Thoughts on trading a 442 and Glock 26 for 340PD

[DevilDog72]

I know you have read enough of our opines... you do what is right for you...but, I would not do it. the 340 will turn into the 642 with .38's in the cylinder and you will have lost the 26. IMHO.
Another posted that you might look into a Mdl 19, might I add 66 snub... it will perform with 357's..... I do carry them with a 642 as a BUG.

 

[snowman.45]

I have a 340M&P. I also have a 640-1. I will carry .357 135gr. short barrel Gold Dots in the 640, but rarely if ever in the 340. In the 340, I use Buffalo Bore 158gr. +P .38 Special at over 1000 fps. So, my recommendation is don't trade the 442 Pro and a G26 for a 340PD. I have to agree that the added recoil for velocity is not worth pain based on recovery time.

Now, as to the G26. IMHO, the G26 is an excellent pistol, having carried one quite regularly since they were introduced, both on and off-duty. I have carried it in an ankle holster (5'11", 225 lbs.). It works quite fine. It is just over 1/8" wider than a G43 and carries 10 +1 rounds for a capacity advantage of 5 rounds when both guns are loaded and mags are full. You have heard some arguments about ballistics here. Some rely on quoted statistics, some on video presentations. As long as your chosen round penetrates and expands sufficiently while allowing for optimum recovery time FOR YOU, it will work well.

While I also own and often carry a G19, the difference in barrel length is not so significant as to diminish the capabilities of ammo fired through the G26 to any great extent. Most will still exceed the velocity and capabilities of many .38 Special loads. The key with any of the ammunition discussed is going to be the penetration and expansion when fired from a particular platform. In short, opinions are like a**holes; everyone has one and most stink. There will be those on any forum who believe that their personal opinion outweighs the facts and experiences of others. None of us are absolutely objective, but some have the knack of trying to sound knowledgable in all areas at the risk of making subjective pronouncements. If there was an acknowledgement that their statement was opinion, there would be far less argument.

 

[edkato]

Well, thanks for the solid comments! I think I'm keeping what I got. Probably not the political climate to be selling firearms...only buying! I may pick up a M&P 340 at some point in the future Did shoot my G26 last night and remembered why I enjoy shooting it...almost shot it as well as my 19 but it fits IWB much better (actually as well as the G43 I sold last year...).

 

[tlandon]

I'm sure I will upset some people on this. I have carried every caliber handgun there is, pretty much. .22, .25, 32, .380, 38special, .357mag, 7.62x25, 9mm, Makarov, 44special, 44magnum, 45lc, .410. But, unless fired at bad breath range, you wont be able to hit any target with accuracy with a .357 snubby. Especially the 340PD. I dont care what the diehards will tell you. i love revolvers. Snubby revolvers are cool and I have a very old Model 36. But I dont carry it, but have. I now carry a Glock 42. Best shooting, most accurate, easy to carry gun I have had. I work in a gunstore and can have any gun I want. I just shoot it better than anything I owned previously. I have small, girly hands so I preferred the 42 over the 9mm 43. In my opinion both are better carry options than the Glock 26 or any snubnose revolver. Your everyday carry gun should be one that you shoot the best. Caliber isn't really that important.

 

[alexrex20]

Sounds like you could use some practice. Keep your .380, I can shoot my .357 snubs just fine thanks.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[dwever]

But, unless fired at bad breath range, you wont be able to hit any target with accuracy with a .357 snubby. Especially the 340PD. I dont care what the diehards will tell you.

First law of firearm self-awareness: Don't project what you can't do on to other people.

I and others have been qualified with my agency with .357 snubs. Myself with a 2.625" barreled S&W 627 and a S&W 586 short barrel with scores of 96 and 100 (and their are plenty of short barrel revolver jocks that shoot better than me). The entire course of fire is timed, requires numerous moon clip reloads on the go depending on cylinder capacity, and is the same course the Glock .40 calibers qualify on (mandatory on-duty weapon vary between Models 22, 23, 27, and 35). Twelve of the fifty shots are taken from 25 yards while changing shooting positions, none are taken at "bad breath range", and six (12 total one handed) are taken with strong and support each one handed a bit closer in.

