[P95Carry]

Ok, I'll be honest. I ain't fired one yet. So why the post subject line??

Well .. had a club monthly meeting tonight and, now days longer ... got up there well ahead of time. Always in for a bit of extra practice - snubby, auto ... etc.

It is all but time now tho to change my P95 for the M85 for summer carry and so ... of course .. time for some practice again on the snubby particularly.

I only used about 45 rounds that i'd brought ... 38 spl homeloads .......... 158 cast SWC's. And, damn!! This lil fella ain't that comfortable! Well manageable of course and was gettin on the paper nicely at 15 feet plus but ... my hand ''knew'' I'd been shooting the thing. Went on to put some hot .357's thru my M27 Smith (any excuse) - that tho was comfortsville!

Just made me think - HOW in Hades does anyone want to use .357's thru a scandium???????????? I'm no pussy when it comes to recoil but, man ...... I cannot countenance the thought of hot loads thru a lightweight .. really.

Muzzle flash will be there for sure but ... the recoil!!! That has gotta be unreal, surely? Newton dictates here and i don't think I wanna know!!!

Just flexing my imagination ..... and freaking out!:p

[dude]

I don't ccw so size is not a factor................I find the Taurus 617 ti with the full sized 'ribber grip' to be quite manageable with full power .357 mags. I can run through a box or two with no discomfort. The S&W ultralites with the tiny grips sort of scare me just looking at them!

[WonderNine]

Just made me think - HOW in Hades does anyone want to use .357's thru a scandium???????????? I'm no pussy when it comes to recoil but, man ...... I cannot countenance the thought of hot loads thru a lightweight .. really.

Then you would have HATED my 19oz titanium .41 magnum :D

[280PLUS]

j frame airlite .357 puportedly with the hottest loads available.

yowsers!!

.38's werent bad though. not as harsh and snappy.

buy one? no thanx!

:rolleyes:

[Gerald McDonald]

I suspect if you were confronted on a dark night in some out of the way place by a bad guy waving a weapon around and threatning a loved one, you would never even feel the recoil. Carried a lot, shot a little.

As a customer was showing me a photo of the Kodiak bear he got last year and the rifle was a 505 Gibbs when I made the statement that the rifle must have hurt on both ends, he said " when your looking at a bear the size of a Volkswagen at 30 yards you dont hardly even realize the gun went off"

Gerald

[BigG]

Like Gerald McDonald said, it's mostly mind over matter.

Nothing great ever would have been attempted if the naysayers were seriously listened to. Look at our current war situation; All the USA's GREAT LEADERS - Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Algore, and Tim Robbins - would have allowed the human filth to continue to blow things up without a response. And by the way, the same GREAT LEADERS are the ones that want to take away your right to own any gun, let alone a nice piece like a Scandium AirLight. :uhoh:

[MichaelJay]

I guess I can jump in on this one. I have an S&W 386 PD (7-shot, K-frame). Before purchasing it, I shot some of the J-frame Scandium lightweights – Ouch even with .38 special wadcutters. For me the problem wasn’t the .38/.357 difference – it was the grip! A J-frame is just too small for my hands to get around. The slightly larger K-frame grip was what was needed.

The 386PD is built for .357, but I confess I have never loaded one into it. I use .38 special wadcutters for practice and .38 special +P for normal load. It has been pointed out on this board frequently that a .357 from a 2 inch barrel just doesn’t get the full benefit from a .357, 4 inch barrel or longer gets the job done. So I don’t even try. I have an S&W 686 – 4 inch or a GP161 for shooting .357s.

My other practice tip is to shoot the lighter gun first and then move to the heavier one. Seems to work for my wrists. (Yeah, plural – I’m trying to learn to shoot right handed. Talk about scaring the paper!)

[dairycreek]

and have found the recoil to be substantial but not overwhelming. Regular 38 special ammo is easily manageable as is +P ammo. 357 ammo produces, as I say above, substantial recoil. But, not the hand shattering, wrist wrenching, knuckle busting recoil that I had been lead to expect from reading so many of the posts in TFL and THR. True, this is not a gun or a load with whicih to spend a long, liesurely afternoon at the range. I suspect that the gun was never, ever conceived with that in mind. It is a gun that was meant to be carried alot and shot a little. Because of its light weight it is a tremendous concealed carry gun and IMHO that is its proper niche. Good shooting;)

[Vern Humphrey]

*"I suspect if you were confronted on a dark night in some out of the way place by a bad guy waving a weapon around and threatning a loved one, you would never even feel the recoil. Carried a lot, shot a little."*

No, you'd mostly feel the impact of the other guy's bullets -- because those who don't practice regularly don't get many hits when the chips are down.

And that's one major argument against super-light guns -- they discourage frequent practice.

[WhoKnowsWho]

I have yet to speak to everyone behind the counter at the stores that says it didn't hurt to fire 1 or 2 full power .357 rounds through a Scandium framed model. And I want a gun I can shoot and practice with and carry.

[BusMaster007]

In the 2003 S&W catalog is a Scandium .44. Page 8, the 329PD.
Yes, a 26 oz. .44 Mag. revolver.
:eek:
Ouch.

[Standing Wolf]

I don't shoot lightweight revolvers for comfort or target practice. My stainless steel pre-agreement model 60 feels awfully heavy by the end of the day. It's not a genuine old-fashioned joy to shoot, but even if I ended up with a bruised palm and sore wrist, those would be small prices to pay for being able to do the right thing in an emergency.

[Vern Humphrey]

What problem are these ultra-light weight guns supposed to solve?

