Bozz10mm
US Veteran
I would return that beauty and have them fix it right. Compensating by aiming high is not the answer.
Final UPDATE -- 640 Pro Series - How Low Is Too Low??
- Thread starter Edmo
- Start date
Last edited:
Have you had somebody else shoot it?
I'd hate to carry a gun that I had to remember to mentally adjust the sight alignment in a self defense situation. If I couldn't or didn't want to file down the front sight, I'd fit or have a gunsmith fit another front sight to the non standard dovetail.
fredp
Member
My 60 pro has the little diamond in the front sight. It shoots right on if I place the diamond even with the top of the rear sight. It took a little getting use to but with the diamond even with the top of the rear sight it shoots where it is pointed.
Fred P..........
Fred P..........
I highly doubt I will ever use the sights in a SD situation. In fact I have a couple of SD semi auto's with no sights at all. The bulk of my SD training is point shooting in dimly lit scenarios. I am licky in that way because I work at a great indoor facility.
It is pure range vanity that drives me to want the 640 Pro to shoot exactly to POA when I use the sights. Right now I am low 1-1/2" at 30'. I can live with that just fine. It just ticks me off that all five of my other snubbies are dead on.
At this point, I do not believe there is any other front sight option for this gun. When one becomes available, I will be on it.
It is just a personal thing with me.
Edmo,
Send it back. I bought the Pro version in part because of the Trijicon sights. If this is a "combat" revolver good only for bad breath distance, then why are there sights on it all? If S&W put the sights on this model, then they should work to a reasonable standard. 6.5" off at 15 yards is not reasonable in my opinion. Mine, after a return to Springfield, now shoots 3" low at 25 yards with my preferred carry ammo, Speer Gold Dots. That's good enough to for me.
Send it back. I bought the Pro version in part because of the Trijicon sights. If this is a "combat" revolver good only for bad breath distance, then why are there sights on it all? If S&W put the sights on this model, then they should work to a reasonable standard. 6.5" off at 15 yards is not reasonable in my opinion. Mine, after a return to Springfield, now shoots 3" low at 25 yards with my preferred carry ammo, Speer Gold Dots. That's good enough to for me.
Edmo,
Nice looking revolver - I too would expect the kind of accuracy you are looking for from a new S&W. If you had no other issues I would be less concerned - but the fact that you have had issues with the barrel install and fitting is worrysome. If it was an amatuer gunsmith doing the repairs I would look to see if there is a problem with frame alignment. Shouldn't have this from S&W tho... Have you had any timing issues?
Nice looking revolver - I too would expect the kind of accuracy you are looking for from a new S&W. If you had no other issues I would be less concerned - but the fact that you have had issues with the barrel install and fitting is worrysome. If it was an amatuer gunsmith doing the repairs I would look to see if there is a problem with frame alignment. Shouldn't have this from S&W tho... Have you had any timing issues?
I have two of the PRO's. They both shoot low with lighter weight bullets, especially loads I normally use like 135 gr, short barrel gold Dot. It seems that they are regulated for 158 gr. 357 Magnum by Smith (which I think was dumb). I have switched to 158 +p SWCHP's and they are very close and I expect the .357 mag version would be dead on. Also, I black the rear sights out, and shoot to the dot on the front sight.
The reason I like these guns is that they have good sights. I wish I could get an all black rear that is set up for a lighter loading. I have no issues carrying this gun with the 158's, but it is a limitation.
The reason I like these guns is that they have good sights. I wish I could get an all black rear that is set up for a lighter loading. I have no issues carrying this gun with the 158's, but it is a limitation.
I'll report in too with a 640 Pro that shoots progressively lower as the grains drop. It went back to the Mother Ship because it arrived, new, with a .014 barrel-cylinder gap, and when I sent it in made note of the accuracy issue.
Came back with a new barrel, new cylinder, in spec gap, but same precipitous bullet drop. Side-by-side with my 442 -- same target, same distance, using multiple ammo options -- the 442 keeps them all within an open palm print of each other, but the 640 Pro makes a nice little descending vertical line of about eight inches.