Full disclosure, I have not seen anyone attempt the course with a J frame, but that doesn't mean no one has. Nor have I seen anyone attempt it with one of the Glock subcompacts such as the 14 ounce Glock 42 mentioned above.

"The revolver is more than an equal for any other defensive handgun." Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

Two qualified with below:

 

[Mister X]

I'm sure I will upset some people on this. I have carried every caliber handgun there is, pretty much. .22, .25, 32, .380, 38special, .357mag, 7.62x25, 9mm, Makarov, 44special, 44magnum, 45lc, .410. But, unless fired at bad breath range, you wont be able to hit any target with accuracy with a .357 snubby. Especially the 340PD. I dont care what the diehards will tell you. i love revolvers. Snubby revolvers are cool and I have a very old Model 36. But I dont carry it, but have. I now carry a Glock 42. Best shooting, most accurate, easy to carry gun I have had. I work in a gunstore and can have any gun I want. I just shoot it better than anything I owned previously. I have small, girly hands so I preferred the 42 over the 9mm 43. In my opinion both are better carry options than the Glock 26 or any snubnose revolver. Your everyday carry gun should be one that you shoot the best. Caliber isn't really that important.

I don't agree with your assertion about the snub and bad breath range, but FWIW, the vast majority of civilian defense encounters do occur at extremely close distances and an enclosed hammer snub offers advantages in these ECQ scenarios that no other gun can match.

And define "shoot better". It's often a common recommendation to pick the gun you "shoot the best", but there is no accepted standard definition as to what that entails. It's not likely you'll be standing still and shooting at a static target in a defense scenario. You may be shooting one handed, while moving(dynamically) or while engaged in a close-quarter struggle. You might even be grounded. I've seen women who do fine with a small auto on the range from a stable stance using a firm two hand grip, but then experience frequent malfunctions from limp-wristing when having them move and shoot one handed or from a retention position. For them, that small auto would be a very poor defensive handgun choice no matter how well they shoot it in the more controlled range conditions.

 

[Watchdog]

So, is the 340PD worth trading two firearms for?

No.

 

[tlandon]

Jesus. All you people live in some kind of fantasy gunworld. Qualified with a .357 snubby? You think Jane the Mom and Harry the Plumber would? Hell no. "Gun you shoot the best" means just that. Too hard for you to understand? Does "shoot better" have some alternative definition? Not that I am aware of! Pretty simple English words. Your average shmuck gun purchaser will not and cannot shoot a .357 magnum snubby effectively, period. Except at "bad breath distance". I work in a gunstore and deal in reality. Not Police Shooting Qualifications, not in hundreds and hundreds of rounds fired at a range. Not weekly or even monthly practice at the range. These people will "never" shoot at moving targets. Hell most of them may never even fire their handguns, ever. And pretty much all of them shouldn't even own a gun. Small semi autos are not a poor choice, period. So as to the orginial posters question. The answer is no.

 

[alexrex20]

You're so upset lol

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[tlandon]

You're so upset lol

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

I know. It's pitiful isn't it. I get easily upset these days. It's either Old Age or just tired of dealing with stupidity. Which seems to be rampant these days. Not calling anyone in the thread stupid. Just a general term. I have got to force myself to stay off forums of any kind. All I do is make people mad and raise my blood pressure. Sorry.