Are they more comfortable? If so, we have to balance the DIScomfort of practicing with them against the comfort of carrying.

Maybe there's something I don't understand -- I carry a full-size M1911, and don't even notice it. I don't see the need to sacrifice shootability for comfort.

[P95Carry]

Much as I do not fancy a Scandium .. i think the only situation where I'd consider one at all would be for ankle rig use ... or maybe pants pocket.

Of course .. it's surprising - in any gun, just how much weight is made up by the ammo! Even if only 5 rounds.

I'll put up with the extra weight and stick to steel - or steel/polymer.!

[Gordon]

A Scandium Kit gun solve the problem of mountain biking in bear country. The 200grain Corbon hard cast or 180grain Partition Supreme have to be experienced to believe! I can shoot my mountain gun .44 with 300 grainers, and my .454 with 360 grainers but I could only take 4 shots to adjust sights. I wanted to be able to shoot for the rest of the day. I bet you would not notice recoil if a bear up close was covered by that dayglo bead!

[ChristopherG]

Small, lightweight guns are a boon to concealed carry and expand the carrier's options, period. I say this despite numberless testimonies of folks who carry full sized government models on one hip and an N-frame on the other, and hardly notice (well, except that they have 400 dollars worth of leather on and never wear anything other than a raincoat). Okay, now, don't get exercised, I'm kidding; I know there are folks who've worked elegant solutions to this problem. But to most people, it is a problem. Carrying a gun is not comfortable (though it can be comforting; shoot, carrying anything is a hassle--everyone should give recreational nudism a try, to realize how encumbered we all are every day of our normal lives). A 12 oz. gun is simply less uncomfortable.

Now as for their supposed unshootability, I'm here to tell you it's bunk. I shoot a box every week or two of .38 +ps through my scandium J-frame and have a good time doing it, and don't come away bloody and/or sore. What keeps me from shooting more is time, and the fact that I can shoot 9mm cheaper (and a J-frame is not a competition gun in these parts). It was jarring to shoot it the first time, yes, but we primates are quick learners, and you pick up how to hold it and control it, and now I can shoot it with what I consider acceptable defensive accuracy. To wit: This week I sat in on a qualifying course at my normal indoor range that included night-fire and flashing lights on PPC targets from 3 to 15 yards. I didn't have a speedloader, so could only get off 25 shots of the COF. Because I was using the target before the COF started, I decided to make only head shots. I missed the head 3 times. In the dark, at up to 45 ft., that's good enough for me. And, I wanted to shoot more afterward.

If you've found ways to work out the problems of carrying a heavy handgun, kudos. But scandium bashing honestly just comes across as a bunch of stodgy old shooters wistful about change. Hope that's not too harsh.

CG

[Vern Humphrey]

"I could only take 4 shots to adjust sights"

It takes thousands of shots to be really good with a handgun -- so good you can be sure you can shoot it well under extreme stress.

A gun you can't practice with is a snare and a delusion -- it tempts you into thinking you have a weapon, when you really have a liability.

[Gordon]

Well I think I've fired more than a millon shots , but not with that gun.Sights are registered NOW for 180 grain loads and that was the idea. This gun is NOT my gun but a professional (in over 50 age group) mountain bikers who wanted my help as he trains in a bear infested area of Eastern Sierra's and has had bad run ins(litterally!) with bears . He can shoot OK and he does practice with that Kit Gun with lesser loads. But neither he nor I would rely on such a gun for CCW(although it'd probably work ok)and we practice with different formats . We have NO doubt that the bullets will hit in a 12" area under 25yds with that Scandium Kit gun if the need arrises.p.s. I don't train with my Army and Navy .470nitro double but I KNOW where it hits under 100yds and IF I ever use it the training I got on other guns for last 50 years seems like it should do.:cool:

[Gerald McDonald]

Vern there are many handguns similar enough to each other to make a transition from one to the other a non issue, buy a steel frame if you have a desire to shoot a million rounds thru a J frame. If you shoot those thousands of rounds it will rub off on to the scandium or what ever you pick up. sure its a little more difficult to transition from a Glock to a 1911 (but I have seen guys do it) but its not too tuff to go from a High Power to a 1911. I do it all the time. As to what need the lightweight adresses, I too carry a full size auto (quite a bit but not entirely) either a Kimber or a Hi Power, but unlike you if I am going to be sitting all day, it gets uncomfortable and I will use a lighter revolver.
Gerald

[Vern Humphrey]

There are two problems there -- the first is, are you SURE that you can get an effective skills transfer?

What you're talking about here is using a steel-framed revolver as a simulator for a titanium-framed gun. I've been in the training business for almost 40 years, and some surprising simulations failed to produce a good skills transfer.

There are good reasons why a steel-framed gun might not give you the skills transfer you're looking for. The first is anticipation of recoil and pain. No matter how many rounds you've shot in your steel-framed gun, you KNOW the titanium-framed gun is going to hurt.

The second is inability to fire rapidly -- the titanium frame is harder to control, and you don't have extensive practice controlling it in rapid fire.

The third is performance degradation -- you will shoot less and less well in a shooting session with the titanium frame, because of the cumulative effect of recoil.

The fourth is lack of confidence -- you KNOW you haven't practiced with this gun, and when your life is at stake, that lack of confidence can be fatal.

The second problem is, if you have a steel-framed snubby, why not carry it? Why not carry the gun you shoot with -- the gun you KNOW you can shoot well, the gun you have confidence in?

Take the money you'd spend on another revolver, and spend it on ammo, and get really good.

