642 or M&P 340

[eric.cartman]

I'm not confident in KelTec P3AT, so I decided to get a snubbie for pocket carry.

Which one should I get?

This: http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...ted=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=15704

Or: http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...ted=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=15704

They seam to be pretty similar, except the caliber of course.

What's the advantage of getting .357 Magnum vs. .38 Special +P in such a small gun???

Please advise!
Which one would you get if the price difference was irrelevant?

 

[JackCrow]

I would prefer the 642.

While I favor the .357 and shoot alot of it, I wouldn't want to shoot it out of such a light weight gun. I have a Taurus 605 and like it very much even with fullhouse loads, but it is all steel with a full sized grip.

While I have never fired a M&P or similar gun, The super light weight combined with the shortened "boot" grips would not be my personal choice.

YMMV

 

[greenjeans]

642. It's rated for +P ammo and I can't imagine wanting to shoot more than that in a revolver so small. I have 642 and it shoots really well and is very easy to conceal.

 

[tsidorus]

I would try to borrow/rent a 340 or other 357 lightweight first. Or if that isnt possible the 642. Im willing to bet there is someone on here in the clubs that will meet you at the range (if your in Central Ak Ill meet you at the range with a 642). My guess if you actually shoot a 340 with full house loads it will get loaded with 38s anyway and knowing that up front might save you a whole loto money for a capability you wont use.

-Tsi

 

[Bilt4Comfort]

Don't pay that price for either! I got my 642ct for $575.

If you have never shot .357 mag from a snubbie that weighs less than 1 pound, you're in for a shock. I put 50 rounds through the 340 in one visit to the range and decided to buy the 642. My hand still hurts.

 

[GunNut]

I bought a 340PD, only because I found it used for $500 shipped.

Otherwise I had planned on buying the 340M&P. I wanted something light and liked the night sight on the M&P.

Steve

 

[sdj]

GreenJeans and Jack Crow, +1.

 

[Alex45ACP]

+1 for the 642.

 

[orionengnr]

I had a 340, and 10 rounds of 357 was enough for me. Actually 1 round should have been enough, but I'm a slow learner.

Further evidence: I have owned a 360 and two 340s over the last four years. I wanted so badly to like them. Note the use of the past tense; I finally learned my lesson.

Between the two, I'd go with the 642. Costs about 1/2 as much and hurts about 1/4 as much.

I like my Kahr PM9 a whole lot better than either, though. Same size, same weight, but 6+1 rounds of 9mm +p+ and another 7 is just a quick mag change away.


YMMV.

 

[DAdams]

X42 vs M&P 340

I have both a 642 and M&P 340.

See multiple comments on the 340 discussion thread.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=282173
There are numerous photos there as-well.

The 642 is presently wearing Crimson Trace 405 laser grips. These are the smaller of the two comparable grips the slightly larger being the model 305.
There are other versions for J frames as well.

I ordered the 340 with CT 405s also as it was less expensive to purchase them together than seperately later.

My wife has adopted the 642 for hd purposes.

I have a set of Hogue Monogrips on the 340 presently.

Regardless of the .357 factor, both will handle +P well. I prefer the Buffalo Bore 158 gr 20C soft points. A good alternative is the 135 gr Speer Gold Dot. Both these are .38 and plus P rated.

If you are going to carry IWB or OWB the 13.3 ounce vs 15 won't make much difference in percieved comfort. If you plan on pocket carrying it makes a significance difference.

I also like the following in the 340:
XS sights with dot in notch and Tritium Night Sights larger dot vs blade
Lanyard post in butt (for what its worth)
Ion Bond BLACK Diamond Finish
Full underlug "look".

I am not recoil sensitive and regularly carry with the .38 +P BB. I like the option to carry .357 under certain circumstances. Speer makes the .357 round in a 135 gr short barrel version. Neither of these handguns are designed for range fun like a Buckmark .22. It's a concealed carry revolver for self defense.
I certainly don't have any problem hanging in with either with .38+P for a box of 50 and a few .357 in the mix aren't the Frankengun Monster they are made out to be. Noticeably different yes.

