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.

 

[quinn]

The 340PD is my EDC gun, and has been for years. Shooting full bore 357's is not a fun experience. I carry 38+p in the first 3 cylinder fo quicker recovery, then a pair of 357s in the last two holes. Nice to have the capability. But, I promise, I don't use 357s for casual plinking.

 

[alexrex20]

My 386 loaded with .357 weighs less than a loaded G43. And .357 > 9mm [emoji14]

And pocket carries just as easily.

Point is, screw the 340PD and get a 386PD.

Ok not really. You will still have a 442 to train with, even if you trade one for a 340PD. It's a no brainer. Practice with the 442 or the 340 with .38s, finished off with a few cylinders of defense .357 to remind you what it's like. If you ever need to use it, you won't be able to tell the difference between the 340 or the 442. But the bad guy sure will.

3oz lighter doesn't sound like much on paper, but it's noticeable in practice. It's a 25% reduction.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[BAM-BAM]

Had 2 Glock 26s back in the 90s(?)a couple of years apart;........ rounded the trigger guard to get rid of the hook and added the "pinky"rest base plate............not a bad 10 shot 9mm.

In the end just liked the 3913 7+1) with the flat baseplate or the PC 6906 with modded ""pinky"rest at 12+1.......... better............

 

[Stopsign32v]

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?

In my opinion, yes really. There is nothing and I do mean nothing a 26 can do that a 19 or 43 cannot. Both the 19 and 43 can do everything better than the 26. 26 might have been a good idea in 2004.

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.

All of this argument is good, and you have great points. However you are missing one big point...2" barrels and 357 magnum do not work. You are wasting too much unburnt powder and having to deal with permanent hearing damage and a concussion that rivals a flash bang. MUCH better options out there. There has been test after test pointing out that 357 out of a short barrel doesn't have near the velocity and stopping power the 357 is known for. For the small amount of performance it gives, 38 special is a better option.

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.

So you can add the extended baseplate to the 26 and have a pistol with 19 grip and a short barrel. Still, there is nothing you can do to make the 26 slimmer, and that is where the 43 shines. It is an absolute DREAM to carry and I often times find myself grabbing it due to convenience. So still, the 26 loses terribly there IMO. Best option I ever found for the 26 was a GAP baseplate, that made shooting much easier. 43 is definitely harder to shoot but is very manageable. I carry Underwood +P+ in mine. Snappy but not even as bad as my buddies 27.

"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.

It is too heavy for ankle wear, flat out. No one is going to comfortably strap a fully loaded 26 to their ankle and call it a good day. That rivals people saying a Glock 17 is easily concealable IWB. Sure it CAN be done, but then again a man CAN turn into a woman.

And I'm strictly talking about CCW as this is what the thread was about. I have no advice on what would be a good gun for you to use in your tactical vest. You got me there.

 

[dwever]

All of this argument is good, and you have great points. However you are missing one big point...2" barrels and 357 magnum do not work. You are wasting too much unburnt powder and having to deal with permanent hearing damage and a concussion that rivals a flash bang. MUCH better options out there. There has been test after test pointing out that 357 out of a short barrel doesn't have near the velocity and stopping power the 357 is known for. For the small amount of performance it gives, 38 special is a better option.

No. Multiple companies make short-barrel ammo for the .357 and .38+P that burn very fast and manage blast very well (report and flash), I happen to use Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel in both .357 Magnum and the .38 +P.

I also like the Buffalo Bore - Barnes Short Barrel .357 Magnum, 125 Grain at 1235 fps from a 2.5 inch barrel and 1,190 FPS from a 2", with greatly reduced blast in both report and flash.

At 1,225 FPS as reported by Midway USA's web site (Buffalo Bore Ammo 357 Mag Short Barrel 125 Grain Barnes TAC-XP Hollow), that is 416 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy with controlled flash and report out of a .357 Magnum Snub. Want to stay over 400 ft. lbs. of energy in your snub but use a heavier bullet? Also, Buffalo Bore 357 Magnum Short Barrel 140 Grain Barnes TAC-XP Hollow Point Low Flash Lead-Free.

There are over 267 burn rates represented by gunpowder (Powder Burn Rate Comparison Chart @ www.reloadersnest.com), charts are readily available. Buffalo Bore uses some of the fastest.

So it would seem that using modern gun powder and a TAC-XP hollow point or similar, the .357 snub can give excellent velocity and stopping power necessary for self defense, and a snub nose .357 Magnum is perfectly appropriate for defensive carry. And, the statements, given properly selected .357 above about massive "flash-bang" comparable concussion, flash, and inadequate velocity and stopping power is technically, baloney.

