Is a S&W 340pd a good alternative to a S&W642?

[Mr. Tettnanger]

I currently carry a S&W 642. It is a wonderful, quality carry peice. I am proficient and confident in my skills with this snubnose. But, even though it is a "lightweight" revolver, I find that I tend to not carry more and more due to weight issues. I mostly pocket carry, sometimes IWB. I have been researching the 340pd model for some time and almost bought it instead of the 642. I am looking for a lighter / alternative carry option. I have also considered the NAA Black widow in .22 magnum, and the Kel-tec .380(I am a revolver guy, and a lefty so this is a very slim chance of buying this). Any thoughts or suggestions? I am well aware of the bullet pull issues, and the "extreme" recoil. I do not consider myself recoil sensitive, and this will be a shoot little carry a lot substitute to my 642. This is my first post, so I want to apologize for rambling and thank all that contribute to this wonderful forum.

 

[moxie]

You're looking at 12 oz. for the 340pd and 15 for the 642. Only 3 oz. difference, but it represents a 20% reduction in weight. Hard to say whether that will matter enough to you in terms of shooting and carrying. If the 642's weight is bothering you, then go for the 340pd. If the light .357 loads are too much, back off to some of the newer .38 spl. loads. i'd start with the Golden Saber. Very good bullet traveling at reasonable velocity.

Those other two options aren't really worth considering. Even if you carry one of the J frames loaded with .38 spl., you're still better off than .22 mag or .380. And I'd trust that S&W to work more than I would the others, esp. the Kel-tec. Goodness.

 

[Rangegod]

I carried a 642 for over three years but I too found it a little too heavy for comfortable pocket carry so it was normally carried in a Sam Andrew’s IWB rig. (I know this is a minority opinion from reading the many post on this forum.) I still own the 642 and consider it one of the best overall personal defense guns in the S&W lineup. However, living in south Florida the ability to pocket carry a gun is high on my priority list, so when the 342 was introduced I immediately bought one. I was amazed at the difference those 4 ounces made. I found the 342 to be perfect for pocket carry. I also have both the P32 and P3AT for those tight jean days but I have found nothing that clears the pocket better than a hammerless J frame S&W.

JAC

 

[JoeHatley]

One option for reducing the weight of the 642, is to replace the factory rubber grips.



Wood boot grips will shave almost an ounce...

Joe

 

[Bob79]

I used to have the 642 and then bought a 340 for the same reason, reduction in weight. The 642's weight isn't bad, but there is a noticable difference when you carry the airlite model. I'd say recoil is increased maybe 25% if I had to put a number on it. Shooting +P through the 642 packed a little punch, but not a problem. With the Airlite when shooting +P, after about 25-30 rounds your hand will probably sting a little. But, this type of gun ain't a range gun, if you practice with .38 spl light loads, practice with a few +P's, you'll be fine. And the .357 option is nice, BUT its brutal on the hands! After 10 rounds of .357 I closed up the box and stopped. I know own a 342PD which is awesome (discontinued, same as the 340 but can't fire .357). I say go for it, buy the lighter gun, try it out, maybe you'll keep both, or sell one or the other!

 

[SAWBONES]

I have both, and have carried both for years, and the 340PD is NOTICEABLY lighter.

It's not that the 642 is heavy. It's not (15 oz).
But the 12 oz 340PD feels significantly lighter when carried in the pocket all day.

Shooting either of these little J-frames with .38 Special+P is a mild handful, but nothing to write home about. Shooting full power .357 Magnum isn't a fun recreation in the 340PD, however.

 

[Myself]

The 340 shoud be enough of a weight reduction to make a difference. If you want even more reduction, try the blazer aluminum cased ammo. Makes a difference when you have 5 loaded. With 357 ammo the 340 will sting. I prefer the 38 loads for practice.

 

[Big Bad Wolf]

I don't know about the 642 but I like my 340PD, I have had mine for about 2 years now and it is my summer gun. Very light to carry and super easy to lug around in shorts and a tank top. I carry mine in a Comp-Tac Pro-Undercover or a Nemesis pocket holster and I could not wish for a better gun to carry during those light clothing days. Best of all it is not a wienie caliber like other super light itty-bitty uber guns.

With that said it sucks to shoot, it is barely tolerable with .38's and with the .357 I can go about 2 cyclnders before I put it up. It's not unmanageable with .357 just very unpleasant. I have found the best carry combo with the 340PD is the Pro-Load Tactical Lite .357 Magnum 125gr which helps take the edge off of firing the little guy. Remember it is a carry a lot shoot a little pistol so as long as you go into the deal with that in mind you will be very happy with it.

 

[plnkr1234]

Hi,

I have a 342PD and I believe it's an oz. lighter than the 340, so if weight is that much a factor, you should consider it. It is a 38, but I could not imagine shooting a 357 in a revolver this light. I also have a 642 and regularly shoot 158 +P's in it. Shooting the same load in my 342 became quite unpleasant after one cylinder.

I'm actually considering the new Corbon 110gr standard velocity load that supposedly was developed just for the ultra lightweight snubbies.

As for the weight difference between the 3 and 6 series, you will notice it, especially in pocket carry.

I have to admit that I did have a problem with my 342 with a sticky trigger return during the first few cylinders. It hasn't happened recently, but I'm considering returning it to the factory for a checkup before I feel comfortable using it for CCW. I do not think this is representative for the series, however.