[denfoote]

I don't know about the Sc alloy revolvers, but I have a 1st generation Taurus Ultra Lite that I put 50 rounds through just this Saturday. I find that the recoil is very manageable, even with +P loads!! :cool:

[Gerald McDonald]

Okay Vern, I am screwed then. I have about 8 different handguns that I rotate thru carry. I put about 800 rounds a month downrange thru my BHP, so now if I need to shoot at least 800 a month thru all 8 that will put me at 5600 rounds a month. Since none of my rote skills will transfer I need to buy about a half of a million rounds and quit working so I can become profecient with the different pistols. Oh heck I also do some shotgunning, I guess I also need to quit shooting clays with light loads and go to high brass mags or I will flinch when bird hunting as I will know its going to recoil more and lose confidence in my ability to hit. Kinda strange thou, when shooting clays the recoil bothers me but when a quail bust at my feet, I never even notice it.
Gerald

[Vern Humphrey]

Is one of your handguns a scandium snubbie? Does it hurt so bad that you find it difficult to shoot a whole cylinderful at a single practice session? Do you shoot it as well as you shoot your BHP?

[22luvr]

I own, carry, and shoot a Smith mod 340SC, the lightest of the lightweight scandium revolvers.

Do I like it? No, not as much as my Mod 638 Bodyguard that I traded in to buy the 340.

Is it the recoil that I don't like? No, not really. I regularly shoot about 20-25 .357 mag loads down range and the recoil, while brisk, is not unbearable. (of course I've worked as an aircraft loader off and on for 35 years so have well-developed hands/finger/wrists/forearms so maybe that helps.)

My main gripe is the tendency for the Scandium revolver to unseat crimps on certain ammo types. This causes the cylinder to jam up against the forcing cone because the following round has protruded out of the end of the cylinder.....a dangerous condition.

If I had it to do over, I'd probably have kept my Mod 638 and considered the potential drawbacks of the mod 340 a little more seriously.

[Gerald McDonald]

The only handgun I have that recoils uncomfortable is a Ruger Security Six with 2 3/4" barrel and hot loads. I could put different grips but then it would be harder to carry. I shoot light 38 spec loads at the range and carry 357's in it. It shoots about 2" high with 357's at 7 yards but since I would aim for the gut that shouldnt be a problem. magnum loads are uncomfortable at the range but I dont notice them too much when trying to roll a can with it.
Gerald

[Mikul]

A bunch of friends and I put about 200 rounds through a scandium .357. We only shot magnum rounds and nobody liked the gun. It was scary light, but it's virtues ended there. Aside from the ridiculous recoil, the grips are very small which concentrates the existing recoil into a small area.

I didn't find the palm of the hand recoil to be painful, but the trigger guard smacked into the bottom of my trigger finger on every shot. One of our shooters was bleeding at that spot after shooting one cylinder full.

So far, the few who like their scandium revolvers are shooting 38's through them which, on a good day, has half of the power of a magnum round.

[M1911]

I didn't find the palm of the hand recoil to be painful, but the trigger guard smacked into the bottom of my trigger finger on every shot. My 642 does the same thing. That's about as much as I want to try. A Scandium .357? No thanks, my 642 already hurts me enough, thank you very much. The Scandium just converts dollars into felt recoil.

[florida1098]

It's not about target shooting it well, or the recoil hurt, it's about having something on your person that can fire a bullet at the appropriate time. Likely one round with the supposed blast and muzzle flash will send the adversary packing, (I don't speak from experience) but, from all that I have read and I don't trust much as they have only rewrote what others have written, still, a uneffiecient handgun is better than non at all

[florida1098]

Anyone that carries a 2 + pound firearm on their person all day and does not notice by days end should probably (not trying to be mean here, but obesity does come to mind) have other concerns before wondering if walking in the woodst they will be attacked by a bear. Take care of the body first, then worry about outside forces attack.

[ravencon]

What problem are these ultra-light weight guns supposed to solve?
Ever wear a suit and want to take your jacket off? In case you don't wear suits, suit trousers are very light weight. An Airlite is much more comfortable to pocket carry than even an Airweight. In this context every ounce makes a big difference.

I load mine with standard velocity .38s. Just because it says .357 magnum there is no law requiring them to be so loaded.

[Navy joe]

Anyone that carries a 2 + pound firearm on their person all day and does not notice by days end should probably (not trying to be mean here, but obesity does come to mind) have other concerns before wondering if walking in the woodst they will be attacked by a bear. Take care of the body first, then worry about outside forces attack.

Fat people have way more problems carrying than little persons. My carry is a lot easier with 20 less pounds. A Glock 17 and spare mag gets carried by me whenever I carry and is comfortable.

For revolver only carry I carry a 325 and a 642 together. I nearly bought a 340 when I got the 642 but they don't make much sense to me. A 642 is quite portable, I don't see paying $300 more for a few less ounces. With the 325 recoil is noticeable but not painful. It is a big weight savings over a conventional N frame. I am pretty oblivious to recoil I think and the 340 is enough for me the few times I have fired one.

[mrhockey]

My daily carry is a 386 Mountain Lite Scandium alloy Smith and Wesson. I carry Remington Golden Saber 125gr JHPs in mine. I have found that the load shoots to point of aim with little adjusting of the sights. I find the recoil brisk, but I want to know that when I bet my ass on pulling the weapon out and firing it, I am going to hit what I am aiming at. In a range session I shoot around 200 to 300 rounds. I try to make half my carry load, a quarter of the loads 38 Special, and the other quarter the load I carry in my 642 (my always gun). Buy one of those tennis elbow things and wear it, you will be surprised at how little you feel it.