Many reviews I've found online have reported the same for this particular model.
I'll also add that is the heaviest sprung S&W J I have ever used, and dry-fire and informed smoothing have done little to improve it where it's done wonders for other Js I've owned.
Still think it's the best idea S&W has had in a long time for a concealed personal defense revolver, and mine certainly works fine to its basic purpose; perhaps time and use will improve it, but I think for such a terrific design and attendant cost, it should have tuning and results superior to what drop-in parts assembly line building can offer -- as it stands, my humble stock 442 remains the go-to despite my presumption that the 640 Pro would overtake it.
Came back with a new barrel, new cylinder, in spec gap, but same precipitous bullet drop. Side-by-side with my 442 -- same target, same distance, using multiple ammo options -- the 442 keeps them all within an open palm print of each other, but the 640 Pro makes a nice little descending vertical line of about eight inches.
Many reviews I've found online have reported the same for this particular model.
I'll also add that is the heaviest sprung S&W J I have ever used, and dry-fire and informed smoothing have done little to improve it where it's done wonders for other Js I've owned.
Still think it's the best idea S&W has had in a long time for a concealed personal defense revolver, and mine certainly works fine to its basic purpose; perhaps time and use will improve it, but I think for such a terrific design and attendant cost, it should have tuning and results superior to what drop-in parts assembly line building can offer -- as it stands, my humble stock 442 remains the go-to despite my presumption that the 640 Pro would overtake it.
M3Stuart
Member
yea...I'd send it back for that price.
grcoffman104
Member
Sounds like advice I heard before but reversed " shoot low boy's there riding Shetland ponies!"My 640 Pro shoots lower than point of aim...
History: This gun was shipped new to me from S&W via my local dealer. I had to send it right back to the mothership to fix several issues to include a clocked barrel.
S&W twisted the barrel straight and returned it to me. After 6-8 months of shooting, the barrel had turned and was again clocked. I sent it back to the mothership again. I don't know what they did to fix the clocked barrel the second time, but the point of impact shifted.
Originally the gun would hit pretty close to the point of aim. When it was returned the second time the gun hit low. I installed a Crimson Trace laser grip and after aligning it to the point of impact I compromised and called it good.
Today I took it out to a local outdoor range and tried several types of factory ammo in the gun. With the bright sun I couldn't rely on the laser as a crutch. The target was at 15 yards and I shot from a rest using the iron sights.
Ammo today was three different loads by Remington... 125 grain 38 +P SJHP, 125 grain 357 Mag SJHP, and 158 grain 38 +P LSWCHP.
The below pics are as follows:
First - The gun.
Second - This pic from today shows a group of five 38 SJHPs and five 357 Mag SJHPs. Both types grouped near each other. The center of the group is 6.5" lower than the aiming dot. I didn't include a pic of the 158 grain target, however it printed 6" low.
Third - This is a group of the same 38 Special +P SJHP rounds before the second barrel tweak. Although only 5 yards, it shows what the gun could do.
Question: Should this gun make a third trip back to S&W to fix this problem?
Edmo
DanWales
Member
Low 640
Guess I got lucky with mine. I didn't order a Pro simply didn't want to spend the money for what they offered in difference to a plain Jane 640.
I'm far and away not a expert shooter but I stay on a 8 inch plate at 15 yards with a reasonable rate of fire.
I didn't think I would need sights for the distance I would be shooting the pistol.
I did smooth the trigger. I can't help but tinker.
I would be hot too, for the price you pay for a 640 Pro .... I'm thinking that should be top notch shooter and workmanship from S & W.
I think it's stupid money the difference in the Pro and the Standard but you should get a good pistol.
Dan
Guess I got lucky with mine. I didn't order a Pro simply didn't want to spend the money for what they offered in difference to a plain Jane 640.
I'm far and away not a expert shooter but I stay on a 8 inch plate at 15 yards with a reasonable rate of fire.
I didn't think I would need sights for the distance I would be shooting the pistol.