 

[dwever]

Jesus. All you people live in some kind of fantasy gunworld. Qualified with a .357 snubby? You think Jane the Mom and Harry the Plumber would? Hell no. "Gun you shoot the best" means just that. Too hard for you to understand? Does "shoot better" have some alternative definition? Not that I am aware of! Pretty simple English words. Your average shmuck gun purchaser will not and cannot shoot a .357 magnum snubby effectively, period. Except at "bad breath distance". I work in a gunstore and deal in reality. Not Police Shooting Qualifications, not in hundreds and hundreds of rounds fired at a range. Not weekly or even monthly practice at the range. These people will "never" shoot at moving targets. Hell most of them may never even fire their handguns, ever. And pretty much all of them shouldn't even own a gun. Small semi autos are not a poor choice, period. So as to the orginial posters question. The answer is no.

Hey gun expert behind the glass counter, please don't flame people just because they disagree with you or the forum surrender's one of it's purposes, the free exchange of ideas. Post #44 is still wrong, and pitching a tantrum in Post #49 doesn't rescue that.

Not trying to pick an argument, but consider the post-mortem: In Post 44 you make an assertion limited to platform and caliber. Then in Post 49 you introduce for the first time into the discussion descriptions and the limitations of the kinds of people who make the purchases. Then you subsequently ridicule the honest disagreements with Post 44 for apparently not being able to predict how you're position would later be amended in Post 49?

Finally, if you're selling to a group in your gun store where you say "pretty much all of them shouldn't even own a gun"; if you believe that, doesn't that present an ethical dilemma for you when you arm them at the cash register?

 

[alexrex20]

I know. It's pitiful isn't it. I get easily upset these days. It's either Old Age or just tired of dealing with stupidity. Which seems to be rampant these days. Not calling anyone in the thread stupid. Just a general term. I have got to force myself to stay off forums of any kind. All I do is make people mad and raise my blood pressure. Sorry.

Who is mad? The only one mad over here is you. BTW, you are the classic example of the idiot behind the gun counter that thinks he knows everything.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[Stopsign32v]

I'll never understand why gun owners get so heated over other gun owners not agreeing on calibers. In the end they ALL are better than a rock or knife... Calm down gents.

 

[Mister X]

Jesus. All you people live in some kind of fantasy gunworld. Qualified with a .357 snubby? You think Jane the Mom and Harry the Plumber would? Hell no. "Gun you shoot the best" means just that. Too hard for you to understand? Does "shoot better" have some alternative definition? Not that I am aware of! Pretty simple English words. Your average shmuck gun purchaser will not and cannot shoot a .357 magnum snubby effectively, period. Except at "bad breath distance". I work in a gunstore and deal in reality. Not Police Shooting Qualifications, not in hundreds and hundreds of rounds fired at a range. Not weekly or even monthly practice at the range. These people will "never" shoot at moving targets. Hell most of them may never even fire their handguns, ever. And pretty much all of them shouldn't even own a gun. Small semi autos are not a poor choice, period. So as to the orginial posters question. The answer is no.

Actually the definition of "shoot better" can vary wildly depending on who you are talking to. I have no idea who you are, what you're background or experience is, so I don't know your meaning. For all I know, you could be a devoted IDPA guy whose context and perspective is based on his experience in competition or maybe a reality-based self-defense instructor whose participation in countless force-on-force and ECQC drills has shaped his views on defensive shooting. Or perhaps just a backwoods country boy who does nothing but plink soda cans. It doesn't matter either way to me, but each individual would likely differ in their definition of "shoot better" should you ask them.

My assertion is that the vast majority of civilian defense encounters occur at ECQ/extremely close-quarters or "bad breath distances". Out to a few yards max. Qualifying scores, competitive or target shooting mean little in the context of self-defense. And if your definition of "shoot better" is limited to slow, controlled fire at a paper target from a static stance, using a perfectly positioned two hand grip from relatively longer ranges, that means little IMO as well in choosing a proper, effective defense weapon.

