your findings are opposite mine! My 342 and 337 kicked so badly that I will prolly never fire them again. I carry my M&P 340s daily and find them tolerable with 110gr magnum loads, the bullet weight that the PD models can't handle w/o substantial damage.
Click to expand...
I had the 340PD, which is a few ounces lighter than the M&P 340. After shooting a few magnum loads, I quickly decided I was never going to practice with magnum loads. The titanium cylinders do have limitations, but .38 Special Speer Gold Dot's work fine in my 342 and I find the recoil tolerable.
 
standard 357mags in alloy frame snubbys ether have crimp issues or just don't see the performance need for the bullets to perform as you would from 4" barrel . Speer short barrel 357mag works well but even federal new 338+p mini hst works better than many 357mag loads in a short .

Data stated s&w should add the 337 PD & 342 PD to their product line again. Why there just lite airweights too .

We have a 360j with a solid 357mag SS cylinder for 2.7 oz of extra weight but it can still be a handful and makes the use of hogues rubberized mono grip a nice addition over the nice looking but terrible to shoot with wood grips that came on ours . Still the speer short barrel ammo or the old rem 158gr semi jacketed ammo work well at lower velocity's . Find a load that you can handle barrel or buy a heavier handgun or a 3P load as some work better out of a snubby than many 357mag loads

If the softest shooting 357mag are still to snappy check out the link below for federals 38sp +P 130gr hst micro . I have a snubby bought in '90- thats a 38sp and today its filled with the load below . hard to find better expansion and it does manage fbi minimum penetration .

38 Special Ammo - Federal HST Personal Defense Micro 130gr JHP - 20 Rounds

BUt it would take a law makes semi autos illegal before ether if us carry a revolver and then it might be our DW 15-2 with 4" barrels not the snubbys . Snubby's would be sort of a last resort for us.
 
Last edited:
Regarding ... "Crimp Jump" / "Bullet Jump" ... I think most of the past / present claims about it is greatly exaggerated and is pure non-sense regarding the Scandium J Frame chambered in 357 Magnum. While the problem can exist in any revolver, regardless of size and material, it has more to do with the process of a proper crimp method. That being said, I am more than confident to say that if it was a real issue Smith & Wesson would have stopped producing the .357 models several decades ago. I don't think Smith would want a bunch of lawsuits on hand. It would probably destroy the company altogether. In case you're unaware ...The Scandium Ti J frame in the 357 is marketed as a self-defense firearm, not a range toy.

I guess this all goes back to my original post ... Is this Scandium J-frame chambered in 357 magnum overkill or not?

Nuff' said! ;-)
 
Last edited:
The 340PD was/is both a profit center and an engineering stunt, in my opinion. That said, no, there is no good reason I can think of to discontinue the model if it is selling. It’s a good super-lightweight .38 Special revolver that can fire .357 Magnum ammo in a pinch. ;)

For my own use, I prefer the 342PD, but as I have said often, what I would really like to have seen S&W make is a “942PD”. I suppose someone can shoot standard .357 magnum loads (158 grain) fast enough in their 340PD to make follow-up shots realistic, but I can’t. Silvertips are a bit easier to handle, but 125s are more realistic for me. If I’m going to use 125s in this type of gun, it might as well be a 9x19.
 
Data said:
Regarding ... "Crimp Jump" / "Bullet Jump" ... I think most of the past / present claims about it is greatly exaggerated and is pure non-sense regarding the Scandium J Frame chambered in 357 Magnum. While the problem can exist in any revolver, regardless of size and material, it has more to do with the process of a proper crimp method. That being said, I am more than confident to say that if it was a real issue Smith & Wesson would have stopped producing the .357 models several decades ago. I don't think Smith would want a bunch of lawsuits on hand. It would probably destroy the company altogether. In case you're unaware ...The Scandium Ti J frame in the 357 is marketed as a self-defense firearm, not a range toy.

I guess this all goes back to my original post ... Is this Scandium J-frame chambered in 357 magnum overkill or not?

Nuff' said! ;-)
Click to expand...

IMO Yes, it is overkill because the recoil is hellacious with very little benefit. You just cannot maximize the power of full 357 loads out of a snub. Is it stronger than a 38 out of the same snub, of course... The diminishing returns of that in combination with the excessive recoil you are punished with make it overkill IMO. I am sure some feel the opposite and if it works for them, then it may not be overkill in their eyes.
 
Last edited:
I’ve never understood why anyone would want to use 357 mag ammo in a lightweight J frame. It’s downright unpleasant with no appreciable improvement in performance.

The increased velocity compared with 38 standard velocity in a 1 7/8” barrel is trivial and not noticeable on flesh and blood targets.

I suspect the attraction of the 357 in snubbies has more to do with the sex appeal of magnums, not their utility in that application.
 
Crimp jump is real - one of the all time most popular self defense loads, the 158gr +p LSWCHP will jump crimp better than 50% of the time through Sc/Ti model lightweight snubs. The big three Federal, Winchester, and Remington all load that round with a dead soft swaged bullet. It's more an issue with the projectile being malleable than the crimp.

Saw it first with my 342 and others. Regretted going to jacketed bullets but it's a fact of life with these unless you buy a boutique round that's hard cast.
 
