Thoughts on trading a 442 and Glock 26 for 340PD

[edkato]

Now that I have two 442 Pro models, decided I may trade one off to finance a 340PD. But owing to the price, I will need to include a Glock 26 I rarely carry in the trade. So, is the 340PD worth trading two firearms for? My thought is, I may actually carry the 340 and will still have a 442 Pro. Yeah, I know, 9mm ammo is cheap cheap!

 

[Stopsign32v]

I wouldn't

I love the idea of a snub nose air weight 357mag. Sounds like all the good things...short barrel for concealment, light weight for carry, and a hell of a powerful round.

Sadly it doesn't work out. Much more cons than pros.

With that said I also feel the Glock 26 is a pointless platform much like the 357 mag snub nose. But thats another story.

Id get rid of both those but not for a 357 snub nose.

 

[BAM-BAM]

Now that I have two 442 Pro models, decided I may trade one off to finance a 340PD. But owing to the price, I will need to include a Glock 26 I rarely carry in the trade. So, is the 340PD worth trading two firearms for? My thought is, I may actually carry the 340 and will still have a 442 Pro. Yeah, I know, 9mm ammo is cheap cheap!

NO!!!!!


A 12oz .357 magnum........ no thanks.

It will be a .38 after one cylinder...... I have a 337PD great gun with .38s when I can't carry anything heavier in my cargo shorts.......

These guns are examples of, IMHO: "just cus you can build it doesn't mean you should"

 

[Mister X]

To the Op, I'd keep what you have. Having identical back-up guns makes sense to me.

Stopsign32v, I can see your point about a scandium .357 magnum snub, but am very curious to know why you think the Glock 26 is a pointlesss platform.

 

[crazyphil]

What Bam Bam said X 2!

 

[22hipower]

+1 for the 340PD; no, you won't want to spend all day at the range with full mag loads but that's not why you're buying one. For convenient carry, it is hard to beat. I wouldn't trade a 442 and a Glock 26 for it though as you should be able to find a used one in the $600 range (I paid $622 for a used one with box/papers/holster/ammo last year). Might take you awhile but one will turn up. People buy them, shoot them once, decide they don't like the recoil, and trade them for something else. You have to know going in what the recoil situation is going to be; don't buy it because you think it will be fun to shoot. They are manageable with full power loads though and you won't notice you're carrying it until you need it. Good luck.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

 

[Stopsign32v]

Stopsign32v, I can see your point about a scandium .357 magnum snub, but am very curious to know why you think the Glock 26 is a pointlesss platform.

It serves no purpose in 2016. I'll explain my reasoning...

The shorter barrel lowers velocity over a 19. Less capacity than a 19 and still same thickness.

A 19 is EASILY concealable to me in multiple holsters. And I'm 180lbs and 5'11 while wearing medium fitted shirts. Still don't print. So if I can make it work most others can as well.

The 26 is too heavy to anckle wear.

Now if a 19 doesn't work for you that day for whatever reason....

Enter the Glock 43 with a +2 base plate. Single stack thickness and light weight while practically the same capacity of a double stack 26.

 

[kaaskop49]

I would not trade 2 carry guns for one carry gun. Very few folks can fire .357 ammunition in the PD with its titanium cylinder. Recoil is beyond brutal and the lesser-recoil 110gr magnum loads which are possible in the M&P model are taboo in the PD. As stated above, many who own a PD, 340 or 360, fire 5 magnum rounds and change down to .38 +P rounds to prevent nerve damage to their hands (Ayoob's claim) and pain. That being the case, might as well stick with the 442. The Glock 26 should not enter into this equation. A small 9mm that can handle larger capacity magazines should be kept. And I'm not a Glock enthusiast.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[filthyj24]

I would say try to find an m&p instead of the pd. 2 more oz. for a cheaper, more shootable gun with a steel cylinder you don't have to constantly worry about what ammo you put in it.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[Stopsign32v]

I would say try to find an m&p instead of the pd. 2 more oz. for a cheaper, more shootable gun with a steel cylinder you don't have to constantly worry about what ammo you put in it.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

The recoil to performance just doesn't make sense in an airweight J frame 357 of any type. And that isn't even including the blast and noise issue.

