M&P340 - Best Defensive J Frame Ever Made

Best? Well......

I'll go with... It's a fine revolver, for sure.

USAF385 said:
Nah, that huge, blocky front sight is a deal breaker for the serious concealed carry individual.
Click to expand...

Haha! Nailed it! Can't have that snag!
 
Hopper said:
Ok, great news on the XS Big Dot. Well, the whole pistol, really. I recently picked up a 640-3, and need to put something up front that I can see better. Sounds like the XS is a great option to have on the short list of sights.
Click to expand...

If that is what you took away from my original post, I suggest you re-read it. It is about the rear sight. If you put an XS Big dot or any night sight on the front of your 640, you will find half of the dot is eclipsed by the shallow square notch rear sight. Terrible sight picture and way off hits in rapid fire.
 
Georgia1911 said:
I get what you're saying, but I would put the 640 Pro up there as well. It has the advantages you assign to the 340, but more so with night sights and even greater mass for those who want to carry 357 Magnum.
Click to expand...

I know the subject says best J Frame, but I clarify in the post, best "lightweight" J Frame.Can only put so many words in the subject, and "lightweight" is a big one :)

The 640 pro almost weighs twice as much. I was more thinking about the 442, 642, 342, 340PD, 360PD and all the other lightweight snubbies that so many carry for defense. It is hard to comapre the 13.5 oz M&P340 to a 26oz 640 Pro. Very different guns in terms of size and weight. The sights on the 640 Pro are amazing!
 
Last edited:
mc5aw said:
As impressive as the 340 PD is, I think it is far from the best J-frame S&W has ever produced. That honor could easily go to the Model 36, 37, 49, 60, or 640, all of which I have owned, and all of which I could place #1 on the J-frame list. No IL revolver will ever hold the loftiest position of "best" S&W, though the 340 PD is a very nice carry gun.
Click to expand...

Post is about the M&P340, not the 340PD. Very different guns because of the sighting system, which underpins the whole argument.
 
Those no longer made cocobolo grips really make your 340 m&p Roger. There has been a lot on these 340's today. I have had a 340 m&p & still have a 340pd (both no ILS ) & shooting 357s out of them felt the same to me even with the HUGE 2 oz difference. How could 2 oz tame a beast come on now.
 
I had a 360 scandium. I like exposed hammers. IMHO it is the easiest J Frame to carry, but miserable to shoot. The best defensive hand gun should be more forgiving to shoot. The scandium j frames are awesome, beautiful but a signficant compromise.
 
shutupdata113 said:
it's not the best...here's why...Waaaayyy too much $$$ for what you get. A 442 will get the job done just as well for a lot less coin
Click to expand...

In addition to the sights that the OP is in love with, the tougher "DLC" finish on the 340 M&P is heads and shoulders tougher than the black coating on the 442.

And .357 magnum ain't happening from a 442!
(and yes, I shoot magnums just fine through a 340!)


 
Is there a model equivalent to the mp340 that has a shrouded hammer?
 
Triathloncoach said:
I had a 360 scandium. I like exposed hammers. IMHO it is the easiest J Frame to carry, but miserable to shoot. The best defensive hand gun should be more forgiving to shoot. The scandium j frames are awesome, beautiful but a signficant compromise.
Click to expand...

What is the significant comprimise?
 
HarrishMasher said:
Post is about the M&P340, not the 340PD. Very different guns because of the sighting system, which underpins the whole argument.
Click to expand...

My mistake. However, the title of your thread is, "M&P340 - Best Defensive J Frame Ever Made" and that is the underlying point that I disagree with as you did not differentiate between Airweight, AirLite, or steel J-frames in this title. If you are going to champion a lightweight revolver, that is an entirely different animal than its steel counterpart, and you must address the downside of lighter weight as much as the upside.

J-frames are primarily close up defensive handguns, thus the front/rear sight concept can quickly become a moot point as 7' - 10' self defense distances are often point shooting territory. Additionally, I will argue that lighter revolvers like the M&P 340 and its brethren are far more difficult to engage follow up shots with than steel Js, due to their weight ... especially when using +Ps and/or .357s. While wood grips look attractive, they are not designed for J-frame comfort, especially with revolvers in the 12oz-15oz range. I am yet to meet a person who can fire a lightweight J-frame with hot loads and a wood grip for more than a cylinder or two without pain. Such a limitation makes the revolver far less ideal than one that can be shot with less felt recoil and muzzle flip. Also, sight picture means little if your revolver is a challenge to quickly get back on target.

I believe the M&P 340 is a fine CCW revolver, but I prefer steel, and consider the models I mentioned to be far better all around J-frames for durability and practical shootability.
 
HarrishMasher said:
Post is about the M&P340, not the 340PD. Very different guns because of the sighting system, which underpins the whole argument.
Click to expand...

HarrishMasher,

Thanks for this thread.

Could you measure the width and depth of the rear sight notch on the M&P340 and post them?
 
BigMoneyGrip said:
What is the significant comprimise?
Click to expand...

Respectfully, imho, a scandium snubbie is too difficult for many people to shoot well. Particularly compared with heavier, longer barreled options. If I was in a defensive situation a 340 would be down on my list of hand gun choices. It scores most of its points (imho:)) because you are more likely to have it on your person than a larger, heavier option.
 
Last edited:
oldtexan said:
HarrishMasher,

Thanks for this thread.

Could you measure the width and depth of the rear sight notch on the M&P340 and post them?
Click to expand...

This is better M&P340 on the left 340PD on the right. M&P almost twice as deep.

IMG_0517_zps2a01828e.jpg
 
Last edited:
Triathloncoach said:
Respectfully, imho, a scandium snubbie is too difficult for many people to shoot well. Particularly compared with heavier, longer barreled options. If I was in a defensive situation a 340 would be down on my list of hand gun choices. It scores most of its points (imho:)) because you are more likely to have it on your person than a larger, heavier option.
Click to expand...

I agree, when it comes to the "felt Recoil" generated by a full-house 357 Magnum.(which isn't as bad as some think) But, a lot of people carry a 642 or 442, and I don't notice a difference in felt recoil when shooting 38 Special/+P with the 442/642. But, I do notice the difference in speed and accuracy with the M&P340 because of the sights.

Lets face it, there are a lot of 642, 442, Ruger LCP, Kel-Tec P-38T etc. In the holsters/pockets of permit holders because they are easy and comfortable to carry. Not because they are easy to shoot or they shoot them well.(Yes, it bothers me when someone carries something that they haven't gained an acceptable level of proficiency with.) But, there isn't anything we can do about most of that.

If/when you need deep concealment and, the "bigger" one isn't an option. You could do a lot worse than a M&P340.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Model 63 Fiber Optic Rear?
Replies
5
Views
655
Cotis
Cotis
hudson69
4013TSW... Done
Replies
0
Views
717
hudson69
hudson69
B
New K-Comp: Grips, Sights, Leather?
Replies
10
Views
1K
madmikeb
madmikeb
D
Surpassed the 800 round mark on the 4" Shield Plus and at around 650-655 for the 3" Shield plus.
Replies
2
Views
153
Mahalo_.32
M
Casual Smith Nut
The ideal M&P/model 10/64, UPDATE filled the gap
Replies
15
Views
1K
Casual Smith Nut
Casual Smith Nut

Latest posts

Back
Top