Smith 642, Smith 340pd/MP, or PM9 for this summer?

[jon_in_wv]

The title about sums it up. I'm looking for a summer carry/pocket gun for this summer. I normally carry my M&P 9C in the summer and my P32 when i feel the need to be really discreet but there are time when I would like something in between. Something I can pocket but is still accurate and more powerful than my P32. I've narrowed it down to one of the lighweight 38 or 357s or perhaps a PM9. I've handled the PM9 before and I was impressed. I also owned a SMith 442 years ago and while it was a bear to shoot is was easy to carry. What do you think the pros/cons would be for either?? Am I missing another option?

 

[jon_in_wv]

I'm not sure how it compares in size but should have I included the Bersa 380CC also??

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I'm a big fan of the 15 oz S&W Airweight J frame revolver. I would buy either a M642, M442 or M638 for pocket carry. If you thought your M442 was a bear to shoot don't buy a M340. At 12 oz it's much more to handle than a M442 especially if you are firing .357 Magnum rounds through it.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Usually I do prefer a softer shooting gun if it shoots better. I put my accuracy withe the weapon FIRST, caliber second. I recently sold a Taurus M85. It was just too heavy but it shot well.

 

[Joe A]

If you're comfortable shooting a light J-Frame, I'd vote for the S&W M&P 340 with a Crimson Trace LG-405 grip. The M&P has a standard size XS night sight and a U-shaped rear notch that greatly improve the vestigal sights on the rest of the Js. The CT grips make the short sight radius a mute point and lets you make head shots way beyond where you think you could make them.

I regularily carry a 642 with CT grips in an Uncle Mike's size 3 pocket holster with a speed strip in my weak-side pocket and a safariland speed loader in my coat pocket. If going for a J and you're going to pocket carry, make sure you get a concealed hammer model. You don't want a hook on your gun when drawing from a pocket. I'm partial to the speer 135 gr. golddot +Ps specifically developed for the 1 7/8" short barrel.

This combo carries and shoots great if you're willing to put in the practice time. Don't be shy about using standard velocity ammo to pratice with (the gold dots can get expensive). If you need to use your the +Ps to defend yourself, you'll never notice the increased blast. That said, you do need to know where they hit so do shoot them and take note.

Good luck

 

[jon_in_wv]

I see the 642 is beating the PM9 2-1. The PM9 has better sights and faster reloads. Most likely softer recoiling also. Why the 642 then?

 

[SigP232]

642 ... I carry mine in my left front pocket, sometimes i use a belt holster but most of the time it backs up my 4'' or 2.5'' 686

 

[Kind of Blued]

I see the 642 is beating the PM9 2-1. The PM9 has better sights and faster reloads. Most likely softer recoiling also. Why the 642 then?

You don't own one do you?

 

[jon_in_wv]

No, thats the purpose of the thread is that I'm going to buy one of these guns. I did own a 442 years ago.

 

[mavracer]

if money's no object 340 m&p with CT grips if its any concern 642.

 

[glockman19]

Not even a choice. The S&W 642 hands down.

 

[greenparrot]

I would get the Kahr. I own the MK9 and I love it. It is my favorite gun to carry IWB. This is coming from a guy that owns a few Glocks, XDs, Walther, CZs, Kel-Tecs, one HK, and a Baby Eagle.

I had a 642 but I sold it because shooting it was a pain in my opinion and I was not very accurate with it.





The Kahr gives you a good light and thin gun that is easy to shoot and is chambered in a good self defense caliber.

 

[Joe A]

You specified pocket carry. Have you tried both in your pocket? I have and the 642 hides better than the PM9 for me. Both were in a pocket holster but the revolver hid better and was easier to get a grip on and pull it out.

I'm also a range officer and get to stand next to at least 40 shooters each week firing all types of handguns. I've yet to see a revolver quit but see somebody's semiauto jam or hiccup each week.

I like and shoot semiautos frequently but for your application, I don't think you can beat the 642 or 340. I've heard Tom Gresham state on his GunTalk radio show that most of the trainers he knows carry J-frames.

Best of luck,
Joe

 

[Soybomb]

I see the 642 is beating the PM9 2-1. The PM9 has better sights and faster reloads. Most likely softer recoiling also. Why the 642 then?

Autoloaders seem much harder to hide to me, the shape in your pocket really says gun. The shape of the gun at the back of the slide also makes it snag easier on your pocket when drawing than the low sloped back of the j-frame. I want to like pocket auto's better, but no matter how hard I try I can't.

I find +P .38 special in the 642 is about as hot as I like to shoot, I'd try a 340 and be sure you want to shoot magnum rounds before spending the extra money on it.

