M&p 340

Status
Not open for further replies.
IkenI

Nice pair to draw to there! Who's grips? Thanks for sharing and welcome to the 340 thread.

Did you plug the lock hole on your .44 or did it come that way.
 
Those are Craig Spegal standard grade checkered grips. My favorite. I put the "Plug" in the .44. Got it from Bullseye over on the S&W forum. Simple procedure and I can change back if need be.
 
Comp-Tac / Kydex with 340

I was doing some Black Friday holster shopping for my HK P2000SK at comptac.com (LOVE those holsters for fit and function).

I noticed that they have j-frame holsters available (they break 340s out separately, presumably because of the Big Dot sight). Anyone use Comp-Tac or another Kydex holster with their 340? Would you worry about the finish?

I would love to pick up their 2'oclock for my 340 (appendix carry) but don't want to prematurely wear the finish. For some reason the HK it doesn't worry me - that's just not that pretty to begin with... :neener:

Thanks,
Happy (belated) Thanksgiving!
FT
 
FT

Hope all is well. I went on a Google search to see what I could come up with.
I have never considered a Kydex made holster but wouldn't discount one.
I never thought about the XS Dot being an issue But then in leather it probable wouldn't be. Nothing that a little pressure couldn't fix.

See if there is anything here that helps. I would prefer something in leather with snaps for on/off w/o taking the belt off?

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=48590

Let us know what you come up with.
 
New M&P 340

Purchased in late November and first fired yesterdy. This is not my first or only S&W Centennial but it is my first M&P 340 and it is now my favorite Centennial.

I have not yet found any mechanical or manufacturing defects. I really like the finish, time will tell regarding the durability. The new style S&W rubber grips work better for me than any other j frame grips I have used. Last but not least I love the sights. The sights are much easier to use than those on any other j frame I have owned and used.

It shoots great too. And no, I have not yet touched off 357's in it.

TS
 
340 or 442?

I am trying to decide between a 340 or a 442. Is the 340 really worth the extra $$$? I'm gonna CC with it with a Mika holster and I realize the 340 is slightly less heavy. How do the finishes compare? Is the 340 really the bull some say it is?
I don't want to regret purchasing too much gun for me to handle.
 
manthony,

You didn't say if you want a M&P340 or a 340PD, the later is the lighter of the two.

My M&P 340 is .82 ounces lighter than my 442-2. Neither have a lock and when weighed both had the same type stock S&W rubbber grips.

With the M&P you get the nominal reduction in weight. Then the trijicon front sight and the u notch rear. This sight combo makes a big difference to me in sight acquisition but I'm over 60 and then some. Then you also have the 357 capability which you don't have with the 442.

I think the finishes are the same and if they are not I will most likely be corrected by someone here who has done extensive research of the same and I'm not bothered by that because it seems that correcting me has become my family's new hobby. As far as this concern, "Is the 340 really the bull some say it is?", I infer this is ammo dependant in M&P versus 442, 357 mag versus 38 spcl and possibly less so in PD versus 442.

Only you can make the monetary (aka $$$$$) decision.

Good luck and let us know how it works out for you.

TS
 
The finish on the 340 / Scandium frames is different--i.e., superior. It's "DLC," Not the clearcoat of the aluminum framed guns. Do a forum search in this thread, and the discussions about this will pop up.

The DLC finish is noticeably superior. In three-plus years of EDC, my 340 has only a bit of holster wear on the lower frame / crane area. The 442 I owned--bought used about 8 months after the original owner bought it--had significant wear on the rear sight ears which only worsened during its time with me. Others have also seen the aluminum-framed guns readily wear, and even lift off in sheets (reported elsewhere in this forum.

Jim H.
 
Welcome TSmith49

Glad to have you here...


I think the finishes are the same and if they are not I will most likely be corrected by someone here who has done extensive research of the same and I'm not bothered by that because it seems that correcting me has become my family's new hobby.
Click to expand...

We will keep the practice alive here:

Weights according to the S&W Website:

642 and 442 15 ounces
M&P 340 13.3
340PD 11.4

1.7 ounce delta then on the X42 vs 340.

Earlier in the thread I researched the finish on the M&P 340. As Jim indicates it is DLC (diamond like carbide). It is used on some watch parts, knives, firearms and its on my Kahr PM9. Pretty tough stuff. It does "buff" slightly at the particular holster contact points.

See Posts 54 and 60 for the finish details.

The 642 finish is a clearcote over an anodized aluminum alloy. Much has been written on the finish and its attributes.
 
DAdams,
This is from your post 54, "Ion Bond BLACK Diamond Finish. That's what the spec sheet calls it.". Do you have access to the spec sheet for the 442? If so, I'm interested in how the 442's finish is described within.
Thanks,
TS
 
442 Finish

This is all I have seen officially. "matte black".

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

I'm not sure what the finish material or process is.

