Have you had a chance to shoot this stuff yet? I just ordered another box from Cabela's. It seems to be readily available there in 357 Mag.
M&p 340
- Thread starter DAdams
- Start date
- Status
Have you had a chance to shoot this stuff yet? I just ordered another box from Cabela's. It seems to be readily available there in 357 Mag.
OP
OP
DAdams
Member
Hornady CD
Bought one box of each plus P and .357 but haven't had a chance to range it out yet.
How does it feel? How did it go downrange?
Bought one box of each plus P and .357 but haven't had a chance to range it out yet.
How does it feel? How did it go downrange?
Can anyone tell me how much the .38 Airlite TI weighs? Also was this gun rated for +P? What would be a regular price for a used one with regular to moderate use/wear? Ive done some searching but cant seem to find much on this gun becuase I dont think it was made long. I know the cylinder is titanium but what is the frame made out of? Is the frame the same as a regular 642 or 442? Any problems known with them? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
OP
OP
DAdams
Member
toledo
Welcome.
SMITH & WESSON, Model 342 Airlite Ti Centennial Revolver, 38 Special,
1 7/8" Stainless Steel Barrel, Internal Lock, Uncle Mike's Boot Grip.
SPECIFICATIONS:
Caliber: 38 Special +P
Action: Double Action Only
Saftey: Internal Lock
Frame: J-Small; Round Butt.
Mag Capacity: 5 Rounds
Barrel Length: 1 7/8"
Hammer: Internal
Trigger: .312" Smooth Combat
Safety: Internal lock prevents trigger or hammer movement
Front Sight: Pinned Black Serrated Ramp
PD Model- Red Ramp
rear Sight: Fixed Notch
Grips: Uncle Mike's Boot
PD Model-Hogue Bantam
Weight: Uncle Mike's Boot 12 oz.
PD Model- 10.8 oz.
Overall Length: 6 5/16"
Material: Aluminum Alloy Frame, Barrel Shroud and Yoke;
Titanium Cylinder
Finish: Black/Gray, Matte Stainless/Grey
Notes:IL-Internal lock prevents trigger and hammer movement
Price back in the day on Buds was $463
Price from a private individual with one for sale on Glock Talk last year.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=994303
Article from 9 years ago.
http://www.gunweek.com/2001/feature1110.html
google S&W airlite Ti and you will be busy reading for awhile.
Welcome.
SMITH & WESSON, Model 342 Airlite Ti Centennial Revolver, 38 Special,
1 7/8" Stainless Steel Barrel, Internal Lock, Uncle Mike's Boot Grip.
SPECIFICATIONS:
Caliber: 38 Special +P
Action: Double Action Only
Saftey: Internal Lock
Frame: J-Small; Round Butt.
Mag Capacity: 5 Rounds
Barrel Length: 1 7/8"
Hammer: Internal
Trigger: .312" Smooth Combat
Safety: Internal lock prevents trigger or hammer movement
Front Sight: Pinned Black Serrated Ramp
PD Model- Red Ramp
rear Sight: Fixed Notch
Grips: Uncle Mike's Boot
PD Model-Hogue Bantam
Weight: Uncle Mike's Boot 12 oz.
PD Model- 10.8 oz.
Overall Length: 6 5/16"
Material: Aluminum Alloy Frame, Barrel Shroud and Yoke;
Titanium Cylinder
Finish: Black/Gray, Matte Stainless/Grey
Notes:IL-Internal lock prevents trigger and hammer movement
Price back in the day on Buds was $463
Price from a private individual with one for sale on Glock Talk last year.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=994303
Article from 9 years ago.
http://www.gunweek.com/2001/feature1110.html
google S&W airlite Ti and you will be busy reading for awhile.
Last edited:
OP
OP
DAdams
Member
aka dave
An ounce or two makes quite a difference. Which grips do you have on right now?
Which .357 rounds did you run?
Great Revolvers those 340 M&Ps.
An ounce or two makes quite a difference. Which grips do you have on right now?
Which .357 rounds did you run?
Great Revolvers those 340 M&Ps.
jfh
Member.
a few opinions on the 432 specs--
1. The aluminum frame will have a more-limited life than the equivalent Scandium frame.
2. Given the price / inflation over the last nine years, the actual cost is about the same as todays Scandium-framed 357s--not to mention higher than the 360 that is 38-Spl. only.
