Stop me if you've heard this one...

[OtG]

I've been looking for a decent pocket gun for a while now.

I was at the gun store today (silly me, I know), and they have, on consignment, a pretty nice-looking S&W 342 (I think) for $425. It seems in pretty nice shape, trigger is nice, fits in the pocket, and weighs just this side of nothing at all.

They also have a second-generation P3AT. Square slide, ugly bolt, etc.
Cost: $250

The dilemma here is obvious: S&W or Kel-Tec.

As I see it, the pros and cons are:

S&W:
Pro:
slightly more powerful(?)
almost certainly more reliable
shinier (oooooh... pretty...)
cheaper to shoot (I reload .38 Spl.)
can take those neato lasergrips
don't need to worry about ammo feeding
Con:
$175 will buy a lot of .380 ACP
wee bit bigger and heavier
5 rounds, vs. 6+1 for keltec

Kel-Tec:
Pro:
cheaper
smaller & lighter
6+1 capacity
cheaper
Con:
almost certainly less reliable
.380 is more $ than reloaded .38 spl. (or I could start reloading .380...)
less powerful?
not as pretty

I don't expect either to be really fun to shoot, but if anyone has experience with both, what do you think of the two?

 

[Sir Aardvark]

I'd get the S&W.
It's probably the best pocket gun you can get.
You know that you're going to end up with one sooner or later, so why not sooner?

 

[ezypikns]

I carry a Kel-Tec P32.

Not pretty. Not accurate. Not very powerful at all. But...it's always there. The doggone thing is less than 3/4" wide. I have literally forgotten I had it with me, and taken into some places that (by law) were off limits. You can carry the thing in the lightest of summer clothing. Not for everyone.

 

[22luvr]

I'd opt for the Smith 342

I've owned both a 340SC and a P-3AT and I would definitely go with the 342. I like the historical stopping power of the .38 spcl and everyone makes effective personal defense ammo for the .38 spcl.

One of the main reasons I like the hammerless 342 is that it can be fired directly from the pocket or jacket without jamming. AND, the P-3AT can be taken completely out of battery with only about a 1/8" rearward travel of the slide. That is not good for a self-defense piece. If an assailant should get within arm's reach of you, the revolver can be stuck right up against said assailant without being taken out of battery.

I carried my revolvers in an Uncle Mike's size 3 soft flexible pocket holster which is extremely light, very thin, while completely masking the outline of the revolver.

My 340SC was maybe one ounce more in weight than the 342 and the entire package: gun, ammo, and holster, weighed less than one pound. Carry was simple and supremely comfortable.

In some pants, you may have to carry the revolver IWB but I wear mostly pleated docker-style trousers and no jeans so my pocket-carried revolver was undetectable.

I have heard nothing but praise for the 342 and $425 for one in my area is a very good price, since they retail for over $600.

 

[Rodman]

my 2 cents is go with the S&W 342. i use to have one and still kick myself for selling it. it was the best carry gun i had hands down. some day i will get another the only down side is the price but i would grad one for $425. i paid delaer cost for mine and it was around $525. i have tried the Keltec thing had 2 P32s and 1 P3AT, 1 out of 3 works but it still isnt perfect. i kept one P32 just to keep one, the others are down the road. plus a revolver is much more reliable. good luck in your decision.

 

[medic_guns]

Don't know about the kel-tec, but I own the 342. It is light and easy to carry. It has a nice snap when you fire it, especially with +P's. I paid over 500 bucks in early 1999. I have tried to sell it, and I am glad no one took me up on it. In the photo, you can see how much stuff is embedded in the grips. I should buy some new grips for it.

 

[DR]

<broken record>Have you looked at a 642?</broken record> Even new it should be cheaper than the 342. $325-350 seems to be a typical price for a new 642. It's heavier still but I think it's still plenty light enough for pocket carry. Personally, saving four ounces isn't worth the extra cash to me. Plus, you don't have to worry about special care of the titanium cylinder.

If you're set on either the 342 or the Kel-Tec I'd personally go for the 342 for the reasons you mentioned (more reliable and more powerful).

 

[GEM]

That's a good point, you save $100 for a 642 and I've carried one for years and the weight difference with the 342 ain't worth the money.

 

[TarpleyG]

Another vote for an Airweight (or lighter) J-frame. I have carried a P-32, P-11, Kahr PM9, and a 642 and I prefer the 642 in a Milt Sparks PCH-R holster with a speed strip reload hands down over all the others. I am also with everyone else in that I think you should save a few bucks and find a 642. You will not notice the extra weight and will be grateful for it when you shoot it, esp. with the recommended .38 +P loads.



Greg

 

[deputy tom]

Another vote for the 642.tom.

 

[OtG]

Well, these seem like pretty good replies.

The only thing that i can think to add to my post is that the KT can have a belt clip, so you don't really even need a holster. That may factor into my decision. But it may not.

As for the 642, there is a Ladysmith at the gun store, that may be the same model. However, I'm really looking for the lightest gun I can find. I know that the P3AT is it, but I like how the Smith handles. Plus the KT's sights are almost impossible to see.
I'll probably load it with wadcutters and/or that new Speer snubby load. That will probably be a good bit more powerful than a .380.
Maybe I'll just hold off on the Kel-Tec.

I'll keep you guys posted.

 

[mfree]

How about a 432PD

.32H&R Magnum, J frame, 6 shots, internal hammer, airweight...

 

[GEM]

While you can get a belt clip for the P32, you can get a Barami grip for the 642 and eliminate a holster also.

I carry mine in my pocket. I honestly see little use for a belt clip for a BUG gun. If I go belt, then I go to a semi pistol for the large capacity.

However, I cannot fault someone who wants to belt carry a fine gun like the 642.

 

[medic_guns]

Exactly what special care is involved for the titanium cylinder?

Ric

 

[DR]

There's a coating on the cylinder that some cleaning regimens can damage. From the owner's manual:

CAUTION:
TITANIUM & SCANDIUM REVOLVERS
The titanium cylinder used in your AirLite Ti and AirLite Sc revolvers
weighs approximately 60% of what a similar stainless steel cylinder
weighs and yet is able to withstand the same operating pressures.
Care and cleaning of the revolver’s titanium cylinder consists of normal
gun cleaning procedures using high quality gun oil and cleaning
solvents when necessary. However, under NO circumstances should
the cylinder’s chambers (charge holes) or front face be cleaned with
an abrasive material such as sand paper, Scotch Brite™, Crocus
Cloth, etc. To do so will disrupt it’s protective surface layer and greatly
reduce the cylinder’s service life because of excessive erosion that will
take place while firing and will void your revolver’s warranty.