The scandiums are like anything else. Practice breeds familiarity and shooting the 386 is just like working out. You will be sore at first, but your body will get used to it.

[DawgFvr]

Recoil brisk? You have to be kidding. Brisk? I like Old Fluff's carry test: Can you fire five rounds in five seconds at five yards and keep all rounds within five inches of POA. If not...you need to go down a caliber or get a heavier frame/longer barrel, etc.

I might consider firing a Ruger version of the 642 in scandium chambered for the .327 magnum.

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff is rather chagrined at the number of members who are so lacking in self-confidence they feel that they can’t stop an attacker with anything in their snubby but .357 Magnum cartridges. I hate to break any bubbles, but past history shows that the .357 doesn’t always do this either.

It is not what you hit ‘um with that matters, so much as where you hit up. The point of the exercise is to instantly disable your opponent so that the attack will stop, and random hits are unlikely to do this soon enough.

Flinching from shot to shot is not conductive to the kind of marksmanship that’s called for.

The Old Fuff has no objection to the .357 Magnum cartridge, but he draws the line at a S&W K-frame with a 3 inch barrel, or a similar Ruger SP-101. He also tends to favor his little Taurus model 445, which is about K-frame size, 5-shot/.44 Special, with a 2 inch barrel. Expansion and high velocity isn’t necessary if they start out big in the first place. Smaller guns are chambered in .38 Special, and sometimes downward. An all-steel revolver is heavier to carry, but far better if you have to use it.

Oh, and hopefully no one limits their practice to 15 feet, unless they are shooting from point-shoulder or at waist level…

Gentlemen… your grandfathers and great-grandfathers are spinning in their graves…

[markmc753]

My always carry is a S&W 360pd with Crimson Trace grips in the front right pocket. The CT grips are a marked improvement of the factory grips. Still, it does smack hard with 357's,, but I can put 5 rounds where I want them at 20 feet. Also, the CT grips are great for dry fire practice.. I really think that they have helped me tremendously

[esq_stu]

I had a 340 Sc 357 and shot only 38 and 38+P. Still, the recoil was more than I could stand. I sold it and bought a non-Sc 642. 3-4 oz heavier made all the difference and I carry the 642 regularly with 38+P.

[Vern Humphrey]

Flinching from shot to shot is not conductive to the kind of marksmanship that’s called for.
Amen!

If you choose to carry one of these flea-weights, the odds are good that one of three things will happen:

1. You won't practice with it, and won't have the skill you need when the chips are down.

2. You will practice with it, and develop flinching and jerking that will stand you in bad stead when the chips are down.

3. You'll shoot .38 Specials in it.

[bikerdoc]

just my .02, shot one, didnt like it
carry 3 inch 357 with 125 gr jhp

[Car Knocker]

Another 5-year old thread rises from the grave!

[Doug S]

I recently picked up a 340 M&P. It was okay with 38, but after firing 1 cylinder of full load 357, I wiped it down, and traded it. Now the proud owner of a SP101 (a mighty fine revolver in my opinion). I probably would have kept the S&W, but the finish wasn't holding up. After less than a week it had 3 places where the finish had come off, and that irritated me more than the recoil.

[foghornl]

Tried a Shooting Budd's Ultra-Light-Tanium {don't remember which model it was...maybe a 340??}.

Even with the 125-Gr "Rodent Flatulence" .38Spl Cowboy Loads, it was a whole lot more than I wanted to shoot...I fired it twice.

[jfh]

I've posted this information elsewhere--but it appears to be worth repeating in this thread.

1. I bought both an M&P 340 and a 640 last May, after I resolved to get my carry license, finally. I planned on practicing--a lot, and I wanted to develop reloads to practice with.

2. After reading online about PD ammo, I decided to set a goal of carrying the M&P340, using the Gold Dot Short Barrel 38+P 135-gr. factory loads. Since those cost from about $1.00 down to maybe $.52 a round, I knew if I wanted to practice a lot I could do it with lead bullets, and I set about developing a reload that would cost perhaps $.12 a round. So, I dug in and did that. FWIW, the ballistics of the 38+P 135-gr package is about 860-900 fps from a 2" barrel.

3. I set a 'long-term' goal of being able to shoot old fuff's four-by-five from the 340 with the Speer factory round.

4. To do this, I used the 640 for load development and to learn to shoot a DAO revolver trigger well. Speer had pdf files for recipes to replicate the 38+P 135-gr round, and I used those to develop a round that was 'identical in subjective recoil; then I backed that charge up to maintain a basic proficiency--and thus to reward my efforts.

Intermittently, I would go over and shoot the 340. My hand was woefully under-conditioned, and I spent about two months dealing with tears on the trigger finger and in the web, not to mention a sore hand. Eventually my hand (finger and web) became well-calloused and the tearing ceased.

I started out shooting the 340 with the proverbial softballs--148-gr LSWCs, and I started out carrying with the FC 110-gr., standard-pressure 38 Special PD round. By the time I had shot about 700 rounds through the 640 and perhaps 150 through the 340, I could stand shooting a cylinderful of the GDSB 38+P 135 gr.

By 3000 rounds, my hand was fully conditioned, I could shoot the DAO triggers well, and I was doing at least a three-by-five, slack only in the time. However, I couldn't tolerate a reload sequence--I could do it, but it still left me in pain.

At about 5000 rounds, I could shoot a four-by-five in the 340, reload, and shoot another. I even tried shooting the Buffalo Bore 158-gr LSWC-HP 38+P plus (that's 1000 fps-plus from a 2" barrel; I chrono'd it) from the 340--and I did it, and could have reloaded.