And trust me, I WANTED to justify one to carry. You just can't....well I can't atleast.

 

[GeoJelly]

My opinion would be "No". Think about the possibility that you might drop an aluminum (or scandium) framed revolver - probably on pavement or concrete - and probably while you're moving.

You could toss your Glock 26 through a window, pick it up on the other side, and use it - although I have seen, only once, a Glock where the frame flexed so much that one of the front slide rails was temporarily popped-out. Lots of damage, I think, to a lightweight revolver, and possibly unusable, from just hitting concrete after falling from your holster.

I know this is Smith & Wesson Forum - but I can't say enough good things about the G26. You can even have a cheap safety, if you want, with one of the Saf-T-Blok doo-hickies.

Just an opinion - worth exactly as much as you paid for it!! ...

 

[DD357]

I wouldn't, you are good as is.

 

[wrangler5]

I'd keep what you've got. I have both a 442 and G26 - carried the Glock before I switched to revolvers. Used it regularly in IDPA matches to good effect. In that multi-shot, multi-target, mostly short range, timed environment I did just as well with it as with a Glock 19.

And much as I now shoot mostly revolvers, I would not want to give up a gun that used the most common pistol round in the world. You just never know when that might become an issue in these turbulent times. (Frankly, if I didn't own a 9mm pistol today I'd probably go out and buy one and some spare magazines, just to have in case.)

 

[Homie]

For the OP- Have you ever fired a 340PD with Magnum ammo? If not you might want to try one first.

 

[gman51]

The little J with magnum rounds will not be an enjoyable shooter. You will be shooting mostly, if not all, 38 spl through it.
I would say keep what you have and only buy the other if or when you have the bucks to buy it. Like the above said shoot one before you jump on selling two so you can buy one.

 

[alexrex20]

Get the 340. If you can shoot your 442, you will be fine with the 340. I love mine. I also love that I can carry the same spare ammo for it that I do for my 386.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[alexrex20]

My opinion would be "No". Think about the possibility that you might drop an aluminum (or scandium) framed revolver - probably on pavement or concrete - and probably while you're moving.

You could toss your Glock 26 through a window, pick it up on the other side, and use it - although I have seen, only once, a Glock where the frame flexed so much that one of the front slide rails was temporarily popped-out. Lots of damage, I think, to a lightweight revolver, and possibly unusable, from just hitting concrete after falling from your holster.

I know this is Smith & Wesson Forum - but I can't say enough good things about the G26. You can even have a cheap safety, if you want, with one of the Saf-T-Blok doo-hickies.

Just an opinion - worth exactly as much as you paid for it!! ...

Really? The risk of dropping it is your number one concern?

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[alexrex20]

The little J with magnum rounds will not be an enjoyable shooter. You will be shooting mostly, if not all, 38 spl through it.
I would say keep what you have and only buy the other if or when you have the bucks to buy it. Like the above said shoot one before you jump on selling two so you can buy one.

Do you have a 340PD? Or are you just assuming what they would be like to shoot?

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[Mister X]

It serves no purpose in 2016. I'll explain my reasoning...

The shorter barrel lowers velocity over a 19. Less capacity than a 19 and still same thickness.

A 19 is EASILY concealable to me in multiple holsters. And I'm 180lbs and 5'11 while wearing medium fitted shirts. Still don't print. So if I can make it work most others can as well.

The 26 is too heavy to anckle wear.

Now if a 19 doesn't work for you that day for whatever reason....

Enter the Glock 43 with a +2 base plate. Single stack thickness and light weight while practically the same capacity of a double stack 26.

Opinions vary and everyone has to reach their own conclusion as to what is the best choice for them.

I own a Glock 26, a 19 and two 17's. The 43 just doesn't appeal to me at all because if I'm losing the ECQC advantages of a hammerless snub, I'm only doing so to gain substantial added capacity and I want at least 10 rounds. I don't trust aftermarket extensions and they increase the height of the G43 greater than that of the 26. I don't really care for single stacks in general and I dislike the gen4 grip texture, not to mention the new inferior metal treatment and cheap finish.