Notice that NOT ONE 9mm load listed below in a Glock 43 makes the velocity or energy of either Buffalo Bore .357 Magnum Short Barrel load. Doesn't even come close. But the Glock 43 is your choice for, "velocity and stopping power" because according to you regarding the .357 Magnum snub, "2 inch barrels and .357 Magnums don't work." in spite of 1,190 FPS from a 2" 125 Grain Short Barrel load 395 ft. lbs. of energy?

Finally I didn't just give statements like, "test after test." Those are real numbers that are verifiable unless you think Buffalo Bore or others are lying, and I even linked the burn chart above from Reloaders Nest.

Here are some final numbers:

Ft. lbs. of energy in 9mm for 3.4" BARREL (read Glock 43 whose barrel is actually 3.39"). Problem is, some of that hot stuff down there is going to be a beastly handful for a a Glock 43 that loaded is 22 ounces and tiny. But all those numbers fall well short of the .357 Short Barrel Buffalo Bore in a 2.5" snub. Good luck.

1. Federal Hydrashok 124gr
a. 1120 - 80 = 1040 FPS
b. Energy 297.75 ft/lb

2. Federal HST 124gr
a. 1150 – 80 = 1070 FPS
b. Energy 315.18 ft/lb

3. Federal HST 124gr +P
a. 1200 – 80 = 1120 FPS
b. 345.42 ft/lbs

4. Hornady XTP 124gr
a. 1110 – 80 = 1030 FPS
b. Energy is then 292.05 ft/lb

5. Hornady TAP CQ 124gr
a. 1110 – 80 = 1030 FPS
b. Energy is then 292.05 ft/lb

6. Hornady TAP FPD
a. 1110 – 80 = 1030 FPS
b. Energy is then 292.05 ft/lb

7. Remington HD Home Defense 124gr
a. 1125 – 80 = 1045 FPS
b. 300.62 ft/lb

 

[Stopsign32v]

No. Multiple companies make short-barrel ammo for the .357 and .38+P, I happen to use Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel in both .357 Magnum and the .38 +P.

I also like the Buffalo Bore - Barnes Short Barrel .357 Magnum, 125 Grain at 1235 fps from a 2.5 inch barrel and 1,190 FPS from a 2", with greatly reduced blast in both report and flash.

At 1,225 FPS that is 416 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy with controlled flash and report out of a .357 Magnum Snub. Want to stay over 400 ft. lbs. of energy in your snub but use a heavier bullet? Also, Buffalo Bore 357 Magnum Short Barrel 140 Grain Barnes TAC-XP Hollow Point Low Flash Lead-Free.

And Underwood has a .38 special 125gr that clocks in at 1200fps and 400ft lbs of energy.

Again, I LOVE the .357 magnum round. In fact it is one of my favorite along with a real .357 Sig load. However out of a 2" barrel it is a bad choice and your argument of a dumbed down version people make specifically for a short barrel proves my point.

Sorry, I wish a 357mag out of a snub nose would make sense. I would own it rather than a S&W 360j.

 

[regalsc]

I went through this about 4 years ago. I found a 340pd no lock nib. I sold my Sig p238 that just sat around & paid the difference for the 340pd. It had a somewhat stiff action but nothing like the stiff recoil when shooting cor-bon 357 magnums out of it. All the time I had a 337ti that was unfired with a great da pull which I now carry. I found a 66-4 3" unfired that I sold the 340pd to partially pay for it & don't miss it. Lots of people love them it just wasn't for me. I suggest try getting a 340pd no lock in case you decide to sell it to some they bring a little more $.

 

[dwever]

And Underwood has a .38 special 125gr that clocks in at 1200fps and 400ft lbs of energy.

Again, I LOVE the .357 magnum round. In fact it is one of my favorite along with a real .357 Sig load. However out of a 2" barrel it is a bad choice and your argument of a dumbed down version people make specifically for a short barrel proves my point.

Sorry, I wish a 357mag out of a snub nose would make sense. I would own it rather than a S&W 360j.

The Underwood round is not clocked coming out of a snub barrel.

HOW ABOUT SOME DATA to make your points rather than the diversionary word smithing and sweeping generalizations that stand on no facts?

And how is a short barrel load making barely shy of 400 ft. lbs. of energy out of a 2" barrel dumbed down? Is that or is that not adequate energy for a self defense load? I think we both know the answer to that.

 

[gen3guy]

My first thought is that I wouldn't expect that 340 to do anything for me that the G26 or the 442 wouldn't do.

 

[Amp]

The answer for me was yes. Actually got the M&P340.
Bought mine to replace a 640 that I feel is heavy after carrying it for over 25 years. And I use 38+p in it.
The answer for you may be different.