At the end of the outdoor shooting last fall, I was trying out the Speer 357 GDSB-135 gr PD round (appr 970-1000 fps from a 2" barrel), and could shoot it. So, for the winter, I've started loading development for that performance level.

Throughout the winter, I try to shoot about 250 rounds a month--200 in the 640, 50 to 100 in the 340--using my replica rounds.

This overview is not intended to be bragging--but it does show what an older shooter (I"m 63) can do if one sets up a training program to learn to shoot a scandium-based revolver well. The key to it is to be able to afford to do it, and to use a training program based on "successive approximations" to reach realistic goals.

Would I buy another scandium revolver? Yes; I'm convinced the j-frame scandium packages are superior to the alloy frames in strength, etc., and really are a different firearm. However, knowing what I know now, I wish S&W would make a scandium 38+P package. Of course, if they did that, the high profit they make on the 38/357 packages would disappear--so I'm not holding my breath.

Jim H.

[ravencon]

JFH, that was an excellent and informative post.

No one is forcing the nay sayers to go out and buy an Airlite. However, you have demonstrated that achieving good, consistent results with an Airlite is indeed possible.

For me the Airlite snubby is a specialized tool, not an everyday tool. I've got Airweight and steel snubbies that see a lot more holster time than my 340 Sc. But, I'm not planning on selling my Airlite.

[BigG]

Just like Jim H has stated above - not everybody has been feminized to the point where they are afraid of a Scandium snubby. I may lose a little skin, too, yet I can fire a box of 158 gr .357 Magnum from my snub without getting teary eyed.

Scandium is a good thing - why be so critical? If it isn't for you why don't you just say so instead of blaming the tool?

[FW]

This discussion always repeats itself.

Airlite 357 revolvers are like any other firearm; certain things are compromised to gain other benefits.

Many will mention how "painful" they can be. The is primary purpose these are made for. In an extreme case, one might be killed or severely injured when a firearm is needed for defense and one is either not present or now "enough". While there are many compromises, if a powerful light weight revolver gives just enough of an edge to survive, recoil "pain" is quite insignificant.

These revolvers are not for the inexperienced. Then again, neither are most pocket guns.

There is no rule one must fire .357 in one. Some will say it is a waste of money to spend twice as much on a 340 over a 642 if one will only shoot 38 through it, but there is a noticable weight difference between the two and there is not currently a 12 oz 38 special made that I'm aware of. When firing 38 special loads only, there is no significant recoild difference between a 340 and a 642.

Yes, they're expensive, but it is not uncommon for people to spend >$600 on other carry guns.

Even if one is only going to fire 38 special, the only reason to buy a 642 instead of a 340 is price.

Furthermore, there is a wide variety of .357 loads and 38 special loads available. .38+P+ probabably shouldn't be used in a 38+p revolver, but wouldn't be a problem in a .357 revolver. No matter what, there are a lot more options if a .357 airlite is chosen.

[Mr. Designer]

I have a S&W 360sc that I carry loaded with 125gr Remington Golden Sabers. I have shot 158gr 357s which aren't that fun, but you got to remember that this is a carry gun and not a range gun. When practicing I mainly shoot 38s and then before I leave shoot a few 357s.

[jfh]

Here's my take on this weight issue:

1. Prior to buying, I handled my friend's 442. I marveled at its weight--but I couldn't imagine shooting it; at that time, I really had only shot an SP-101 and a 27 in 38/357. However, I heeded his advice, and that of a cop friend:
If you want to carry, then carry all the time--and the only gun that you are likely to carry daily, as a civilian, is a lightweight.

Hence, the M&P340, in a pocket holster. Now that I've done this for eight months, it has become a normal part of my daily life, and I don't notice it as a distraction at all.

I now also own a 442, and that works well, too, with those 38+P replica reloads.

I selected the lightweight guns for their "ergonomic" issues, and I figured I owed it to any one impacted by my decision to carry to be proficient with my chosen handgun. As FW pointed out, the choice of a firearm both expands and limits the benefits--but, the basis for that choice really has nothing to do with the proficiency of the user, only with their resolution.

Jim H.

[Doug S]

not everybody has been feminized to the point where they are afraid of a Scandium snu

[Doug S]

not everybody has been feminized to the point where they are afraid of a Scandium snu

Why is it that men with the mentality of boys, feel the need to announce their superiority. Why is it that they feel the need to discredit others, for simply expressing their opinion on some topic. “Real” men, don’t have to point the fact out to others. Things simply are, as they are. Kind of like being a “great” man. It isn’t something that should, or would be spoken by the individual, possessing the trait. It is something that others notice about them, and speak for them. I honestly think “men”, should have the intellectual capacity of expressing their opinions, without resorting to calling others "feminized". I much prefer to state my opinion on a topic, without degrading others. "To each, his own", I think the saying goes.

Scandium is a good thing - why be so critical?

So I guess I'm confused, who is it that's being critical in this otherwise very civil discussion?

Back to the topic at hand. I’m not saying that others shouldn’t buy an Airweight. I agree, there's not many better in a pocket. I’m simply saying that one should try it out before making this decision, because they do in fact "kick like a mule". I'm not particularly bothered by recoil, but yet I want to be proficient with my CCW firearm. I would not have wanted to put in the necessary time to become "proficient" with my 340 M&P. If you are one of those individuals, I commend you for your dedication. If the original op can handle an Airweight, great, if not other models will most likely serve better. In a pinch, sure I'll take a Scandium lightweight, but if I have a choice, give me a Ruger SP101. I don't think I'm "feminized" for feeling this way, and I'm certainly not "afraid" to shoot a Scandium snubbie.