If the price difference doesn't overwhelm I recommend the 340 just for the light weight and versatility. I think if you purchase a 442 or 642 and find it to your liking, you will then really wish you would have broken the bank and got it right the first time.
I'm glad I have both though as the 642 is just right for my wife.



I just really like this combination and it carries nicely in most all pants and shorts in a Mika pocket holster.

See you at the 642 or 340 clubs, the nice thing is either way you go, you win.

My Pocket Carry Collection and I have a couple others in mind too.
Ammunition is COR BON DPX JHP 110 gr .38 plus P. Choice 3 of 3.

 

[PaladinX13]

I think a lot of people are just ignoring your last condition... "if the price difference was irrelevant"... then you'd be getting a stronger more versatile gun with night sights that weighs less for the same price.

 

[glockman19]

If you haven't read teh 150 pages & over 3,700 posts on the 642 Club thread pull up a chair fill your glass and enjoy. As owner of a 442 & 642 I'd have to sat stay withthe .38 stubby j frame and you'll be well served.

 

[tsidorus]

DAdams- "...13.3 ounce vs 15 won't make much difference in percieved comfort. If you plan on pocket carrying it makes a significance difference."

Im sorry but come on... grab 20 or so pennies and there is your 1.7 ounces... or 3 357/38 spec 125 grain rounds is about 1.4~5ish... this is just not much of a difference...

PaladinX13-"...stronger more versatile gun with night sights that weighs less for the same price."

Yes the night sight is nice but I use the CT grips and feel they work much better anyway, stronger may be true but it isn't necessary if you dont want to shoot .357 and finally they arnt the same price if they were id get a 342PD

If I want to shoot a lightweight .357 Ill get my 327 TRR8 (with the rails removed, otherwise it just looks wierd)

-Tsi

P.S. get a 642 and be happy, Hell if you have money to burn buy 2 642s for the price of a M&P340, unless you just like smashing your hand with a hammer...

 

[pinkymingeo]

If you place your shot properly your assailant won't know whether he's been shot with a 38 or 357. He'll simply stop what he's doing. To me the choice of calibers isn't significant, but frame strength is. Alloy J-frames have a history of frame-cracking problems. I'm sure they're solved now, but I feel more comfortable with the stronger scan alloy 357 frame. I carry a 360 with +P handloads, which are actually fun to shoot. Never tried full-house 357's, and have no desire to do so.

 

[Black Adder LXX]

642

 

[jfh]

I vote with pinkymingeo. (NT)

no text

 

[PaladinX13]

PaladinX13-"...stronger more versatile gun with night sights that weighs less for the same price."

Yes the night sight is nice but I use the CT grips and feel they work much better anyway, stronger may be true but it isn't necessary if you dont want to shoot .357 and finally they arnt the same price if they were id get a 342PD

Your argument doesn't follow: If they're the same price, there's nothing precluding you from buying CT grips for the 340 and the gun is STILL stronger and more versatile even if you choose not to use that strength/versatility.

As for the 340PD or 342PD, they're certainly lighter still and an argument for that can be made, but they also have the Titanium cylinders which have a more delicate finish, more prone to binding, and the "no less than 120 gr." restriction. So there are trade-offs. But between the 642 and the M&P 340, if price is the only factor, the M&P 340 is a trade-up in every way.

 

[tsidorus]

My point was they arent the same price, if price wasn't a factor I still wouldnt want a M&P 340. Why have a capability you wont use. And supposedly 38 spec is slower out of a 357 because of the extra jump... (dont know if I really believe that one, I guess the only way to tell would be to fit a 38spec cylinder to a 340 and chrono it.) If I had money to burn Id still get a 38 spec. But they dont make the 342 anymore... I guess you dont need the strength of SCandium in a 38, or at least S&W doesnt think so.

-Tsi

 

[Brasso]

The 340 is lighter, the 642 has a better trigger.

 

[PaladinX13]

My point was they arent the same price, if price wasn't a factor I still wouldnt want a M&P 340. Why have a capability you wont use.

