Added titanium cylinder to my 642-1

H

hyena

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
805
Reaction score
1,416
Location
Central Illinois
I couldn't bring myself to shell out the bucks for a 340PD, so I decided to buy a titanium cylinder from Midway and put it in my 642-1. The swap looked pretty straight forward, but I decided to have a local gunsmith do it. It only took him a few minutes. He was going to use my original extractor, but agreed to try the one that came with the new cylinder. It worked great, with no modifications. He checked the timing on all five holes with a range rod, and said we lucked out. I gave him $20, even though he said "no charge" for an old high school classmate.

Before the change the gun weighed 14.2 ounces with wood Altamont boot grips. After the change it was 12 ounces. I took it to the range and ran 25 moderate power .38 handloads through it. No perceived difference in recoil. I'm not even contemplating firing a .357 in it, since the frame isn't rated for it. I've got a 640 Pro for that.

Been carrying it AIWB for a week. Can I tell a difference on my belt? Maybe not. I did the change in case I ever decide to pocket carry the 642.

Nothing earth shattering to report. I just thought others contemplating doing it would appreciate my experience.
 

Attachments

  • 642-1 on scale.jpg
    642-1 on scale.jpg
    131.6 KB · Views: 210
Register to hide this ad
Since you didn't get the cleaning instructions for a gun with Titanium cyl, note that S&W cautions about cleaning the cyl too aggressively. The finish is part of the Ti cyl. strength. Therefore diminishing the finish can cause the cyl to lose it's full strength potential.

I did the opposite on this 296 44 Spl L frame since the strength of the Ti cyls is the coating according to S&W. They also warn against severe cleaning of Ti cyls because of reducing the cyl coating and therefore its strength. So I avoid having to clean it many times by using the SS cyl, especially for range practice. I always have the option of popping in the Ti cyl for pocket carry. Albeit, like you, I noticed little difference in weight gain.

orig.jpg
 
Last edited:
The irony :D Many of us with Ti cylinders are looking for steel ones to swap. Not sure I would have done it for 2 ounces, but I've done a lot of things that caused my friends to scratch their heads. As long as you're smiling, it's all good.
 
Hondo44 said:
Since you didn't get the cleaning instructions for a gun with Titanium cyl, note that S&W cautions about cleaning the cyl too aggressively. The finish is part of the Ti cyl. strength. Therefore diminishing the finish can cause the cyl to lose it's full strength potential.

I did the opposite on this 296 44 Spl L frame since the strength of the Ti cyls is the coating according to S&W. They also warn against severe cleaning of Ti cyls because of reducing the cyl coating and therefore its strength. So I avoid having to clean it many times by using the SS cyl, especially for range practice. I always have the option of popping in the Ti cyl for pocket carry. Albeit, like you, I noticed little difference in weight gain.

orig.jpg
Click to expand...

Oh man, now I want a stainless cylinder for my 296!
 
I did the same as the OP with my 642; except I used the original extractor. The 2 oz. difference is surprisingly quite noticeable. Was it worth the $90? Meh.

I also added a Crimson Trace; highly recommend this, as well.

If one is shooting and cleaning a 642 enough to degrade the titanium coating they're using their 642 way, way too much.

Competitors shoot the 929s tens of thousands of rounds without issue.

While the mention of added care for a titanium cylinder is appreciated, one shouldn't have to worry in the least with five, if not, 50 times the typical use a 642 should see.
 
Last edited:
HamHands said:
I've never heard of a new extractor/ratchet going into a revolver and not need timing adjustments... You should go buy Lottery tickets today! :)
Click to expand...

Some may complain about current S&W guns and lack of the hand fitting of yesteryear, but frankly I'm not surprised because I've noticed amazing interchangeability of parts as "drop-ins" w/o fitting required.

It's testament to the consistency of current Smith quality of manufacturing.
 
gr7070 said:
I did the same as the OP with my 642; except I used the original extractor. The 2 oz. difference is surprisingly quite noticeable. Was it worth the $90? Meh.

I also added a Crimson Trace; highly recommend this, as well.

If one is shooting and cleaning a 642 enough to degrade the titanium coating they're using their 642 way, way too much.

Competitors shoot the 929s tens of thousands of rounds without issue.

While the mention of added care for a titanium cylinder is appreciated, one shouldn't have to worry in the least with five, if not, 50 times the typical use a 642 should see.
Click to expand...

I suspect S&W's warning is overly cautious, and that over scrubbing the coating would be a rare occurrence. But even if there was only one incident, I too, still appreciated the information.

It never occurred to me that the Ti cyl coating was actually part of its strength, and remember my surprise upon reading the warning.
 
It never occurred to me that the Ti cyl coating was actually part of its strength, and remember my surprise upon reading the warning.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that it's truly part of the strength. It's almost certainly not. I presume that the coating does contribute to its long-term durability, and long-term durability issues can certainly lead to structural capacity problems.

It's likely akin to what paint does for a steel bridge girder.
 
I have cleaned my 340PD's Ti cylinder with everything except any products containing amonina. It is a dozen years old, has been in and out of leather holsters hundreds of times, sat in a car through 100° to -20° and looks like new.
Personally, I think the 2oz saved is noticeable.
 
hyena said:
No wonder the gunsmith looked surprised! Had I done it myself I was just going to use the original extractor.
Click to expand...

It's certainly possible! I would have done the same as you would, used the original... It's easy enough to get a second pair of eyes on it and check each cylinder yourself for piece or mind with a flash light (unloaded of course), and see if all the charging holes are aligned to the forcing cone perfectly... if you haven't done so already!
 
I've got three airweight 637-2 J-frames. Each has two extra yoke and titanium cylinder assemblies. One of the two is chambered for .38Sp/.357Mag, and the other for 9mm. I usually carry the 9mm.

I usually have to time about half the chambers.
 
Last edited:
gr7070 said:
Ditto.

FYI they sent me something like a $50 coupon on my birthday I used to buy this. In case yours is coming up soon...
Click to expand...

mine is in april so no go at the moment. MW is hard to find a discount code for their site. Anyone have a discount code for them???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
M&P Bodyguard 38 - Titanium Cylinder?
Replies
1
Views
525
doctorj357
D
Breakaway500
Kimber K6XS...replacing my 642?
Replies
4
Views
4K
Jocko-44
Jocko-44
Redacted_553
Is it a timing issue?
Replies
9
Views
386
SGT ROCK 11B
SGT ROCK 11B
cmansguns
No 1 son and Model 29-2 story.....he made my day!
Replies
6
Views
549
2500
2
G
  • Locked
FS: Model 642 PC, Model 625-8 JM 4” (sold), Model 15-2 4” (sold), Model 340PD (sold)
Replies
3
Views
2K
mike56
M

Latest posts

Back
Top