Forgive me for the rant, but every now and then I can't resist responding to one of these snooty posts.:o

[BigG]

Quote:
not everybody has been feminized to the point where they are afraid of a Scandium snub

Why is it that men with the mentality of boys, feel the need to announce their superiority. Why is it that they feel the need to discredit others, for simply expressing their opinion on some topic. Yada yada, etc.

I used the term feminized advisedly because many men today are feminized, meaning more in touch with their feminine side, able to express their feelings openly, etc.

I am sorry if that ruffles your feathers but there is quite a bit of literature about it should you care to look. The fact that you object to it seems to me that it bothers you to be advised it might be a concern. I know myself that some attitudes are conditioned through long exposure and I'm probably not the big He-Man I wished I was.

I think you called me at least three names in your post also. Does that make you feel better about yourself? :uhoh:

[1 old 0311]

I have a 340PD. Love it, and it is PERFECT for ankel carry.

[Doug S]

I think you called me at least three names in your post also. Does that make you feel better about yourself?

No, I don't feel better about that, & I do regret my comments. I just took offense to your bringing that into the conversation, because it seemed some people were less than thrilled with the recoil of the Scandium guns. Nevertheless, doesn't justify, me being a smart--- to you.

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

What's up with the 5 year old thread???

[Doug S]

What's up with the 5 year old thread???

I think many people will find it as interesting, and relevant as some others did 5 years ago. If I were on the market for one of these today, I'd enjoy this thread very much. In truth, I probably would have bought the Scandium regardless of what I read. Seems to be something that you have to try.

[doc540]

sorry to post back on topic, but.... :neener:

I was dismayed when I first shot my Smith 642 with .38 +P's. The backstrap was driven into my thin, boney, bass-playing hand.

So, I came here, read up a bit, and installed a set of Hogue Monogrips.

Compromised concealability just a tad with the slightly longer grip, but I'm now able to shoot much more comfortably, accurately, and confidently.

Hand size and build + grip design can make a significant difference with light frame handguns.

Yes, that's a restatement of the obvious, but someone else posted that for my benefit months ago, and I thought it bore repeating.

[P97]

I basically did the same thing. I bought a 642 and didn't like it. I have big hands. I put a set of Pachmeyer grips that cover the backstrap and extend about a inch below the handle and I like to shoot it now and can hit something with it.:)

[Bullet Bob]

Well, there's scandium, and there's scandium. My 351PD is the perfect pocket gun for me. I know lots of people don't like the .22 magnum for self-defense, and everybody is entitled to their opinion. I've seen a few "elephants" so to speak in the military from 1970-85, and from working in hospital emergency rooms, and I have my own opinion. The 351 even has the dreaded lock, so I'm doubly endangering myself!
http://fototime.com/80D74FFA3B64D35/standard.jpg

The 329 is the best back country .44 Special ever invented! I have fired a very few magnums in it, don't want to do that on a regular basis with my old and fractured bones, but I can if I need to. Even with Specials it's not an all day plinker for me, but I can meet the 5 in 5 (with Specials) test if need be. If I need weight, I can always use one of the other .44's. I was concerned before I bought it about the fragility of the fiber optic front sight, but it's held up fine - at least so far. It may not be the best for targets, but you can really see that thing in the woods!

http://fototime.com/690F997F76D9641/standard.jpg

[revjross]

Man, we blew the dust off this old post and brought it back to life, but I'll jump in too. I just bought my Scan 357 recently and love it. It is exactly what I wanted --and that is a small VERY light revolver to throw in my pocket on the go--. Besides, I've shot it in 38sp, 38+P, and 357 mag -- It's just not that bad, certainly worth the extra recoil for the light weight in my pocket!!

[jaydubya]

I practice with standard pressure 158gr SWC followed by five rounds of Remington FBI load. I don't practice with the big stuff because it tears up my hand. I have six battle stars on my Vietnam Service Ribbon.
Jack

[doc540]

BulletBob, what kind of grips on that 351PD?

[noskilz]

I might consider firing a Ruger version of the 642 in scandium chambered for the .327 magnum.

Holy thread resurrection, Batman! And to think the above quote would not even have been possible when the thread started. ;)

I'll admit, I'm looking forward to the 327 magnum round, as I'm too much of a wimp to shoot 357 magnums out of a pocket gun. It doesn't help that no one can find the rounds yet. :uhoh:

Love that S&W 22 revolver that Bullet Bob displayed. Gorgeous photos - and gun. Now that looks like a gun you could practice with all day long. And I'll bet that would make Old Fuff proud! ;)

[Bullet Bob]

Doc540, I'm not sure. They're the factory grips that came with the gun. Looks like some kind or rosewood laminate to me. S&W hasn't made grips in-house for years, but I don't know who they outsourced these to.

[Old Fuff]

Love that S&W 22 revolver that Bullet Bob displayed. Gorgeous photos - and gun. Now that looks like a gun you could practice with all day long. And I'll bet that would make Old Fuff proud!

More then you know. My friend Bill Jordan, of the U.S. Border Patrol, recommended the combination of a lightweight J-frame aluminum/steel revolver chambered in .22 WRF, not only for practice but also back-up and off-duty carry…

This was in the days before the aluminum/titanium revolvers were available, and the .32 H&R and .327 Magnums had yet to be introduced. Even so, as much as he liked the .357 Magnum in his duty guns he recognized that cartridge’s limitations is small, lightweight pocket guns.

