Scandium frame

I had a 44 mag scandium revolver... for about three boxes or ammo, then I sold it. I have a 460 mag that I will shoot 40 rounds through in one sitting and then go on shooting something else with no problems, but that 44 was punishing. I would shoot two cylinder fulls and it wasnt fun anymore. I sold it and never looked back...

Now the 38 scandium I had I loved, I carried it as a BUG before I switched agencies and it was a handful, but not painful to qualify with. (60 round qual course)

I had about a half dozen S&W Scandium revolvers, from .38 to .357 to .44 Spl. Edited to add: oh, yeah, had one on those 325s as well. In all honesty, I liked carrying them, but never got to like shooting them all that much.

I just bought my second Commander-sized S&W Scandium 1911 today, and I like them more than you would believe....more than I can believe.

I like the concept of alloying Scandium in aluminum to increase the strength.

I only own 4 S&W's using the Scandium aluminum frames, a pair of M&P 340's, a 4040PD & a SW1911SC.

I actually bought the M&P 340's (1 w/ILS & 1 w/o) more or less as "enhanced" 642's. My justification was to save on some of the wear & tear on my 642's, and I liked the XS sights better than the standard serrated ramp on the 642's. I also liked that the M&P 340 retained a steel cylinder (PVD/blackened stainless, although the PD's even lighter weight is possible because of the titanium cylinder).

The stronger Scandium aluminum alloy allows the use of Magnum loads, but they can be a bit punishing on the shooter.
I've shot a fair amount of Magnum loads through my M&P's, but I mostly use standard & +P for training/practice & +P for carry use in them. Like I said, I think of them as enhanced 642's.

The 4040PD can be as thin and slender as the 3913 because of the stronger frame.

The SW1911SC 5" has been a fine example of a 1911-style pistol. I like the light weight compared to my other 5" 1911's. It does have a little bit more felt recoil than my steel 1911's, but I owned and used a lightweight Commander for many years, so it's not an issue for me.

Someone interested in the Scandium aluminum framed guns will have to consider whether the weight reduction is enough of an advantage to offset the increased recoil in any particular model.

Thanks for your (#29) post, fastbolt. I like the idea of using a 340 as a 642 that can be shot a lot; a valuable insight. I expect to handload for it and will probably not go hotter than .38 +P; with most shooting done with .38 wadcutters.

I prefer larger handguns and would rather buy only one snubbie; want to get it right on the first try.

Since this is for pocket carry, the bulky grips rubber I've seen on .357 snubs look like a poor choice. Are slim, smooth, wooden grips available?

You can probably find the standard wooden style grips, but the stock synthetic grip stocks are pretty slim. I actually prefer them for being able to get a solid grasp on my 340's & 642's versus carrying my older 649 or 37 with regular wood stocks.

BTW, I wasn't having any problems when it came to wearing out either of my 642's, and one of them had been shot over the course of several years. It was just that I felt the stronger Scandium alloyed aluminum frame would probably be more tolerant of extended shooting sessions over the years, seeing as how it was designed with Magnum ammunition in mind.

Of course, the steel frame Magnum models offer the inherent durability of steel, but at the added cost of additional weight. Some folks find the added weight a small price to pay for reduced felt recoil & controllability. Depends on the owner, their preferences and their anticipated needs.

Speaking only for myself, I can notice a difference in weight when carrying my 649, one of my Airweights or my M&P 340's. Other folks might feel differently.

The M&P 340 shaves off about 1.7 ounces compared to the 642 by virtue of having an aluminum yoke (stainless steel on 642) and an alloy-sleeved steel barrel tube (solid stainless on the 642).

The best thing about the M&P 340 for me, though, has been the standard size dot XS front night sight. The decently sized white plastic ring around the tritium capsule is easily seen, compared to the different colors of sight paint I've tried over the years on my other J's.

Also, that front dot sight seems to more easily drop down within the U-shaped rear notch, making it easier and faster to put it at the right height for aimed fire. The regular front ramp/post J sights are more easily "lost" against the square rear notch, making it harder to get the right elevation for aimed shots.

I'd have bought the M&P 340 just for the Scandium aluminum frame and XS front night sight alone, even if it had only been chambered in .38 +P.

Folks vary when it comes to tolerance of recoil forces, though, meaning different owners might find they prefer to carry/use standard pressure loads, +P loads or even Magnum loads.

When I first checked some various Magnum loads in my first 340, I found 2-3 brands/bullet weights that exhibited bullet pull in my gun, when I was shooting it, and about the same number of brands/bullet weights that didn't. All of the .38 +P loads I commonly use checked out just fine in my gun, in my hands. Check out how to check prospective loads in the ammunition warnings in the owner safety manual.

