Taking cost out of the equation is the M&P340 or any other super light and small revolver chambered for .357 practical? For those that have them do you actually shoot .357 out of it on any regular basis and/or carry it? I'm trying to determine if the added expense is really worth it, for me, for the added ballistics.
Is the M&P340 practical
- Thread starter CTGunner
- Start date
- Status
If that's the calculation it isn't worth it. You won't notice the difference in weight in your pocket but you will notice the increased recoil on the range. You get marginally faster bullets in exchange for painful recoil, ear-deafening blast, and eye-blinding flash. And then there's the cost.
I owned a 340PD and sold it in favor of a 638. I don't shoot that one any more than I shot the other but I carry it pretty much all the time.
I owned a 340PD and sold it in favor of a 638. I don't shoot that one any more than I shot the other but I carry it pretty much all the time.
DAdams
Member
Yes.
No. YMMV.
No.
You can stop reading at this point or consider other points.
There are certainly more competing choices available today from a couple Manufacturers than there was a few years back when the M&P 340 was introduced. When I purchased my 340 I was on the verge of a PD.
My main criteria at the time following the carry of a 642 was something lighter. The PD was about the only game in town, then came the M&P 340. Although it was a couple ounces heavier it had a couple of compelling features:
Weight
Weight gain at the expense of a more robust cylinder
XS night sight/dot/gutter, superior in my view to the blade or fiber optic, light pipe.
Superior DLC finish (more robust)
.357 capability is a plus, but if I could get the same revolver for say $200 less, I might have gone that route, but not at the loss of the sights.
My choice today, price no object:
M&P 340 with CT grips, no ILS.
See Also:
Ruger LCR-XS 5405 38 Spl +P 5 Hogue® Tamer™ XS® Standard Dot Tritium 13.50 oz. $575.00
Last edited:
horsemen61
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 6,755
I have the lcr and I love it yes i do shoot 357s through it
Peakbagger46
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,464
Yes, it is very practical. I don't shoot a lot of .357 out of mine anymore as I noticed it began to wear (loosen) up a bit after extended magnum shooting.
The light weight and excellent front trijicon sight make it an outstanding carry gun. Add the .357 chambering and you can load them big and hot for woods carry and go down to hot 38+P for general carry. Or.... you can carry 4 38+P rounds and load the last shot as a full .357, a good combination of quick follow up shots and a bit of extra for your last round.
The light weight and excellent front trijicon sight make it an outstanding carry gun. Add the .357 chambering and you can load them big and hot for woods carry and go down to hot 38+P for general carry. Or.... you can carry 4 38+P rounds and load the last shot as a full .357, a good combination of quick follow up shots and a bit of extra for your last round.
I carry Gold Dot 357 short barrel magnum in mine. I shoot 5 rounds of this at each range visit. Five shots usually rubs the skin off the web of my thumb causing profuse bleeding, which is not fun. It's not a plinking gun when loaded with 357 magnum even in the short barrel variety. But I do value it as a small lightweight package that packs a considerable punch. I carry it every day.
hAkron
Member
A brand new 642 or 442 is a much cheaper alternative, albeit in .38 special.
Am I correct in my understanding that scandium magnum guns are more likely to have issues with the internal lock?
Am I correct in my understanding that scandium magnum guns are more likely to have issues with the internal lock?
Stainz
Member
I shot a friend's Al/Sc/Ti 340 years ago - unbeknown to me to be loaded with 'hot' .357M CorBon ammo. Simply put - nothing to hold on to, grip wise, no mass - a literally horrible experience. It made an 8+" .500 Magnum, my 7.5" .454 SRH, a .45-70 BFR, and even my arch-nemesis, a .50 AE DEII mild in recoil by comparison (The .500 Mag & BFR weighed so much my arms grew tired of holding them up! The DEII wasn't a bad straight back recoiler - it was the rotational 'jerk' as the bolt stopped that hurt! My .454 SRH put the recoil impulse straight down the arm - great ergonomics!).
My only J-frame .357 Magnum, a 3" 60 Pro, like every other S&W .357M I've owned, carries the Remington R38S12 .38 Spcl +P 158gr LHPSWC for SD - just like my .38's - including my still 24/7 protector - my 642. I do carry 'Magnums' in two J-frames: 115gr Speer Gold Dots in .327 Federal Magnums in my snappy recoiling 6-shooter 632 Pro and Hornady 45gr FTX 'Critical Defense' .22 WMR rounds in my 7-shooter 351PD.