And my point was addressing the Original Poster, not just answering some question no one asked! The flip side of your question is "Why NOT have a capability you won't use [for the same price]?" The slower .38 is dubious and if really an issue just requires the person step up their load.

Basso, how are the triggers any better? The internals are the same.

 

[340PD]

My wife prefers the 340 over the 642

She thinks it looks cooler. The recoil does not bother her. She can carry it with ease. If you can afford the MP340 or a 340PD get one of them. One or two onces DOES make a difference. If recoil bothers you get a kinfe.

 

[Headless]

340MP. Better sights, and the ability to load .357mag if you wanted it. Can't lose.

 

[Brassman]

I have both, like them both. My wife carries the 642 with a monogrip, I carry the M&P 340 stock. I can tell a difference in my pocket as the M&P carries better, even if it is only $2 worth of dimes lighter. The sights on the M&P are better and easier to acquire a good picture quicker. Personally, I think the flat black finish on the M&P conceals better. Both the 642 and the M&P are loaded with Rem. 158gr. LSWCHP +P. I have practiced with some light .357mag. 158gr LSWC, but I'm still working on my amount of crimping to keep the M&P causing the bullet to jump crimp. Full house .357mag is a handfull, but not impossible to handle. I don't usually fire over about 2 cylinders each session. Both the wife and I have no complaints at all with the 642. She loves playing with it, especially with light-loaded 148gr BBWC. I have seen her send over 200 rounds downrange in a little over a hour before.

 

[Brasso]

The 340m&p may have the same internals as the 642. I don't really know. But the 340pd isn't nearly as smooth as the 642. I think the Ti cylinder has something to do with it. All I know is that my 642 as well as those of others I know is much smoother than the 340pd's. The 340m&p has a steel cylinder, so it may be as smooth. I haven't tried one of those.

 

[fastbolt]

For the cost the 642 (or the 442) is a relative bargain. I use a bright red/orange sight paint on the front sight and find the inherent practical accuracy to be more than sufficient for my needs.

I bought the MP340 Centennial basically as a 'spare' to my 642-1. I've been wishing S&W would produce a Scandium aluminum alloy-framed 642 in recent years, offering the improved strength of the Scandium aluminum alloy. (I have a personal preference for steel cylinders instead of titanium, so the other Airlite models didn't interest me).

The new stainless steel cylinder equipped 340 models seemed as though they were made to suit my desire for an 'enhanced' 642-type off-duty weapon, and the addition of the X/S tritium front sight was an interesting 'plus' to my way of thinking. FWIW, I would've been just as interested if the new model had only been chambered in .38 +P.

While I've found a Magnum load which I'd consider carrying in my MP340 ... which didn't prove too difficult for me to properly control during fast-paced, accurate shot strings on a qualification course of fire ... I've routinely loaded it with jacketed .38 +P, just like my 642. It provides me with better controllability and recoil recovery when compared side-by-side to using .357 Magnum ammunition.

I could feel a noticeable difference in felt weight between the 642 & MP340 when holding, shooting & carrying them. I ended up (at least for a while) replacing the Bantam grips which came on the MP340 with standard rubber boot grips similar to those which came on my 642, and which increased the carrying weight by something like an ounce, if I recall right.

The deciding factor in adding the MP340 to my working battery was that I had a limited opportunity to pick one up for a discounted price that might not be offered to me again ... so I ordered one.

I would've simply remained satisfied with the 642 if the MP340 was only available to me at the retail price, or close to it.

When I feel inclined to shoot a lot of .357 Magnum ammunition with a 5-shot snub revolver, I use my Ruger SP-101 DAO 2.25". It's just a relatively heavy 5-shot gun, and I prefer to consider it as more of a 'belt gun'. The Airweights and the MP340 make for relatively more desirable lightweight pocket-holster guns for my needs and preferences.

Which one would you get if the price difference was irrelevant? If they were identical in price, or price was really irrelevant, I'd get the MP340 because of the XS Sights® 24/7 Tritium Night.

The .357 Magnum chambering is an arguable attractive feature, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that the significant number of folks who buy these diminutive Magnum revolvers end up discovering that they really only want to shoot and carry standard pressure .38 SPL or +P in them.