640 .38 ?

[snubbiefan]

Let me ask the question in a different manner. Remember, this 640 ND is my first concealed hammer revolver. Is the trigger-pull LONGER in the concealed hammer lock-work as opposed to the models with hammers.

I fully realize there is some difference within the lock-work as the hammer block is not readily visible when the side plate is popped off. This gun was so clean on the inside and the action was so smooth that I did not take it completely apart, so I honestly admit that I am not sure of the differences in the actions.

I guess I will ask it this way again....does anybody know if the trigger pull is naturally LONGER on the concealed hammer revolvers?

 

[photoman]

It's the same except for no hammer block.

 

[snubbiefan]

Good....Now I know I am not missing any parts.

Yep...I realized that right off the bat and I understand the need not to have one. It would be pretty hard to hit a covered-up hammer and cause a discharge by accident. Maybe it's just me, or this particular gun, but the trigger-pull seems long. SMOOTH as silk...just seems longer.

 

[gc45]

Very new to this forum, hope you all don't mind my chimeing in but really love my three J frame revolvers.
Have a 640-1 chambered for 357M although it only gets 38 wadcutters sent down the barrel. Serial number is BUJ05xx but I don't know the year it was made; has unmarked rubber grips so guessing their Hogue; barrel length is 2 &1/8 inch. Also has pinned front site but maybe that is for all of them, I don't know. Being a stock gun the trigger pull is very smooth, never feeling heavy to me. I keep looking for another nice condition 640 but in 38 special. Thanks everyone for this great thread on the 640 Smiths.

GC45

 

[cube121]

The internal or hamerless j frame was reintroduced in 1989 and designated the 640. The first 1000 produced were the "centenial" and ONLY the first 1000 carry the CEN prefix serial number. If you have one hold on to it. I worked at a shop/range at the time and our S&W rep was able to secure a low serial number one for me. Great gun, I still carry it off duty a lot, even 20+ years later. I hope this does a little to clear up the CEN questions.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Are all these designated as "Centennial?"

I see some have CEN in the S/N, and others don't....I guess the 640 no dash's are the Centennial's?????

Also, are the Centennials more desireable?

Thanks.

The model name Centennial applies to S&W's revolver with the completely enclosed hammer that was introduced in 1952 to commemorate the 100th (Centennial) anniversary of the company. Originally called the Model 40 in steel and the Model 42 (Airweight), the two models were later discontinued. The drive for double action only handguns was one cause for the reintroduction of the enclosed hammer model. When reintroduced, it was in stainless and called the 640 (following S&W's model numbering which was to put a 6 in front of the number to signify stainless). If I recall correctly, the first reintroduction of the 640 intentionally had the CEN-prefix, and they were also laser engraved in the frame window "Tested for +P+" or something to that effect. At the time, that was a big deal. The 640 might have been the only S&W up to that time sold on the commercial market which was specifically approved for +P+.

In any event, the name Centennial applies to a J frame with the enclosed hammer (40, 42, 640, 442, 642, etc.), the name Bodyguard applies to the J frame with the shrouded hammer that you can still cock for single action firing (38, 49, 438, 638, 649, etc.) and the name Chief's Special applies to a J frame with a fully exposed hammer (36, 37, 60, 637, etc.). To make matters more confusing, S&W has from time to time offered the Chief's Special with a bobbed hammer in double action only (37, 60 and perhaps other model numbers for the Chief's Special).

Whether the Centennial is more valuable or not depends on what the purchaser wants.

 

[pmosley]

640 CEN

The internal or hamerless j frame was reintroduced in 1989 and designated the 640. The first 1000 produced were the "centenial" and ONLY the first 1000 carry the CEN prefix serial number. If you have one hold on to it. I worked at a shop/range at the time and our S&W rep was able to secure a low serial number one for me. Great gun, I still carry it off duty a lot, even 20+ years later. I hope this does a little to clear up the CEN questions.

Picked one up today with a serial number of CEN00xx - lower than fifty. Marked as tested for +P+.

What is your source for only the first 1000 being labeled with CEN?

Thanks!

 

[shouldazagged]

My 640 no-dash was built in 1990 according to S&W. It has the CEN prefix and a number above 4000, and is etched inside the grip frame (bottom strap) "Tested For +P+".