My previous comment applies even more so to the inexperienced individual who buys a gun for self-defense and will hardly if ever shoot it. The dynamics of the probable defense scenarios in which they would likely have to use their weapon are the same irregardless of whether they train or not.
They will likely have to shoot a moving target one handed(possibly from a retention position) while moving themselves at very close, perhaps even at contact distances. If the small autoloader they are using in that scenario jams after the first shot due to limp-wristing(which is even more likely if they never train realistically) or is forced out of battery and doesn't fire at all or otherwises experiences a malfunction due to inadvertent contact with the assailant(s) or even their own body, then the definition of "shoot better" that some people reference becomes completely irrelevant.

And for simply sticking in a nightstand drawer to have 'just in case', a revolver is a much better choice.

 

[Stopsign32v]

tlandon had good points IMO. While possibly stating them with too much emotional attachment, still...good points. A 357 airweight snub nose cannot be shot good by 95+% people I would say. MOST cannot even shoot an airweight 38 special good. And I take this from people I have met at the range and gone with (even including myself compared to my Glocks). In fact I would be willing to bet the farm that most 360PD, 340 M&P, and so on are carried with .38 special and NOT .357 magnum rounds.

With that being said "limp-wristing" is hardly a problem IMO. I've never experienced it in person at all. If it is as big of a problem as most say then it would be just that, a problem. But it isn't. Can it happen? Sure. But so can a jam in a revolver... Though also, not common.

 

[Mister X]

tlandon had good points IMO. While possibly stating them with too much emotional attachment, still...good points. A 357 airweight snub nose cannot be shot good by 95+% people I would say. MOST cannot even shoot an airweight 38 special good. And I take this from people I have met at the range and gone with (even including myself compared to my Glocks). In fact I would be willing to bet the farm that most 360PD, 340 M&P, and so on are carried with .38 special and NOT .357 magnum rounds.

With that being said "limp-wristing" is hardly a problem IMO. I've never experienced it in person at all. If it is as big of a problem as most say then it would be just that, a problem. But it isn't. Can it happen? Sure. But so can a jam in a revolver... Though also, not common.

I see no practical need for .357 magnum in snub and prefer .38 special +P, but it's nice to have the option though and a more robust gun.

If 90+% of defense scenarios take place at 3 yards or less, how much marksmanship does one really need.

And what information are you basing your assertion that limp-wristing and other user induced malfunctions with an autoloader isn't a problem? And what about ECQC related malfunctions? I don't think it's much an issue in controlled range conditions, but I've seen it happen fairly regularly(especially with women) in more realistic dynamic shooting as well as ECQ force-on-force training(with everyone), not to many all the documented incidents in actual defense scenarios I've come across over the years.

 

[Stopsign32v]

I see no practical need for .357 magnum in snub and prefer .38 special +P, but it's nice to have the option though and a more robust gun.

If 90+% of defense scenarios take place at 3 yards or less, how much marksmanship does one really need.

And what information are you basing your assertion that limp-wristing and other user induced malfunctions with an autoloader isn't a problem? And what about ECQC related malfunctions? I don't think it's much an issue in controlled range conditions, but I've seen it happen fairly regularly(especially with women) in more realistic dynamic shooting as well as ECQ force-on-force training(with everyone), not to many all the documented incidents in actual defense scenarios I've come across over the years.

I love love love love, love the .357 magnum round, but I agree with you totally. It isn't practical at all in a snub nose. However I ALSO agree with you that it is nice to have that option!

When I go to the range I always chuckle at people placing their human silhouette targets at 25 yards and practice. Most look at me like I'm crazy when I stop at 10 max and often try 5. I feel practice is important but most important (while sounding morbid) is a knowledge of places to shoot someone to stop their threat as fast as possible. So, this always leaves me wondering why on a human silhouette, is the "bullseye" placed near the intestines. I always shoot for upper center mass.

I always base my assertions (while I wouldn't call it that) on first hand experience. Sadly I'm forced to go to the range often with people that usually don't shoot guns (family) and none, including wife or mother-in-law have ever caused a FTF in any of my autos, be it my Glocks, LCP, M&P, FN, or Sig. So I, personally do not find it an issue any more than I find a revolver malfunction an issue. And you will have to forgive me, I don't know what ECQC is.