Weight savings over the same .38's in a 642 vs the 340's is not negligible. But, empty weight - the 351 PD weighs 4.2 oz less than the 642 - add 1.1 oz for seven FTX rounds - add 2.7 oz for five .38 +P. Loaded, the 351PD then weighs 11.9oz; the 340PD 14.1 oz; the M&P340 16.0 oz; and the 642 17.7 oz - all loaded. Not that much weight savings of the M&P340 compared to the 642 - just the added ability to launch .357M's - a dubious proposition. If you want a wide palate, besides it's designed for .327 Federal Magnum rating, the 632 Pro will shoot .32 H&R Magnums, .32 S&W Long, .32 S&W, and .32 ACP (There is a vestige of a rim present!), making it a .32 omnivore of sorts.
I may have added the 60 Pro, 632 Pro, and even the 351PD as possible EDC CCW's, but my venerable 642 still gets the nod here for 24/7 CC. May just be a tad heftier - but familiarity and proven dependability trump novelty and lite weight. Of course, any rationale that moves another revolver up the 'drool' list is valid...
Stainz
My only J-frame .357 Magnum, a 3" 60 Pro, like every other S&W .357M I've owned, carries the Remington R38S12 .38 Spcl +P 158gr LHPSWC for SD - just like my .38's - including my still 24/7 protector - my 642. I do carry 'Magnums' in two J-frames: 115gr Speer Gold Dots in .327 Federal Magnums in my snappy recoiling 6-shooter 632 Pro and Hornady 45gr FTX 'Critical Defense' .22 WMR rounds in my 7-shooter 351PD.
Weight savings over the same .38's in a 642 vs the 340's is not negligible. But, empty weight - the 351 PD weighs 4.2 oz less than the 642 - add 1.1 oz for seven FTX rounds - add 2.7 oz for five .38 +P. Loaded, the 351PD then weighs 11.9oz; the 340PD 14.1 oz; the M&P340 16.0 oz; and the 642 17.7 oz - all loaded. Not that much weight savings of the M&P340 compared to the 642 - just the added ability to launch .357M's - a dubious proposition. If you want a wide palate, besides it's designed for .327 Federal Magnum rating, the 632 Pro will shoot .32 H&R Magnums, .32 S&W Long, .32 S&W, and .32 ACP (There is a vestige of a rim present!), making it a .32 omnivore of sorts.
I may have added the 60 Pro, 632 Pro, and even the 351PD as possible EDC CCW's, but my venerable 642 still gets the nod here for 24/7 CC. May just be a tad heftier - but familiarity and proven dependability trump novelty and lite weight. Of course, any rationale that moves another revolver up the 'drool' list is valid...
Stainz
red rick
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,142
I bought one when they first came out. Then latter when S&W staring making J frames with out the internal lock I bought a 642 so I can make a comparison between the two.
The M&P 340 has a smoother trigger and it feels lighter than my 642.
I really like the front sight on the 340, great for low / no light situations.
The 340 is lighter but I really can't tell the difference carrying it.
My first handgun was a 6" 686, the 340 is no fun shooting 357's.
I ended up selling the M&P 340. I don't think out of a barrel less than 2 inches you gain that much over a 38+P to justify the hard recoil and high price if you are just going to shoot 38's out of it.
The 642 feels like it needs a trigger job.
Recoil is not nearly as bad as the M&P 340.
I would like the front sight option like the 340, but that would put the price closer toughter.
I like the fact that the 642 doesn't have the internal lock. That was a selling feature for the reason I bought it after already having a M&P 340, but you can now get it without the lock also and I would with such a hard recoiling lightweight revolver.
With all that said I would get a LCR after handling one compared to my 642. It has a much better trigger and the Big Dot front sight option and is just a little higher in price than the 642.
The M&P 340 has a smoother trigger and it feels lighter than my 642.
I really like the front sight on the 340, great for low / no light situations.
The 340 is lighter but I really can't tell the difference carrying it.
My first handgun was a 6" 686, the 340 is no fun shooting 357's.
I ended up selling the M&P 340. I don't think out of a barrel less than 2 inches you gain that much over a 38+P to justify the hard recoil and high price if you are just going to shoot 38's out of it.
The 642 feels like it needs a trigger job.
Recoil is not nearly as bad as the M&P 340.
I would like the front sight option like the 340, but that would put the price closer toughter.
I like the fact that the 642 doesn't have the internal lock. That was a selling feature for the reason I bought it after already having a M&P 340, but you can now get it without the lock also and I would with such a hard recoiling lightweight revolver.
With all that said I would get a LCR after handling one compared to my 642. It has a much better trigger and the Big Dot front sight option and is just a little higher in price than the 642.
- Status