 

[Joe A]

I agree with Soybomb that +Ps are enough for me and we hope for the receipient!

But you don't have to shoot magnums to consider the 340, if cost isn't an issue. I think it's worth it for the night sight / U-shaped notch and a slightly lighter weight. The 642 is great but I'm pretty sure a family member will get that when I order the 340.

 

[romma]

Kahr all the way!

 

[fiVe]

For me, the 642 in a Mika round-cut pocket holster is the perfect carry configuration year round.

 

[alucard0822]

The 442/642 are hard to beat when you want an effective round, light weight, and a small concealable gun. The internal hammer models are reliable, snag free, and rounded by design, and require you to simply draw and pull the trigger when needed, and a contact shot cannot bump it "out of battery". A 340 increases recoil and cost substantially for a mere 2 oz drop in weight, and IMO, 357 mag is a waste in snubbies, there is little effective improvment over 38+p, but flash and recoil become quite excessive, and SA is not really needed, the hammer is about the only thing that can snag, and you can fire just as accurate in DA with some practice. Recoil with the standard coke bottle grips, or even boot grips is fairly harsh with heavy or +p loads, but a monogrip lets you grip it with all fingers, and has thick soft rubber over the backstrap, mine felt like recoil was cut in 1/2, and is fairly easy to rapidly put 5 158gr+p on target quickly, and makes it downright pleasant to shoot a couple hundred warm loads at a time. I still use the bootgrips for IWB carry under a t-shirt where the extra 1/2" just happens to be in a bad spot, but both grips conceal eaqually well with most other modes of carry IMO.

 

[DougDubya]

I like the 642 (though my absolute favorite is the 638). Not exactly keen on the ultraflyweight.

 

[jad0110]

I also owned a SMith 442 years ago and while it was a bear to shoot is was easy to carry.

I'd stick away from the 340 then.

I see the 642 is beating the PM9 2-1. The PM9 has better sights and faster reloads. Most likely softer recoiling also. Why the 642 then?

Like the baby Glocks, I've always considered the Kahr PM9 to be better suited as a IWB gun. It may appear small, but as others indicated, it is more likely to snag while drawing. That is one of the biggest advantages to the x42 to me. Very rapid, easy draw - it just glides right out of it's hiding spot. And I can shoot it pretty well and it is 100% reliable.

I've never shot a PM9, but judging by my experience with other 9mms, I don't think I'd like the felt recoil of the PM9 at all. I don't mind the 642 one bit. Recoil is a highly subjective thing, and grip design has a lot to do with that. That is one other plus to the J Frame. There are bunch of different grips available for it for that perfect fit.

Note that I'm not knocking the PM9 at all. It's just not my cup of tea. If you prefer the PM9, then go for it ... though as I said, IMO it makes more since as an IWB gun. If your pockets are large enough, it will work there too.

 

[jon_in_wv]

In the summer I wear pretty baggy shorts. I'm 5'10" 240lbs so I'm not really a small guy. I usually carry a M&P 9c but honestly sometimes I just want something a bit smaller in the summer months. A lightweight snub may fit the bill but if the ammo is carried in speed strips reloads, in comparison to an auto or speed loader, are SLOW and a bit awkward. A speed loader is better but not very comfortable in the pocket. The snub is plenty accurate in aimed fire but I've been that great with one when the speed picks up. I'm leaning toward the auto for its faster reloads, better sights, and I will most likely shoot it better. BUT the majority here seems to lean towards the 642. I'm am so confused.

What about the 340 M&P?? I can shoot 38spl in it and it seems to have vastly better sights with the XS sights. I should have about 700 to spend so this could be an option. What is the advantage of the 642 over the 340 aside from the price?

 

[GunNut]

I'd look for a used 340PD for a great summer carry piece. I picked mine up last May for $500 shipped, it was carried a bunch but shot very little.

I love it, but may look at a PM9 eventually too.

 

[jaydubya]

The 642 with Crimson Trace 405 grips. The 340 is a few ounces lighter but the increase in recoil (and the 642's recoil with defense loads is substantial) is tremendous. Would you practice with a weapon that makes your hand bleed every time you fire a few rounds in it?
Cordially, Jack

 

[Lou22]

I love my PM9 and have pocket carried it for about 2 years. Lately though I'm feeling concerned about an autoloader's possible failure to function in a stressful confrontation, though my PM9 has always been reliable after break-in.

And you can shoot a revolver out of a pocket if need be with follow up shots.

So I'm getting a 642 and will see how it carries vs. the PM9. I think it will be a wash as far as concealability.

Lou

 

[jon_in_wv]

Does the 642 have a pinned in front sight so I can switch it out for a night sight? Which ones do other than the 340 models?