Early 640's

[paco04]

Very interesting thread indeed. I was under the impression that the +P+ 38's were a politically correct way of possessing near 357 power without the 'magnum' stigma.
My 640, #CEN11xx is stoked with 147gr +P+; I just hope it holds together for the 5 shots that I may need it for.

 

[Beachcomber]

My opinion:

I suspect that during production the +P+ markings were probably used on the revolver to relate that the cylinders were tested to greater than .38 special standards (.357 magnum) and since the 640 cylinders were only cut to .38 special length (at the time) it's possible the "+P+" was designated as the next most powerful .38 special rating. If the revolver was marked as being rated at ".357 Magnum" many owners might try to stuff .357's into the .38 special chamber and then complain when they didn't fit? (Shortly thereafter a .357 magnum 640 was released.)

 

[MTKTM]

My opinion:

I suspect that during production the +P+ markings were probably used on the revolver to relate that the cylinders were tested to greater than .38 special standards (.357 magnum) and since the 640 cylinders were only cut to .38 special length (at the time) it's possible the "+P+" was designated as the next most powerful .38 special rating. If the revolver was marked as being rated at ".357 Magnum" many owners might try to stuff .357's into the .38 special chamber and then complain when they didn't fit? (Shortly thereafter a .357 magnum 640 was released.)

I bought one of the very first 640-1s in 1997, it had a slightly beefed up frame, a longer cylinder, and a heavier and slightly longer barrel, and came with boot-grips.....and chambered in 357 Magnum. At the time I thought it was the worst kicking handgun I'd ever fired. Of course, this was prior to the advent of the Scandium/Ti monstrosities, and the 500 S&W Magnum! One has to wonder what might be coming down the road.....

 

[bummer]

My 640 is a cen 16## marked for +p+

 

[mtelkhntr]

I went and looked at the manual that came with my 640 to see what they listed for "approved" cartridges and it doesn't show the 640 at all. The book is dated May of '89 and it's surprising what it shows for the other "38 special" revolvers.

 

[Beachcomber]

I bought one of the very first 640-1s in 1997, it had a slightly beefed up frame, a longer cylinder, and a heavier and slightly longer barrel, and came with boot-grips.....and chambered in 357 Magnum. At the time I thought it was the worst kicking handgun I'd ever fired. Of course, this was prior to the advent of the Scandium/Ti monstrosities, and the 500 S&W Magnum! One has to wonder what might be coming down the road.....

My first Centennial was a 1-7/8" Model 640 marked +P+. I purchased it from a forum member several years ago and I still use it for pocket carry on a regular basis.

I later purchased a 640-1 that I had sent back to S&W Performance Center and had them install an XS Big Dot front sight, dehorn the sharp edges and crown the barrel. S&W done a real nice job on reworking the 640-1 to my likings. I don't carry this one as often as I like, but when I wear a suit jacket it rides comfortably on my hip in a belt holster.

I can't say that I like firing full house .357's from the 640-1, but it can be done. If I were to use 357's in the 640-1 I would probably use a lighter factory load to be able to control the 640-1 better during a quick double tap.

In closing, if I had to chose between the .38 special 640 and the .357 Magnum 640-1... I think I would choose the .38 special 640 as it just feels right.

 

[Robinett_11B]

The 640 +P+ guns are pretty neat...I'm trying to get one now. How much do you guys think is fair for one in excellent condition w/o box, papers, or original grips?

 

[99savage308]

If I may comment? Why go right ahead. Thank you Smith nut people, which I belong to. I have a no dash 640. Big deal. It is just a 38 spl 1 7/8" with those oh so stupid boot grips on it. I hate those grips. I don't have a pic but who cares they are all the same. Anyone got grips, as in wood?

 

[mtelkhntr]

If I may comment? Why go right ahead. Thank you Smith nut people, which I belong to. I have a no dash 640. Big deal. It is just a 38 spl 1 7/8" with those oh so stupid boot grips on it. I hate those grips. I don't have a pic but who cares they are all the same.

The next time you're in Walmart you might do like I did and buy the next size larger underwear. You'll feel a lot better.

 

[JcMack]

The first loadings for .38 would easily equal what we call +P today. The advent of LW .38 special revolvers in the '50's caused some downloading of the standard. I had a +P+ marked 640. I have read S&W quit marking them as such because there was no standard for +P+. At any rate, my current 640 is a matte .38 that even though not so marked is a ex police pistol. These are fine back pocket pistols.

 

[SOUTHPAW]

I got one too....CEN 3xxx Tested for +P+.....I also had a chance to get
two others....both of them were CEN...Tested for +P+....They came from
a local guy that had traded them in. He also had Three 37-2 DAO that he
let go....So I pick up one of the 37-2 instead for a back-up to the one that I carry daily.

 

[1aafan]

don't forget the rare Performance center models in 38 as well!
Mine below...

 

[NFRAME2NDMOD]

640

i have shot a fair amount of +P+ through a 1987 vintage 60 with no ill effects. However, it liked Rem +P 125's better so that is what I always carried in it until I got a 640 357 mag around 96 or 97. I put 147 +P+ in it. The mags flash too much. Still my go to CCW gun after all these years. Before I put a XS big dot on the front, I could do credible shooting at 100 yds with 125 Federals. Sight ruined it for precise distance shooting, not that it matters. Sight stills glows 10+ years on. 640 of any mod is a hard gun to beat for totin'. Recently came on a 360 at a deal but it is truly brutal with 357's and stock grips. Not so bad with treasury +P+. Wadcutters were fine.

IMHO 640 is the best CCW revolver ever!!! I will look no further.

 

[Haze]

I have a 640 with Tested for +P+ on it with a serial number of CEN01XX. Must be a real early one. I use that for a bedroom gun along with a 12 gauge. The one I carry is a 642 without the lock which is a lot lighter. Both are great guns!

 

[semperfi71]

From limited memory I think Elmer Keith fired the Chief's Special with factory .38-44 loads (158 grain bullet at about 1100 to 1150 fps in a longer barrel) and he claimed it did not harm the gun. I think he opined that the bolt cuts in the cylinder being offset from the chambers made the steel sutiable enough for such loads.

But understand it was his opinion after probably not firing a lot of rounds.

I shoot 158 grain lead bullets in a J-Frame (not alloy though) at velocities up to around 800/850 fps and am not concerned. I use faster burning powders for reduced recoil and I only shoot them for occasional familization and self-defense. The rest of the time I shoot 148 wadcutter loads. They will generally shoot to the same point of aim as 158 grain loads.

I have no experience with lighter bullets and or jacketed bullets and would not use them anyway. I prefer the belief of "penetration" over "expansion" in snub-nosed revovlers.

I don't carry concealed but my M640 is not a "marked for +P" revolver but it is what I consider the best self-defense "hideout" for me. All one has to do is pull and shoot. No safeties and no damage to the finish from carrying in "whatever" as it bumps and grinds against "anything".

 

[Robinett_11B]

I've got this 640 en route now. I probably let myself pay more than I wanted to for the CEN-prefix (though it still went for under $500) but I find the history interesting.

Probably not a safe queen, but appears to be doing okay for being a quarter of a century old I love the Centennial design and seem to keep going back to the original 640 - this'll be my 2nd CEN-prefix gun. Perhaps I'll hold onto this one longer than the last one