It's a very fine little revolver. I see no need for one in .357 Magnum, but whatever suits you is yours to decide. It seems to me you have to really like recoil, flash and blast to shoot .357 stuff in a snubby, even an all-steel one.

 

[pmosley]

Hmmmmmm, that would debunk that only the first 1000 carried the CEN designation. The mystery remains.

As a previous owner of a ported 640-1 chambered in 357 I concur with your assessment.

I have bigger, heavier guns for that.

 

[Cal44]

Sorry Max.....I detect the "plug in the hole". You almost had me tempted there for a minute.

Yep....I am a NL guy and nothing one can do to cover-up the wart-hole can sway me either way. I have removed locks and covered-up holes for other people....but not for me.

FWIW, they still make these (or at least 642s) without the lock.

I know because I just bought one new at a LGS.

The one in the display case had no lock, but the ones in the back room did. I took the one without the lock.

I don't know if mine has no lock because S&W just makes some percentage without the lock, or what.

Dave

 

[ggallen]

Great Thread - need more help

Thank you everyone for the education on the 640. I still have a couple questions.

I loooking at purchasing a 640-1 today that has CEN as the serial prefix. If CEN was used as an introductory number of the model and the 640-1 came after the 640, why does it have CEN in the serial number?

Also, this particular 640-1 has two rectangular (ish) ports at the tip of the barrel. I was at a different gun store yesterday and they had the same handgun with the ported barrel like the one I was purchasing. The serial number of that one had a serial prefix of CAP. The gentleman at the shop told me that this one was a Performance Series 640-1 . I asked how he knew that and he said it was because of the porting. Is that a correct statement?

Are both of these 640-1's Performance Series?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

 

[linde]

. . . I am looking at purchasing a 640-1 today that has CEN as the serial prefix. If CEN was used as an introductory number of the model and the 640-1 came after the 640, why does it have CEN in the serial number? . . .

I don't know the answer but can speculate.

We do know . . .
(1) The 640 was introduced in 1989 with early production using the CEN s/n prefix to commemorate the CENtennial;
(2) the 640-1 was introduced in 1996 on the newly designed J magnum frame and introduced in 357 magnum, and
(3) it wasn't until late 2000 or early 2001 that CEN prefix came up in the normal alphabetic rotation.

Theory . . . the factory didn't use up all 10,000 CEN-prefix serial numbers in 1989-1990 so when it came up in normal rotation in late 2000 they used the rest of the number combinations. (we've been told many times the factory didn't waste anything so perhaps that applied to serial numbers as well )

. . . Also, this particular 640-1 has two rectangular (ish) ports at the tip of the barrel. I was at a different gun store yesterday and they had the same handgun with the ported barrel like the one I was purchasing. The serial number of that one had a serial prefix of CAP. The gentleman at the shop told me that this one was a Performance Series 640-1 . I asked how he knew that and he said it was because of the porting. Is that a correct statement?

Are both of these 640-1's Performance Series?

You didn't mention if the 640-1 Centennials you were looking at were both on the J-magnum frame with 2 1/8" bbl and chambered in 357 magnum but . . . assuming they are . . .

The CEN s/n prefix example may have been ported by a previous owner or there was a special Performance Center run that isn't documented in Chapter X of the Standard Catalog of S&W 3rd edition.

The CAP s/n prefix example would have been circa Feb 1996 and in 1996 the Performance Center did produce an RSR Special that was Mag-Na-Ported. They reportedly had Heritage walnut grips and an unfluted cylinder with a glass bead finish.


That is what little I know . . . and a lot I don't . . . but offer up for discussion. Perhaps others have examples to add.

Russ

 

[dpast32]

OK Guys, I guess I'll bite. I had, but have since sold one of early 640's. Pre- 'J Magnum' frame, but w/o the +P+ mkg. Beautiful little revolver, but too heavy for hide away back up duty. I sold it off, & picked up a 642 'Ladysmith'. And yes, it did take me a little soul searching to determine if I could deal with carrying a Ladysmith, but it did come with some advantages. It came with a beautiful D/A, & was factory Magna-Ported. The porting was just too useful to pass up. I 'be carried daily ever since it was sighted it. It handles 135+P's just like 148 gr. FWC's, so needless to say I'm quite pleased with it. Mine is Serial # CAP-2XXX, with Factory Product # 103808. I've always loved both 2" & 3" bbl'd revolvers. Even now, in the day of the compact auto, I still have 2 S&W's, & 2 alloy Colts. Just can't seem to part with them.