There just isn't that much size difference between the 43/26. The overall footprint is about the same and I don't feel the width difference is very significant in terms of carry between the 43/26, but they feel very different in my hand. The 26 has more commonality in feel with my 17's, the exact same trigger set-up, multiple parts interchangeability and not to mention it can take the larger capacity magazines. I like the 19 ok, but the spacing of the finger grooves don't fit my hand all that well and my pinky is half on/half off(neither here nor there). The 26 is small enough it can go places the 19 cannot. Velocity loss is rather insignificant IMO. Weapon retention capability probably favors the 26. The Glock 19 is fine weapon, but I kind of view it as the odd man out and being a combination of compromises doing nothing really well. 10 round mag limits apply to some and perhaps all of us very soon and the 26 is a good choice in that regard.

 

[dwever]

I wouldn't

I love the idea of a snub nose air weight 357mag. Sounds like all the good things...short barrel for concealment, light weight for carry, and a hell of a powerful round. Sadly it doesn't work out. Much more cons than pros.

With that said I also feel the Glock 26 is a pointless platform much like the 357 mag snub nose. But thats another story.

It serves no purpose in 2016. I'll explain my reasoning...
The shorter barrel lowers velocity over a 19. Less capacity than a 19 and still same thickness.
A 19 is EASILY concealable to me in multiple holsters. And I'm 180lbs and 5'11 while wearing medium fitted shirts. Still don't print. So if I can make it work most others can as well.
The 26 is too heavy to ankle wear.
Now if a 19 doesn't work for you that day for whatever reason....
Enter the Glock 43 with a +2 base plate. Single stack thickness and light weight while practically the same capacity of a double stack 26.

Many of the glib opinions on this thread need to be nuanced. "The Glock 26 is a pointless platform much like the 357 mag snub nose." Really?

To say the .357 is a pointless platform may be arguable for some shooters in an air weight J frame, but others can do very well with them. And, I had no problems with my father's stainless steel J frame .357. In any case, that is hardly the situation in an N or L Frame Stainless Steel or even Scandium like the N frame 8 Shot snub (2.625" barrel) weighing 37 ounces, or a 586 L-Comp L Frame, or a 686+ L Frame. All three of those .357 snubs can easily deal with hot .357 self-defense loads and conceal extremely well with shortened grips as pictured. I own two and used to own the third. And the 327 N frame scandium as well as the L frame night guard snub can handle self defense loads without pain too.

I own a Glock 27, but I'll take up the misleading statement about the 26. The Glock 26's standard unchambered capacity is 10 rounds, the Glock 43 standard capacity is 6. If you're going to compare a standard Glock 26 to a 43 with an extended base plate and then proclaim they're capacity is "practically the same" that is ridiculous, one is MODIFIED. You can make the SAME MODIFICATION to the 26 add a 9mm +3 base plate (Pearce Grips) to a Glock 26. Making capacity either 6 (Glock 43) to 10 (Glock 26) without the accessory base plate or 8 to 13 with. HARDLY similar capacity. A 40% and 45% percent capacity difference respectively. Moreover, the 43 is a much more difficult shoot for large hands than a 26.

"The 26 is too heavy for ankle wear." Don't assume we wear the 26 on our ankles, although it is not too heavy for ankle wear. When I use a back up, I have a Glock 27 or a 586 L-Comp strapped to my ballistic vest with a dedicated vest holster. And, if you're primary weapon is a full size Glock 9mm like a Glock 34, then the 34's magazines are consumable by your back-up 26, not the case with the 43, just like in .40 where my Glock 27 can consume my Glock 35's magazines.

Also, in a Buffalo Bore Short Barrel .357 Magnum with reduced flash, report, and recoil, out of a 2.5 inch snub that load is making 413 ft. bounds of energy and is easily managed for follow up shots with any of the 35-37 ounce short barrel weapons pictured below.