I did smooth the trigger. I can't help but tinker.
I would be hot too, for the price you pay for a 640 Pro .... I'm thinking that should be top notch shooter and workmanship from S & W.
I think it's stupid money the difference in the Pro and the Standard but you should get a good pistol.
Dan
OP
Edmo
US Veteran
Last edited:
Edmo,
Not that I ever doubted your abilities to handle the 640 Pro....
And I did suggest you "get someone else" to shoot it......
But after watching your vid, I can see that you were rock solid in your performance with the 640. The real test was when you attempted to fire a "6th" round from a 5 round gun.....NO flinch.
Send it back!
Not that I ever doubted your abilities to handle the 640 Pro....
And I did suggest you "get someone else" to shoot it......
But after watching your vid, I can see that you were rock solid in your performance with the 640. The real test was when you attempted to fire a "6th" round from a 5 round gun.....NO flinch.
Send it back!
I don't think sending it back will help. I am convinced the problem is the height of the front sight. All that S&W needs to do is offer a lower front sight that fits the dovetail. S&W is then off the hook as far as people complaining that the gun was factory set up for 158 gr, .357 mag. (as others have stated one of the dumbest moves ever in the gun industry) and allow the real world shooters to use ammo that is practical out of a snubbie.
To those that are convinced heavier bullets will correct this, I have five snubbies, 340PD-640Pro, I handload everything from 115gr lead, to 158 gr. fmj's and I see very little difference in POI an 28' distances in any of the five.
Any of you that have not seen the 640 Pro, we cannot just go out and find a sight that fits the dovetail as it has to match the rear configuration also. We cannot file down the front sight because we will cut into the tritium dot that sits very close to the top of the existing front sight. The only solution if one wants what should be there, sights that are very close to being dead on from the factory on a $800/gun, is mentally adjust your particular sight picture, or shoot 158 gr. .357 mags on your range sessions.
To those that are convinced heavier bullets will correct this, I have five snubbies, 340PD-640Pro, I handload everything from 115gr lead, to 158 gr. fmj's and I see very little difference in POI an 28' distances in any of the five.
Any of you that have not seen the 640 Pro, we cannot just go out and find a sight that fits the dovetail as it has to match the rear configuration also. We cannot file down the front sight because we will cut into the tritium dot that sits very close to the top of the existing front sight. The only solution if one wants what should be there, sights that are very close to being dead on from the factory on a $800/gun, is mentally adjust your particular sight picture, or shoot 158 gr. .357 mags on your range sessions.
EGAD
Member
Please excuse my ignorance, but the writer referred to a "clocked" barrel three times, leaving me three times confused. Is there a more descriptive or technical term for a "clocked" barrel?
Thank you ...
Thank you ...
Barrel not screwed into the frame correctly leaving the front sight off center in relation to the rear. Looks ugly, drives the owners nuts, costs manufacturers a fortune in unnecessary shipping costs and causes shots to impact off center.
Seems to occur far more often than necessary.
Happy I don't run a firearms company. There would be a lot of quality control managers out of work.
Seems to occur far more often than necessary.
Happy I don't run a firearms company. There would be a lot of quality control managers out of work.
EGAD
Member
Gnystrom ...
Thank you for the clarification. Indeed, QC, particularly in revolvers, seems to have taken quite a slide.
I wonder if this is partly due to a general unfamiliarity with revolvers on the part of the (likely) younger work force who work on them but never really grew up with them?
Playing cowpersons and oppressed indigenous populations probably did not require the use (or even allow the possession of) toy six-shooters.
Thanks again ...
Thank you for the clarification. Indeed, QC, particularly in revolvers, seems to have taken quite a slide.
I wonder if this is partly due to a general unfamiliarity with revolvers on the part of the (likely) younger work force who work on them but never really grew up with them?
Playing cowpersons and oppressed indigenous populations probably did not require the use (or even allow the possession of) toy six-shooters.
Thanks again ...
Wouldnt this correct the problem you are having. If you ever had to use your night sights you would aim with them.
Similar threads