Best, dpast32

 

[BlueLineNYPD]

640 Centennial purchased in 1991.

My 640 That I purchased brand new in 1991.

 

[dpast32]

Good Morning Folks, This may be an unanswerable question, but I'm going to ask anyway, just in case someone does happen to possess that knowledge ? S&W's Model 640, w/ 3" Barrel was only produced for approximately 3 +/- years, according to most sources. Based upon my own observations, along with those by others, this particular Model appears to have been observed very infrequently, which based upon the short production span, would lead us to believe it was manufactured in quite limited numbers ? If anyone happens to have any information regarding the approximate quantities of M-640 3" versions produced, I would truly appreciate hearing from them, THANK YOU

[ RE: My 3" bbl'd M-640 [ no dash ] is Serial # BFV5XXX. Be advised that I am also able to provide any related Box Label data, if requested. ]

Best, dpast32

 

[Lobster Picnic]

Since the hammerless design was to facilitate pocket carry, the 3" model probably sold in very small numbers.

A 640 ND is high on my bucket list.

 

[.38SuperMan]

I have a no dash I bought new in the early to mid 90’s. I don’t remember the year but the prefix is BPN and is not marked +P+. It’s one of the few guns I’ve never been tempted to sell and I certainly wouldn’t trade it for one of the 357 versions.

 

[dpast32]

Yes, I too surmise that the 3" 640's were produced in somewhat limited numbers, although I would still love to know at least an approximate total ? Some Folks say them as not very useful, & or efficient for concealed carry, due of course to the extra 1" in OAL, plus being a bit heavy as opposed to the Airweight examples. I'll also admit that they tend to be a 'specific purpose, or application' type of Revolver, ill suited to pocket type carry. But, for some purposes it remains an excellent prospect, exhibiting all the well known attributes of the 3" barreled Revolver, such as manageable recoil, along with better shot to shot recovery, somewhat better accuracy, enhanced velocity, etc. They are especially well suited to those that tend to be recoil shy, who have smaller, weaker hand strength, although the longer DAO system may prove to be an issue, & must be investigated on an individual basis. I for one highly recommend this model for 'Home Defense' type duties, where the only foreseeable issue 'might' possibly be an 'capacity' issue, which of course will depend upon the overall scenario, & the skill level of the end user. Now, if S&W would only produced it with an Alloy Frame, that would IMHO be a true winner & should, hopefully sell quite well. Long live the whole 'Centennial Series' !

Best, dpast32

 

[CH4]

I have 3 centennials. I like em all equally for their individual characteristics, but the shorter .38 is a little handier; the 9.7 ounce 342PD is sure nice for pocket carry. My 296 has identity issues. Somedays it identifies as a bodyguard, others a centennial. Once you go hammerless, you never go back.

 

[dpast32]

10-04 on that 'CH4' !! As I was compiling the above Post, I thought about mentioning the old Model 296, & noting just how close I came to buying one back when they were initially introduced. But, if you recall that back then, although it really wasn't that long ago, very few 'real' .44 Special defensive Factory Loads were available on the market. Also, IIRC, S&W had stipulated that only 200 grains or under were suitable for use in it. [ As so marked on the right hand barrel flat. ] So due to it's 'restrictions', along with the fact that the .44 Special doesn't exhibit an overabundance of velocity in it's Factory Loadings. Another subsequent issue plus the fact of being regulated to the 200 grain projectiles, I became concerned as to how their 'Fixed Sights' were Factory regulated, or sighted in. Back then, the Standard .44 Special Loading was something like an 246 grain LRN at around 750 +/- FPS via a 6" barrel. So, had S&W regulated their new M-296 for a 200 grain head, or simply stuck with the standard, 246 LRN ? All in all there was much to like, in addition to great promise for the 296 Models, but when I began factoring in the size & capacity data, as opposed to my Alloy Colt Commander .45 ACP, I just couldn't justify buying yet another gun I honestly didn't need ! Right now though, I truly wish I had grabbed one !! And lastly, S&W really should have produced it with the 3" barrel, as I feel it may have sold somewhat better than it did ?

Best, dpast32