3. The lightest-weight issue really applies only, IMO, to people looking for absolutely minimum weight, at a probable high cost in recoil control. I remain unconvinced the benefit of the lower weight outweighs the bigger recoil.
4. titanium cylinders have proven to be problematic. For the buyer, they may well be easily damaged; for the factory, they represent increased (warranty) cost.
So, I guess I see this model as an interim solution in an emerging market. At the time of its introduction, the revolver carry market niche was not nearly what it is today. S&W appears to changed its marketing thrust to reflect the newer market demographics and offered a) the aluminum-framed j-frames as an 'introductory' / basic firearm for the cost-conscious, and b) the scandium-framed ones as premium products with added features (e.g., the .357 Magnum option) and better-quality assembly and finish.
Jim H.
1. The aluminum frame will have a more-limited life than the equivalent Scandium frame.
2. Given the price / inflation over the last nine years, the actual cost is about the same as todays Scandium-framed 357s--not to mention higher than the 360 that is 38-Spl. only.
3. The lightest-weight issue really applies only, IMO, to people looking for absolutely minimum weight, at a probable high cost in recoil control. I remain unconvinced the benefit of the lower weight outweighs the bigger recoil.
4. titanium cylinders have proven to be problematic. For the buyer, they may well be easily damaged; for the factory, they represent increased (warranty) cost.
So, I guess I see this model as an interim solution in an emerging market. At the time of its introduction, the revolver carry market niche was not nearly what it is today. S&W appears to changed its marketing thrust to reflect the newer market demographics and offered a) the aluminum-framed j-frames as an 'introductory' / basic firearm for the cost-conscious, and b) the scandium-framed ones as premium products with added features (e.g., the .357 Magnum option) and better-quality assembly and finish.
Jim H.
Last edited:
OP
OP
DAdams
Member
Thanks Jim for the insightful analysis. ^
I'll give S&W credit for trying to advance the state of the art (power to weight ratios) in small revolvers using Sc/Ti, alloy frames and including various cylinder configurations. The were the precursor to today's M&Ps and Night Guard Series.
Some made sense at the time and some were/are technologically overboard in retrospect. Pushing the materials envelope perhaps?
In my view the swinging of the pendulum returned to center sensibilities with the M&P 340/360 using said metallurgy combination which provides a balance of power/control and longevity.
Personally I like the idea of a light revolver say 11 ounces in high cap 22LR or Magnum.
I'll give S&W credit for trying to advance the state of the art (power to weight ratios) in small revolvers using Sc/Ti, alloy frames and including various cylinder configurations. The were the precursor to today's M&Ps and Night Guard Series.
Some made sense at the time and some were/are technologically overboard in retrospect. Pushing the materials envelope perhaps?
In my view the swinging of the pendulum returned to center sensibilities with the M&P 340/360 using said metallurgy combination which provides a balance of power/control and longevity.
Personally I like the idea of a light revolver say 11 ounces in high cap 22LR or Magnum.
OP
OP
DAdams
Member
Condition
Roundcount
Ti has an aluminum alloy frame SC I believe is Scandium.
Check the sights on the two one might have a fiber optic light pipe vs. blade but they may be the same.
You have to be the judge if you want .357 capability. You may never shoot
.357 yet it might be desireable if you have another revolver in .357 to feed and to be able to run the rounds in an emergency.
Me I would spend the $775 and get an M&P 340.
Shot my 340CT today for the first time
First of all, this gun does not hurt in any way. It certainly kicks more than anything I have ever fired but it does not hurt. I think I am going to love this thing but I suck with it so far
I was having a hard time hitting my 8.5 x 11 paper target at 30 feet (30 feet is the min distance at my range). Do you guys have any pointers so I can practice efficiently?
First of all, this gun does not hurt in any way. It certainly kicks more than anything I have ever fired but it does not hurt. I think I am going to love this thing but I suck with it so far
I was having a hard time hitting my 8.5 x 11 paper target at 30 feet (30 feet is the min distance at my range). Do you guys have any pointers so I can practice efficiently?
Lipsey shows a price of $1272 for the M&P 340 CT. Only one dealer in my area has this model in stock. S&W replied in an email that only 10 of these are manufactured each month. I do not see many dealers getting these too often. I located one gun shop in a neighboring town that has the M&P 340 CT. His price is $1050. That is considerably higher than some prices paid, posted in this thread. What are some of the NIB prices currently being paid for the M&P 340 CT ? I'm on the West Coast and figure we typically pay more than anyone else.