I would point out that after years of serving on the U.S./Mexican border, his perspectives came from real life experience, not Internet theory. In addition the man could draw and shoot in less then a blink of an eye, and hit what he was shooting at - exactly where he intended. That skill was the result of extensive practice. This gave him the confidence to use lighter cartridges when he thought that was advisable.

[jfh]

About grips:

In my earlier post in this thread about my j-frame / M&P 340 'acclimation program' (found here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4193254&postcount=42)), I neglected to mention that both guns had been equipped with CT Lasers from the beginning. I put a 305 (Long) on the 640, and a 405 (boot) on the M&P 340.

The 405, with its recoil pocket of soft vinyl, had two benefits--it did offer noticable recoil reduction, and it filled my hand a bit better. Later, when I was well familiar with these (and had bought an M60-3" and the 442 mentioned earlier), the recoil pocket was appreciated but not necessary.

Currently, the M60 is equipped with a Pachmyr (Bantam?), and the 442 has that standard / long S&W (Uncle Mike's) grip with its exposed backstrap.

I've tried moving grips around, etc., but overall, the CT-405 / boot grip is the preferred one for me for pocket carry. The longer grips are noticable improvements in flip control, but were not really necessary once my hand got conditioned.

I will also speak highly of the benefits of a laser sight, for a few different reasons--one, they are potentially a help for aging eyes, particularly in dim light. Two, they are an invaluable aid for learning to point shoot. Finally, they can be an important training tool--you can use the laser to watch the 'bobble' as the hammer drops, and I found that invaluable in learning to shoot DAO.

I will mention that I did have some trouble with the 405--the recoil pocket tore on the first one after about 75 rounds, and the replacement one CT sent out (no charge) tore after 5 rounds. The third one is somewhat tore out after about another 750 rounds, and I will get a replacement grip when I do an annual maintenance routine in about a month or so.

Despite this problem--which appeared to be probably a faulty molding in the grip where the lower-left side of the recoil pocket is secured--I am completely satisfied with the CT package. The grips have a 3-year warranty, and the CT service has been exemplary.

I should mention that, at about 850 rounds or so, the only ongoing problem with the M&P340 has been a problem with cylinder binding on the shaft when shooting my reloads. The problem appears to be the result of "dirty" ignition, and has been relieved by the used of 357 cartridges (loaded to that 38+P factory round performance level) and some tweaking. I think it occurs because the M&P340 is simply built to tighter tolerances than the aluminum-alloy guns, and it is resolved by a good cleaning.

Excellent gun, excellent grips--18.3 oz c/w six 38+P cartridges--what more could I ask for?

Jim H.

[MCgunner]

I traded my P95 in on a Taurus M85SSUL. :D I don't find the Taurus that rough even with hot .38, though I normally practice with wadcutters. However, I've fired a 12 ounce .357 and, uh, well, I'll keep my SP101, thanks. :rolleyes: If I'm going to be shooting .38 +P anyway, heck, I'll spend less money on a .38. Like Smiths? Get a 642 and be happy. It's a lot less money and works just as well with .38.

Mostly what I carry, though, is a Kel Tec P11 loaded with +P 9x19 115 grain JHP, 11 rounds on tap, 410 ft lbs, and easier to both shoot and reload than a light weight .38. The gun really points natural for me, too. I got both the Taurus and the KT when I got my license near 12 years ago. I might have 6K through the Taurus, got twice that out of the KT, that's how much I enjoy shooting it. Some complain about the little 9s, but they are easier to shoot than little .357s hands down, no contest. They give up a little punch, but not as much as do the .38s and they do have firepower on their side. I just think of mine as a little 14 ounce square concealed hammer revolver that uses the ultimate in speed loaders.

[shooter429]

Think about the number of Sc guns coming out now versus 5 years ago. More relevant today, I think. In any event, they have there place and their limitations. If I could get one w/o the lock, I would go back to them in a HB. Oh well...the 642 is still a great option.

Shooter429

[FranklyTodd]

I totally respect anyone's opinion that's fired one (including if you think they suck), but it's amusing the high percentage of people who chime in on lightweight snubby-bashing, saying something like: "I've never shot one, but I think they are way too light . . ." It's ok to just read a post and not chime in, really . . .

I carry an M&P340 with CT grips each and every day - and I love it. To folks that think you need to practice hours and hours per week with their exact carry gun, and their exact carry cartridge - well, I just don't agree. I draw/dryfire a couple days per week and put 50-100 rounds through it a couple times per month at most. A snub nose revolver with a laser grip is not exactly rocket science, no matter how much/little it weighs.

[oscarswanson]

S&W 360 12 oz. .357 = bloody hand
Ruger .454 Alaskan = brused hand
Taurus Titainium 617 20 oz. .357 with ribber grip = perfect.
Glock 27 or 33 or 26 = my favorite carry guns.

[DAdams]

History will bear out the Sc/Ti format might now be considered an experiment gone too far or bad science. An extreme swing of the pendelum. Great idea at the time with state of the art materials, but as with many great ideas, theory is one thing practice is another.....then the developmental team got it right!!

M&P 340

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v237/dmadams/P5210023.jpg

All the good, none of the bad plus the XS night sight and trench are spot on. The IonBond finish on mine is holding up very well. The perfect balance.

There is another convergence that works to this formats favor. Speer and Buffalo Bore both recognized the special ammunition requirements for short barrel revolvers and addressed the need. Low flash powders and right sized load(s) have optimized this package to nothing short of amazing.
Add the Hogue Monogrip or CT 305 and it is concealed carry perfection. (Almost, 6 rounds and deep sixing the ILS, would be perfection).