It might benefit you if you could find a way to test-fire some examples and see how you feel about them.

My Gunsite Commander SC frame has held up very well. It's S&W's crappy small parts that up and decided to self-destruct.

I like the concept of alloying Scandium in aluminum to increase the strength.

Click to expand...

Though it works well, the real genius in the alloy is the marketing. I've heard (I don't have a tensile test machine) that Scandium only gives a 5-10% strength increase over common Aluminum-Zinc alloys people around here always complain about. In fact, I believe Zinc is a major alloying agent in the SW Scandium mix (I may be wrong about that). Hopefully SW or someone else can learn from the successes they've had with these "weaker" metals in revolvers and pistols, and design fully functional lightweight guns that don't break the bank.

Imagine how sweet it would be if these guns could be made for just the extra cost of 7075 Aluminum over 4140 steel. (Chiappa Rhinos are 7075 Al if I recall, and haven't had any materials related problems. They run fairly pricey as a novelty piece, though.)

TCB

http://www.google.com/patents/US6557289 sez Sc alloys run up to 106ksi tensile, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7075_aluminium_alloy#7075-T651 sez 7075-T651 runs up to 78ksi, so it's more like 35%.

There are other properties of interest, like fatigue and so on. I don't know how those compare.

I shot the S&W1911SC and really liked it. I'm a large framed individual but it wasn't too light and was very quick back on target making it pretty accurate considering it was my first time to shoot one. Compared to the S&W1911PD the same owner let me shoot I prefer the SC.

Barnbwt,

Where did you hear all that? That's the first time I've ever heard that and it's kinda hard to believe. I've owned Gun's made out of "pot metals" that did not hold up well at all. I highly doubt a revolver constructed out of the same materials as my P22 could withstand a .357 and still be under 15oz.

I've got a 642 that I've come to appreciate as a carry gun. I don't shoot it much but hopefully I won't have to. I recenty picked up a Ruger LCR. Now that thing is actually comfortable to shoot even with 357's. Same type of usage, but a step up regarding felt recoil. I'm surprised at the lack of leather options for the new Ruger.

I want a snubbie and have been pricing them and the airweight .357 seems to be the least expensive but I too worry about reliaqbility issues?
If you carry +P's and pratice with regular .38 Specials, will the airweight hold up?
In order to get good enough to be safe for your self and Family, you have to pratice at least weekly and if I do I don't want a gun that will shoot to pieces!
I don't know if the airweight is Scadium.
I doubt I'll even shoot full house .357's in the gun because of accuracy and quick follow-up shots.
So what's the REAL story on the airweights, are they capable of frequent .38 Special shooting?
ZVP

So what's the REAL story on the airweights, are they capable of frequent .38 Special shooting?

Click to expand...

Sure...

Current production from both Smith & Wesson and Taurus are rated for Plus-P when chambered in .38 Special

If you get a .357 Magnum (I wouldn't) with intentions of shooting a lot of .38 Special cartridges in it, you will have to spend a lot of time keeping the long magnum chambers clean or you will have trouble extracting .357 cases after shooting them.

Over the long haul with a lot of shooting a steel gun will hold up better then an aluminum one, all other things being equal. But this is from ordinary wear and is not cartridge related. An aluminum .357 Magnum that is extensively used with magnum cartridges might be another matter, but I suspect that most users would give up before the gun did.

Arriving a little late on this post. My brother-in-law has a Smith 360pd. Hurts his hand so much he doesn't use it, except for emergencies (if they ever occur). He has the lasergrip, which is good, since he can't afford the damage to his hand to learn how to use the original sights to advantage. It is definitely a marketing ploy; or a real belly gun.

I don't know if the airweight is Scadium.

Click to expand...

When I was in the market for mine ~2007, there were no scandiums in the Air Weight.

Smith & Wesson introduced Scandium/Aluminum frames in .357 Magnum J-frames during 2001. They can be identifyied by the letters Sc following the word AirLite on the right side of the frame. I'm not sure if they have upgraded .38 snubbies or not.

I have the .44 Mag. What really helps is to buy a rubber grip from the X frame. The covered backstrap makes a world of difference. Before with either factory grip 6-12 rounds was all I could force myself to shoot at a time. After the X frame grip I can shoot about double the rounds before I start to tire/flinch.

The 642 is a 15oz. aluminum alloy frame. It's not one of the 11oz scandium frames. Hope this helps.

I carry a 325PD nearly all of the time. Riding in a Lobo it disappears and I don't even notice it. I'm working with a local leathermaker to get a moonclip holder made. It looks alot like a speedloader case, but will wrap around the belt and moonclip, with 3 rounds on each side of the belt.