I bought mine in January this year from GalleryofGuns for $954.59 + fees + taxes, total $1,052.77.
Buds currently has one for sale at $883 http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/index.php/cPath/72
AStone
Member
Wondering if you good folks have seen this yet: Ruger LCR in .357 mag.
Here's a THR thread about it.
Any thoughts?
Me? I'd by a 340 MP.
Here's a THR thread about it.
Any thoughts?
Me? I'd by a 340 MP.
OP
OP
DAdams
Member
The Market
Guess I should have gone long on the 340 market three years ago when they came out and bought 25. Would have outperformed The Market. I paid $779 shipped with factory CT 405s and they were $599 in the standard configuration.
http://www.ruger.com/products/lcr/models.html
LCR is on the right track with the .357 version, but it is too heavy for the pocket at 17 ounces IMO, it does offers an XS sight. $575 MSRP.
I would consider one in .38 spl plus p version for the weight factor if I were in the market for sure, because typically intro prices are usually lower than future standard MSRPs.
There are three Rugers I would own (I have two of them) Mini 14 in .223, 10/22, and a MKIII Target in stainless would be nice.
I have my pocket bases covered. M&P 340, Kahr PM9, Seecamp .380.
I think I have three of the best small handguns still to date and am out of that market for now.
A Rohrbaugh R9 would be a nice addition if I were a man of means though.
Guess I should have gone long on the 340 market three years ago when they came out and bought 25. Would have outperformed The Market. I paid $779 shipped with factory CT 405s and they were $599 in the standard configuration.
http://www.ruger.com/products/lcr/models.html
LCR is on the right track with the .357 version, but it is too heavy for the pocket at 17 ounces IMO, it does offers an XS sight. $575 MSRP.
I would consider one in .38 spl plus p version for the weight factor if I were in the market for sure, because typically intro prices are usually lower than future standard MSRPs.
There are three Rugers I would own (I have two of them) Mini 14 in .223, 10/22, and a MKIII Target in stainless would be nice.
I have my pocket bases covered. M&P 340, Kahr PM9, Seecamp .380.
I think I have three of the best small handguns still to date and am out of that market for now.
A Rohrbaugh R9 would be a nice addition if I were a man of means though.
Last edited:
I have my pocket bases covered. M&P 340, Kahr PM9, Seecamp .380.
I think I have three of the best small handguns still to date and am out of that market for now.
A Rohrbaugh R9 would be a nice addition if I were a man of means though.
Seecamp .380 huh?
Now you got me thinking. Have you found it to be reliable?
To keep this on topic, I have to say that I've had my 340PD in my pocket, continuously since I got it. That being said, there certainly is a time and place for something smaller.
OP
OP
DAdams
Member
Seecamp .380
Joe, you have PM.
Joe, you have PM.
Finish difference between S&W 442 & M&P 340
I have a S&W 442 currently. I have always like the J-Frame, but the sights on the 442 leaves something to be desired. I am seriously considering an upgrade to the M&P 340 due to the overall better sight picture. The fact that it is a couple of ounces lighter and the .357 capability are other bonus factors, but not my driving point.
Can someone comment on the differences in finish on the S&W 442 vs the M&P 340? I would like to hear about the cylinder finish as well as the frame. (I am assuming they are different finishes since the base metals are different.)
I have a S&W 442 currently. I have always like the J-Frame, but the sights on the 442 leaves something to be desired. I am seriously considering an upgrade to the M&P 340 due to the overall better sight picture. The fact that it is a couple of ounces lighter and the .357 capability are other bonus factors, but not my driving point.
Can someone comment on the differences in finish on the S&W 442 vs the M&P 340? I would like to hear about the cylinder finish as well as the frame. (I am assuming they are different finishes since the base metals are different.)
Dollar An Hour
Member
branshew - I sold my beloved 442-1 and replaced it with a 340 M&P. The 340 of course has a much better set of sights and a more durable, matte, finish. The 442 finish is a dull gloss black. Not really gun blue, just sorta black. The 340 is more of a flat industrial looking finish that looks all business.
My favorite thing about the 340 is probably the ability for me to comfortable shoot milder .357 loads such as the Gold Dot SB's and Rem Golden Sabres. These are hotter than typical .38+P loads that the 442 is limited to, and why not shoot the hottest thing you can control?
The cylinder finish is really durable. It doesn't stain like the Ti cylinders do.
Anyway, between the light weight, durable finish, tritium sight and the .357 capability I was sold on the 340 M&P.