S&W is so convinced this is an optimized materials package they developed the entire Night Guard line-up based on Sc/Ss, Ionbond, 38spl through .45.

[rdrancher]

BulletBob, what kind of grips on that 351PD?

Doc540, I'm not sure. They're the factory grips that came with the gun. Looks like some kind or rosewood laminate to me. S&W hasn't made grips in-house for years, but I don't know who they outsourced these to.

I just purchased a set off of feebay a few weeks ago, and I've seen a couple of sets here and there since then. Put up a WTB for S&W laminated boot grips. They're out there.

rd

[hhb]

Firing a scandium revolver is like grabbing onto an electric fence!!!!

[Vern Humphrey]

Firing a scandium revolver is like grabbing onto an electric fence!!!!
As Will Rogers said, "There's three kinds of people. There's them that can learn from books. There's them that can learn from others. And there's them that's gotta pee on the electic fence for themselves.":p

[FW]

History will bear out the Sc/Ti format might now be considered an experiment gone too far or bad science. An extreme swing of the pendelum. Great idea at the time with state of the art materials, but as with many great ideas, theory is one thing practice is another.....then the developmental team got it right!!

M&P 340


Bad science? This is a little amusing. The weight difference between a 340/340pd and an M&P 340 may or may not be significant to the user. But no one can honest say they can feel any difference between the two firing equal cartridges, whether 38 special or 357. The only real difference between the 340/340pd and the M&P 340 is the cylinder. Someone will say the SS cylinder is stronger or something than the titanium. It is really neglegible for the application. One could also say the titatium is more corrosion resistant. Both statements are true. But almost silly. There are always a few claims out there of titanium cylinders failing. Stainless steel cylinders can fail too, actually anything can. How many titatium failures can be duplicated when using them as they were designed to be used?


All the good, none of the bad plus the XS night sight and trench are spot on. The IonBond finish on mine is holding up very well. The perfect balance.


All good? But it is heavier (though not significantly to most). None of the bad? It will still be equally "painful" to shoot and still very expensive.

It is too bad the M&P 340 isn't offered without the tritium sight. While many like this option, it significantly increases cost and the tritium doesn't last forever any way.

For the money, the M&P 340 is probably a better buy, but the fact is, any of the 340 variations are basicly the same gun.

Some will argue about the stainless steel and titanium cylinders, but most of the metal in these guns is ALUMINUM. Compromises are made to have the ultimate lightweight carry guns. If one is so concerned about ultimate strength and recoil, just get an all steel gun with a big fat grip.

[M'bogo]

I have a 386 Sc Mountain Lite 3" and finally got around to firing the little beast. I was really expecting to be beat up by this revolver. I fired around 100 rounds of .38 and .357 (50/50 mix) through it on Saturday. I was really disappointed. My hands didn't go numb or bleed. I loved shooting the weapon. I can fire 7 rounds of .357 158 JHP from it faster than you can read this sentence. The 386 is light, powerful and a joy to carry. It is not a pain to shoot for anyone of average strength.

I had a friend over that shot the 386 a little less than 50 rounds and he to commented that all the hype and hoopla about the TiScan's horrible recoil was due to speculation mostly.

Long live the TiScan models. Now to find a good carry holster and to do something about that silly S&W lock.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh301/Fish_Hunt/SW386-1.jpg

M'bogo

[McCall911]

HOW in Hades does anyone want to use .357's thru a scandium????????????

I got over my lightweight handgun/powerful cartridge prejudice when I owned a S&W Shorty Forty-Five (remember those?) It was a very nice shooter, but it had a heavier slide that seemed to help dampen some of the recoil.

But I'm leery of scandium myself in a powerful caliber, and I'm not very recoil sensitive either. I handled one of these in .38 Spl caliber and quickly decided it wasn't for me.

P.S. And I didn't realize that this thread was as old as Methuselah!

:D

[Mr. Designer]

I have a 12oz S&W 360sc and do carry it loaded with Golden Sabers 357s. Having a very lite revolver has benefits and disadvantages. The main advantage to the lite revolver is that I don't mind carrying it, so if I ever need it, most likely it will be there. The main disadvantage is that it's a pain (literally) to shoot. It's not a gun I'd want to take to the range and shoot 200 full house, 158gr, 357s out of, but if I had to in a self defense situation, I wouldn't mind shooting 5 reduced recoil 357s. It's a great gun if you use it for it intended purpose. Shot a little and carried a lot.

[Bob79]

The Airlite S&W guns are great for carry. If you don't care about the weight, and heavy is fine for you, buy an all steel gun. It's that simple.

But if you want something lighter, and won't carry a heavy gun, than an Airlite might be for you. You just have to make sure to only use brass brushes on the cylinder, and no abrasives on the cylinder either. Hoppes # 9 is OK to use, just wipe it off the frame if it gets on it.

I've got a 337PD and 342PD and these are +P rated and weigh under 11 ozs. 130 grain standard pressure isn't fun to shoot, but I can deal with 50 rounds. I think firining .357 rounds out of any J-frame is pretty rough, even the all steel guns.

Don't forget you can always load your J-frame Airlite with 148 grain wadcutters, that will recoil light, and still cut a nice hole in tissue. You just can't beat these guns for comfort of carry. We all know having a 4" 1911 has more firepower than a 5 shot J-frame, but for people who can't or won't carry a large gun, these J-frames are a nice option. My 342PD loaded with Cor Bon 110 grain DPX, inside a Kramer front pocket holster weighs a total of just 16 ozs, tough to beat that.