340PD

I will probably get flamed but I love my 340PD pocket carry with full 158 Grain .357 loads. I carry a 629 3" or 4" Mountain Gun when in the woods etc. and at one time tried to belt carry some concealed version of a 66, 65 or I have a nice 686 CS1. They were all more than I was comfortable with. For concealed carry I have tried everything over the last decades. 5" Colt 1911, Glocks and several J Frame revolvers in increasing strenght and decreasing weight from a 3" 60 with target sights to a 642. Some will call me lazy but to comfortably carry I almost never carry extra ammo. I tried to love my P365 recently but compared to a 340PD it seems so heavy and cluncky. If I am only going to have 5 shots I want them to be as powerful as possible. A .357 even out of such a short barrel usually has double the energy of even +P 38 Special. I can get off 3 shots very rapidly but with only 5 aboard I don't see any advantage to holding an empty gun so will go slow and careful if God forbid I have to. This is only my decision and others can choose whatever they are comfortable with but I am almost never without this light and wonderfully powerful gun.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CJH
burneyr said:
Crimp jump is real - one of the all time most popular self defense loads, the 158gr +p LSWCHP will jump crimp better than 50% of the time through Sc/Ti model lightweight snubs. The big three Federal, Winchester, and Remington all load that round with a dead soft swaged bullet. It's more an issue with the projectile being malleable than the crimp.

Saw it first with my 342 and others. Regretted going to jacketed bullets but it's a fact of life with these unless you buy a boutique round that's hard cast.
Click to expand...

Don't know how you and I can state, thru personal experience, that crimp jump is real, when the OP says that crimp jump is "greatly exaggerated" and "pure nonsense." Yes, the .38 LHP can crimp jump, especially the Federal load, as I have discovered. It is better restricted to steel frame guns. BTW, jacketed rounds can also crimp jump, the 110gr Norma .38 in my experience. Have done enough testing with .357 loads to have settled on the 110gr JHPs for the M&P 340s. Unfortunate I cannot use them in my 340PDs...Let me stop.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103
 
I don't mean to repeat myself here, but why would Smith & Wesson keep on producing the Scandium J Frames chambered in the .357 Magnum if "Crimp Jump" was a real problem with these lightweight scandium J frame revolvers?

Honestly, don't you think that it would be a huge liability issue?

If there was an issue, don't you think that Smith would have put a huge warning message in owner's manual and or perhaps engraved a message on the revolver?

In other words, are you saying that Smith & Wesson is turning the cheek the other way??

If so, why would you even put your trust in Smith & Wesson to begin with?

Does character really matter when it comes to your personal safety?

Apparently, nobody here has produced any shred evidence that it's actually an "ongoing" occurence or is just mere forum chatter ...

Truth matters. But, if I AM wrong I will stand corrected.

Best,
Data
 
UNCLE PAULY said:
My S&W 649 (heavy, stainless steel) J frame stays loaded with the Speers SB 38 spl +P rounds. When I first bought it I tried 357 mag loads and decided they weren’t going to work out

Can not imagine shooting 357 mag in any light weight J frame.
357 mag loads go in my S&W 28 and S&W 520 N frames.
Click to expand...
I'm with you.
Full boat magnums are unpleasant in any J-frame to me - even steel framed versions.
I'll occasionally pop off a cylinder or two, before my hand starts to go numb and I've had about all I want of them.
+P 38's in a scandium J frame feels almost like magnums in a steel J frame to me.
Though I have to admit, I have a Taurus 617 TTi that is almost as light as a scandium J-frame (19.7 oz) but the slightly larger grip frame and 7-round cylinder combined with the barrel porting make it much more comfortable to shoot with magnums.
 
Last edited:
cerescorubi said:
I will probably get flamed but I love my 340PD pocket carry with full 158 Grain .357 loads. I carry a 629 3" or 4" Mountain Gun when in the woods etc. and at one time tried to belt carry some concealed version of a 66, 65 or I have a nice 686 CS1. They were all more than I was comfortable with. For concealed carry I have tried everything over the last decades. 5" Colt 1911, Glocks and several J Frame revolvers in increasing strenght and decreasing weight from a 3" 60 with target sights to a 642. Some will call me lazy but to comfortably carry I almost never carry extra ammo. I tried to love my P365 recently but compared to a 340PD it seems so heavy and cluncky. If I am only going to have 5 shots I want them to be as powerful as possible. A .357 even out of such a short barrel usually has double the energy of even +P 38 Special. I can get off 3 shots very rapidly but with only 5 aboard I don't see any advantage to holding an empty gun so will go slow and careful if God forbid I have to. This is only my decision and others can choose whatever they are comfortable with but I am almost never without this light and wonderfully powerful gun.
Click to expand...

Lets just hope you never find your self in a gun fight with a snubby only and no extra ammo . I find it funny you states the p365 was heavy and clunky buy it might be more about not give any other handgun an honest chance when carried in a proper holster but that is your problem . Now are you lasy . Maybe probably but again thats your problem. If your use to pocket carry ,, heck any iwb or owb would feel odd if you don't have the right holster and give it time like a couple weeks . Oh well .
 
Last edited:
While I am certainly not a proponent of magnum ammunition in such short barrel, lightweight revolvers…there is a middle ground here. There’s the Winchester 110 grain +P+ “Treasury Load”. It’s more than a .38 Special +P and less than a .357 Magnum. My Python snubby loves this ammo.

It’s a bit hard to find on the market but Winchester loads it in a .357 case but loaded to the .38 Treasury Load specs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

0
S&W 337-2 AirLite Ti
Replies
0
Views
213
00Glazz
0
3
N frame cartridge length 357 magnum
Replies
5
Views
284
Alk8944
Alk8944
T
S&W Model 13, FBI-spec 3” .357 Magnum
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
charlie sherrill
C
J
Which 357 revolver is next?
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
gwpercle
gwpercle
Chrisj357
Double Action with .357 Magnum
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Doug M.
Doug M.

Latest posts

Back
Top