See Pages 28-30 of this Manual for cleaning and maintenance.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/other/S&W_Revolver_Manual.pdf

Here is an excerpt:

CAUTION:
Some cleaners can cause damage to your firearms. You should
avoid prolonged solvent immersion and prolonged ultrasonic
cleaning of your firearm. Choice of solvent should be restricted
to those products specifically developed for firearms maintenance.
Damage to a firearmʼs finish may occur if these cautions
are ignored. Ammoniated solvents or other strong alkaline solvents,
should not be used on any Smith & Wesson firearm. As a
rule of thumb, if you would be comfortable applying the solvent of
your choice to the finish of your automobile, it will probably be
safe for use on your firearm.



Link to the Owners Manual Section on the S&W Website.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...4_750001_750051_757821_-1_757814_757812_image

You can always email S&W with questions. There is a FAQ section and Contact Us email address on their website.
 
At one point in time I owned both a 442 and a M&P340. (The 442 has since found a new home, but the M&P340 is a keeper). There are some distinct differences between the two, including the finish. The finish on the M&P340 is much harder and way more durable. The M&P340 also has more of a flat finish when compared to the matte/satin finish of the 442 IMO.

For those considering one vs. the other, you'll have to decide whether or not the differences between the guns are worth the price difference. (FWIW, my 340 was less than $600 w/ the current $50 rebate from Buds.) Here are my reasons (in order of importance to me):

Sights - The biggest factor for me was the XS sight. When you compare the sight picture between the two, the M&P340 wins hands down. It can be difficult to see the front ramp in dark or dim light situations on the 442. This was the #1 deciding factor for me. I even looked into getting the sight shaved and an XS added to the 442, but the smithing and refinishing would have put the total cost beyond the 340.

Caliber - Having the flexibility to shoot .357 was a big plus, even if I carry w/ .38 +p. If there is ever another ammo shortage or other situation where ammo may be hard to obtain, the flexibility will come in handy. Shooting .357s is a handful, but not as bad as some of the ladies would have you believe.

Quality - The fit and finish are excellent and in a different league when compared to the X42s. It's just a nicer made gun and lacking the more frequent QC issues that can arise on the X42 series.

Weight - I pocket carry on occasion and the weight savings is nice.

Other - If it's going to be carried, it's going to get worn. The finish on the 340 will hold up better. The ejector shroud is also nice - one less thing to get snagged in the pocket.
 
XTrooper

Welcome and thanks for stopping by and posting. Did you do your own lock work? Looks good.
Are those the standard grips coming from S&W on a 340 now?

Nice 627 you have there too. That's on my to buy list some day if I live long enough and I can find one w/o the ILS. In the meantime I'm on the lookout for a K Frame 3 inch or less Model 19 or 66.

You guys have had some tough sledding this year and I hate to say it but the Winter is young. ;)

I hear rentals are cheap this year in FL, which has now warmed up.
 
DAdams: Thanks for the welcome!

Yes, I bought "The Plug" and did the "lockectomy" on the M&P 340 myself. I also did a partial lockectomy on the 627 PC effectively disabling it, but leaving the "flag" in place because of the, to me, unsightly gap it leaves between the frame and the left side of the hammer when removed.

Regarding the grip, the boot grip it came with was too small for me so I bought the full-size version to replace it. This is the grip that comes from the factory on the M&P 360 and a few other models.

Winters do SUCK here in the mountains and are always nasty, but I still love living here. :)
 
XTrooper

Regarding the grip, the boot grip it came with was too small for me so I bought the full-size version to replace it. This is the grip that comes from the factory on the M&P 360 and a few other models.
Click to expand...

Does that grip have the backstrap fully covered?
Does that have a "pocket" at the top?

I like that idea as an alternative to the Hogue Monogrip.

Put another log on the fire.
 
Had the same set of grips on my 642 that XTrooper has on his 340. Got a Hogue Monogrip instead because they were a little thicker due to the palm swells. The Smith's were just as long, but skinnier.
 
DAdams: Yes, it has a covered backstrap. I'm not sure what you mean by a pocket at the top. It's about 1/4" from the backstrap at the top, but it's sealed/covered. They have a slight palm swell, but they are, as stated by RetDep310, quite thin overall and on the hard side. In fact, they are every bit as hard as any wood grips. The one real advantage they have is that they're long enough so that you can get three fingers on them while still being very concealable because of their slim design and lack of bulk. They're the only full length grips I can fit in my BMW motorcycle jacket pockets. :)
 
Just got a no-lock 340 M&P today. I'm excited to shoot it. It's much tighter fitted than my 442, and I love the sight picture with the tritium dot.

a6cd09a1-670a-d8c4.jpg


I plan to have Nelson Ford in Phoenix give it an action job and then I'll put a Hogue Bantam grip on it. I can't imagine a better CCW piece.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
What exactly is "M&P" with regard to revolvers?
Replies
2
Views
515
TexasShooter59
T
D
  • Locked
340 vs. 340PD
Replies
10
Views
3K
DAdams
DAdams
A
  • Locked
M&p 340
Replies
8
Views
954
DAdams
DAdams
DAdams
  • Locked
M&P 340/360
Replies
0
Views
632
DAdams
DAdams
G
  • Locked
Front Sight: XS Standard Dot vs. XS Big Dot
Replies
7
Views
5K
gb6491
G
Back
Top