340 vs. 340PD

Status
Not open for further replies.

DH999

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
9
Which one should I get? I really like the matte/stainless look of the 340 better, but I like the fact that the 340PD has the red ramp front site vs. the black blade on the 340. Are there any other differences or considerations? How difficult is it to change the front site on the 340 to something like an XS 24/7 Tritium night sight (as the M&P 340 has) - is it something you would need to have a gunsmith do? I would put Crimson Trace grips on it right away but I do like the idea of a more visible front sight as well.

Thanks
 
I wanna watch someone focus on a short-barrel front sight when they torch one'a those things off!:what:

Hail, I bet the muzzle blast and flash could get you sent up for aggravated assault.
 
The M&P 340 CT looks really nice. Only problem is that it is 13.3 oz. vs. 12 oz. for the regular 340. Not much heavier I realize, but if you are looking for a really light weight snubbie in your pocket, ounces do make a difference. Also, I do like matte stainless finish on the 340 better than the matte black.
 
My version of the M&P340 has a Trijicon (Meprolite?) front dot installed with a white surround. It's the small version, and nestles perfectly inside the frame slot--works just fine--but I use my CT 405 for sighting, so it really doesn't matter.

As for the weight--I agree, an ounce-and-a-half or so is remarkable but not noticable--I also have a 442 that I've carried, which is about that amount heavier than the M&P 340. I carry in my front pocket, in a Mika holster, and I really don't notice the difference.

As for recoil, once you've acclimated, the lighter weight makes no difference, IMO.

Jim H.
 
I'm sorry but there is no way I will pay over $1,000 for a mass produced J frame revolver with a ugly hole in it's side. No mass produced revolver with MIM parts is worth that kind of money.
 
I'd shoot it first. I know a few guys who find teh .357 round brutal in that light weight gun. I myself am looking at getting the 640 just for that reason. The extra few ounces won't make that much difference when carrying and will mak a lot of difference when shooting.
 
The 340 and the 340PD have a titanium cylinder to keep the weight down and they have been known to seize up during rapid fire with certain types of ammo. Had it happen to me at the range. The M&P340 has a blackened Stainless Steel Cylinder and while it COULD also seize up, there have not been any reports of that happening on this board but it HAS been reported to have happened to a few folks with the 340 and the 340PD due to the titanium cylinder.

Something to think about.
 
Alan Fud: In the M&P340 thread, a few of us who shoot reloads for practice have had trouble with cylinder binding. There's a question of what exactly causes it, but it appears to be related to the use of 1) lead bullets, possibly, and the related lube / burnoff at ignition, or 2) the powder-load recipe selection for complete combustion.

The binding shows up after fifty rounds or so, and can become quite significant by 75 rounds. It's completely fixed by a cleaning that includes cleaning the ejector shaft and cylinder. The 'inconvenience' of that fix is a small price to pay for shooting rounds that replicate my PD factory load, but cost about ten cents each plus some time.

I've put about 700 rounds through my M&P340 now, and all it really needs is to be cleaned after any range session. IOW, for carry use, clean it after practice every time.

I have no experience with the PD version--i.e., the titanium cylinder version. We've all read, I imagine, about the cylinder distortion / expansion issues, and how S&W has replaced at least some of these with the steel cylinders. The other very rare times I experienced binding was early on in shooting my 340, and I eventually figured out that the binding was really short-stroking the trigger. Once I became profient at recoil control, it went away.

While I share ArchAngelCD's umbrage about current retail pricing, I really do just see the pricing as a simple reflection of market economics, the recent cost of litigation in the Gun Control Game, and the issues of inflation. The dollar in 2007 is now worth about 15 cents in terms of the 'real dollars' of 1967--which, given the current OTC price of a 340, would mean it costs about $110.00 or so in real dollars.

Does anyone know what a lightweight j-frame sold for in 1967? How would that version compare with today's 340 frames and versions--i.e., with the materials used today? I've read elsewhere that the typical aluminum frame life before distortion was about 2,000 rounds. I get a lifetime warranty with my Scandium version. Shooting reloads invalidates that warranty--maybe; it didn't with my 640 / overload experience.

Jim H.
 
340PD for me as I prefer the black gun for CCW, no real reason just a personal preference.

Get whichever one you like and want to spend your money on.

Also, do not use brass brushes on the cylinder of the 340's. Only use poly bore brush as the brass can take the coating off of the titanium cylinder.
 
13.3 vs 12.0. There is a point of diminishing return in weight versus the cylinder material trade off. M&P 340 can run all .357. Isn't the 340PD and its bretheren 120gr and above? Not that I do much with .357. I found both SGD 135 gr for both .38 spl and .357 equally managable.

Although CTs are nice, if they fail there is no comparison in the setup (circle in the gutter, Trijicon) on the 340 M&P vs. the light pipe or blade. Try them all and see what you think.

M&P 340 can be had for $679. and $829 with CTs.

PB010031.jpg

Have a nice Thanksgiving all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top