My favorite thing about the 340 is probably the ability for me to comfortable shoot milder .357 loads such as the Gold Dot SB's and Rem Golden Sabres. These are hotter than typical .38+P loads that the 442 is limited to, and why not shoot the hottest thing you can control?
The cylinder finish is really durable. It doesn't stain like the Ti cylinders do.
Anyway, between the light weight, durable finish, tritium sight and the .357 capability I was sold on the 340 M&P.
OP
OP
DAdams
Member
branshew Welcome
340 finish, see page 3, post 60.
The 442 is an aluminum alloy frame and I am guessing that it is "blued"/black. Baked on lacquer?
442 cylinder is carbon steel, 340 stainless with the DLC finish.
340 finish, see page 3, post 60.
The 442 is an aluminum alloy frame and I am guessing that it is "blued"/black. Baked on lacquer?
442 cylinder is carbon steel, 340 stainless with the DLC finish.
Last edited:
340 or 360?
Even mentioning a hammer may be a blaspheme in this thread so I'll apologize early (sorry).
An M&P 3?0 is in my future, but I have some questions hopefully someone can help me with.
1. Can you get a trigger job on the 340 like you can on a hammer'ed gun? I don't know how different the mechanism is between them. It does seem the 340 would be significantly less complex?
2. Is there a factory bobbed hammer available for the 360?
Thanks in advance.
Even mentioning a hammer may be a blaspheme in this thread so I'll apologize early (sorry).
An M&P 3?0 is in my future, but I have some questions hopefully someone can help me with.
1. Can you get a trigger job on the 340 like you can on a hammer'ed gun? I don't know how different the mechanism is between them. It does seem the 340 would be significantly less complex?
2. Is there a factory bobbed hammer available for the 360?
Thanks in advance.
DAdams said:
I read that post. I thought that only the cylinder was DLC finished. Is the frame also in the same finish?
It's a moot point regardless - I picked up the M&P 360 today.
I went in torn between that and the 340. They had a "used" M&P 360 in the case for a price which made it too attractive not to go with the 360. There wasn't even a turn mark on the cylinder and I couldn't tell that it had ever been shot. I put a box of 50 rounds of .38 through it and 5 .357s.
My initial impressions are that it is a really nice gun. I can say to all of the X42 owners that if there was ever a question in your mind that about the cost justification of the difference in price between models, it's worth the difference. You can really see the quality in this gun. The sight picture alone is worth it in my opinion. The fit and finish is light years ahead of the 442 that I had. The finish coloring is more uniform across the gun (the barrel and cylinder on the 442 always were slightly different than the frame). The trigger pull is smoother. You can tell that it is made to a higher standard.
OP
OP
DAdams
Member
bowfita-
Welcome and you will have to stay in touch with branshew who is now the proud owner of a 360.
I'm sure you can find a quality smith who can bob the hammer if you decide to got that route. If the SA is like my 686 I wouldn't feel comfortable SA cocking it in a stressful situation. It is so light I would be fearful of an AD or UD.
You will just want to adopt a thumb over hammer withdraw if you pocket carry. That way you won't snag. Personally I like the hammer look, practically I prefer the DAO Centennial. I have both styles 642, 340 and M60 with a hammer.
I have taken my 340 in and out of its holster once a day for almost three years. (Check laser each night). The finish is still 99.5%. There is a slight color difference on the front/side of the cylinder about an 1/8th of an inch where it comes into contact with the interior of the Mika Roundcut.
I think the frame is DLC also. It looks just like my Kahr PM9 finish which is the same.
Welcome and you will have to stay in touch with branshew who is now the proud owner of a 360.
I'm sure you can find a quality smith who can bob the hammer if you decide to got that route. If the SA is like my 686 I wouldn't feel comfortable SA cocking it in a stressful situation. It is so light I would be fearful of an AD or UD.
You will just want to adopt a thumb over hammer withdraw if you pocket carry. That way you won't snag. Personally I like the hammer look, practically I prefer the DAO Centennial. I have both styles 642, 340 and M60 with a hammer.
I have taken my 340 in and out of its holster once a day for almost three years. (Check laser each night). The finish is still 99.5%. There is a slight color difference on the front/side of the cylinder about an 1/8th of an inch where it comes into contact with the interior of the Mika Roundcut.
I think the frame is DLC also. It looks just like my Kahr PM9 finish which is the same.
Last edited:
- Status