 

[Mister X]

I always base my assertions (while I wouldn't call it that) on first hand experience. Sadly I'm forced to go to the range often with people that usually don't shoot guns (family) and none, including wife or mother-in-law have ever caused a FTF in any of my autos, be it my Glocks, LCP, M&P, FN, or Sig. So I, personally do not find it an issue any more than I find a revolver malfunction an issue. And you will have to forgive me, I don't know what ECQC is.

Shooting with a locked, two handed grip from a solid stance is one thing, but shooting one handed, with the off hand, from retention positions, while grounded, while moving is another matter, especially doing so dynamically trying to best simulate frantic, realistic defense conditions. It's the latter where I have primarily seen issues with small autos first hand, but there are plenty of real world exmples as well.

ECQC stands for Extreme Close-Quarter Combat(application) or Extreme Close-Quarter Concepts(training). Most civilian defense encounters occur at this range, yet preparing for them is often virtually ignored by many gun eccentric individuals.

Concerns with an auto in this realm include the slide being pushed out of battery, rearward movement of the slide obstructed(possibly inadvertently by your own body), assailant grabbing slide and causing a malfunction, ejection port being blocked. Many of these issues can be greatly mitigated by proper training, but not many people seek out instruction. A lot of folks think a revolver cylinder can simply be grabbed and stopped from rotating(which it theoretically can), but it is rather difficult to grab and maintain a grasp on a enclosed hammer snub revolver against a resisting opponent. It usually takes two hands after first establishing some dominant control position. The best way to pressure ECQ techniques is with FoF(force-on-force) training.

 

[dwever]

I love love love love, love the .357 magnum round, but I agree with you totally. It isn't practical at all in a snub nose.

I'm not telling anyone what to carry, but I'll stray for a second to collect my position.

Again, practicality depends on the .357 Magnum platform and ammo selected. Out of a 12 ounce air weight I'd tend to agree that .357 Magnum is hard to understand.

However, out of a 37 ounce L or N Frame, and appropriate .357 ammo made for Short Barrels with reduced flash, report, and recoil, then it's a different discussion because out of a 2.5 inch snub such a Buffalo Bore load is making 413 ft. pounds of energy, and doesn't sound like a detonating bomb; and, is easily managed for follow up shots with a 35-37 ounce platform. And if you do tend towards the perfectly fine defensive .38+P in Short Barrel, then recoil is downright gentle in the heavier steel short barrels, and accuracy and control are excellent.

There is a tendency to discuss snubs in the super light weight materials, and the limitations that are borne from launching ca. 375 ft. lbs. of energy out of a 12 ounce platform. I would suggest that moving a heavier snub to one's belt is less convenient that your pocket, but a small price to pay for what that gives in recoil control, and the resulting speed and accuracy - especially if you actually need it in an incident.

I've only had one incident where shots were fired, I was on duty at the time. That did not make me move away from revolvers towards semi-autos, I still use both. It did make me fully averse to anything bantam weight for primary a weapon, they have their place as BUG's. Period. The lightest revolver I own is a TRR8 at 35 ounces.

The heavier steel L and N short barrels are a piece of cake to OWB carry (2.3 lbs. is almost less than a man's body weight varies in a day), provides 7 or 8 shot capacity, and the L frame is very capable IWB.

Finally, as part of a larger training regimen at different distances, 25 yard practice in DA can make good sense. Distance magnifies how your pulling or pushing, and if your follow up shots in particular are striking lower from a lack of smooth user cycling. And, if at 25 yards your putting twelve rounds (8 Shot) inside an 18" group in twelve to fifteen seconds with one reload, then 8 rounds in 4 seconds at five yards within 12" is pretty easy. Also why all of my carry revolvers have had defensive action jobs.

"The revolver is more than an equal for any other defensive handgun." Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch