S&W 340 PD, anyone here own it?

[davidd]

I rec'd a call from the gun dealer who is awaiting arrival of my P3AT kel tec and he said he just got a 340 PD revolver in on consignment. He said it appears to have been shot only a few times and looks like brand new. They are asking $780 but said the bottom line is $625. I like this gun over the 642 only due to a small weight advantage (12 oz vs. 15). I guess they are the same size.

How does the price compare and what are your thoughts vs. the 642? I have no interest in running 357 mags through such a small and light gun due to recoil. Besides, i don't think it is necessary.

anyway, do any of you own one? your thoughts? thx, dave

 

[1BLINDREF]

davidd -

I carry a 642 with CT's almost every day. IMHO the difference in weight (3 oz.) doesn't justify spending $400-$500 more for a 340. Shooting .357s out of a gun that weighs 12 oz is not something you'd want to do on a regular basis. That $400-$500 you save buying the 642 will buy you lots of practice ammo, some carry ammo, a good holster, and maybe a set of CT's (crimson trace laser grips)
Still not sure, check out this thread

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=138658

Good luck!

 

[FW]

The 340pd and the 642 dimensionally are nearly identical.

The significant weight difference is due mainly to the titanium cylinder.

Both have aluminum alloy frames, although S&W cleverly markets the 340pd as "scandium". In reality, it is an aluminum alloy with a trace amount of scandium (very expensive) added to it to make it much tougher.

A three ounce weight difference can be noticable and desireable, especially with pocket carry. Most people will not have any problem carrying the slightly heavier one.

The 340pd costs about twice as much. The 642 is a much better buy for the amount of money spent, but at the same time, there are a lot of carry guns in excess of $600, so the dollar amount by itself is not a reason to not get one if one can afford it.

The 340pd is a .357 magnum, but it is not mandatory (or desirable for most) to shoot .357 in it. Some will say it is pointless to have if you are only going to use 38 sp in it, but it does have a weight advantage.

Shooting 357 in is NOT for those with limited shooting experience. Some will describe how horribly painful it is. Yes it stings a little and is not pleasant, but five shots isn't going to shatter the bones in your hands. The real trouble with it is recovery shots. There is a lot of muzzle flip.

Shooting 38 through either one feels about the same.

There was a limited edition called the 340ss and should soon be model called the 340m&p. These are virtually the same as the 340pd except they have stainless steel cylinder which adds a couple ounces to the total weight and that amounts to what is basicly a 642 that can shoot .357mag. The weight advantage is lost.

There are varying opinions. The cost is the single biggest factor. The 340pd does everything the 642 can do and is capable of much more even if this capability is not used (fire .357).

There are some other less significant differences between the two, like sight options. The two models have different grips, although this is easily changable if desired. And even though it is a really poor reason, everyone has a 642 and few have a 340pd.

 

[davidd]

thx for the input. i have made up my mind, i am getting two guns with the savings of not buying the 340. My kel tec arrives today, but i will also pic up a 642.

 

[Ric in Richmond]

I shot one at my local range last week with .38 in it. Very nice. Great trigger, accurate as one would expect form short sights, light and DAMN cool looking.

If I could find one at that rate I'd be VERY tempted instead of a 642...

 

[coach22]

I have one and it's loaded with Corbon DPX.
First 2 are 38+P and next 3 are 357.
Compared to other bullets, the DPX are easy to control.
It is an emergency gun to save your life.
Not a gun for all day at the range.
NOTHING carries better.

coach22

 

[hceptj]

i carry mine probably 60-70% of the time...mainly because its so light...its loaded with 135 gr gold dots...

...i don't blame you for going for the 2-for-1 though, it is an expensive son of a gun...

 

[SAWBONES]

Sure.
I have two 340PDs. They're excellent for pocket carry, and I suppose would be good for ankle carry too, though I don't do that myself.
Mine do their best with Gold Dot "Short Barrel" .38 Special +P 135gr JHP rounds.
I shot ALL of the available premium commercial .357 Magnum 125gr JHP rounds through mine (not especially fun), and though I'm not recoil-sensitive, I could never get as good accuracy and precision as with the above Gold Dot .38 Special load.

 

[RTFM]

1) Follow this link:
http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php

2) Select - Advanced Search

3)Go to Search by KeyWord - Key Word(s): 340

4) Select - Handguns:Revolvers

5)Select - Search now.

Receive 12 pages and 283 threads that contain information with the 340 in them....

Enjoy

Oh and as far as cost goes $780 - It's far more expensive than a new 340 here. We are at $589 for a new in box 340 and $345 for a new in box 642. So your guy is screwing his customers - BIG TIME!
Or if nothing else following S&W's suggested price to the book... good for him I suppose if he can find suckers to pay full price....

Sounds like you need to do some more foot work for your self on the issue of weight and revolver material of construction and ammo issues......

do a search and see what you find on those issues and see if the 340 is still right for you.




RTFM

 

[double0757]

340pd Vs. 642

I own both. I first bought the 340pd for pocket carry and backup gun. It turned out to be such a comfortable gun to carry that I found my self carrying it more than my semi. Then I bought the 642 as a backup to the backup. I thought the same thing 3 oz is not that much. Well I'm here to tell you that it is. It does not carry as well as the 340pd and I wish I would of bought another 340pd. I'll tell you that the frame is tougher in the 340pd than with the 642 and it will probably last longer than it's cousin the 642.

+1 Sawbones. I also tried 357 ammo but the winner on accuracy and less torture was the 38spl 135 gold dot from speer.

Double O

 

[340PD]

I vote for the 340PD

My 340PD is almost as easy to carry as my Seecamp 32. It is well worth the extra money over the 642. I have shot all types of ammo and, for the most part, the recoil is no big deal. I never regret buying quality and this little gun has plenty of that. Get a pair of Crimson Trace laser grips, a pocket holster, and a IWB and you are good to go. You will not know you have this gun on you. It is that cool.

 

[Richard.Howe]

Another 340PD fan here -- a great little carry gun, if you can spare the change. It's my summertime, light clothing favorite in a Kramer pocket holster.

 

[davidd]

Interesting how prices vary thoughout the country. The best you can do in CFlorida is $370 on the 642 and a lot more on the 340pd. A used 340 is rock bottom at $625, now, it is nearly new. I bought a kel tec p3at yesterday.

 

[Sundles]

Carry it more than shoot it.

The 340 is worth the extra cost. I carry mine all the time. I dont shoot it very often and should I need to shoot it, I wont notice the extra felt recoil. The extra 3 OZ of the heavier revolver, makes it not near as nice to carry.

 

[John]

I have a 340PD which I am about to trade in on a heavier gun, because the recoil has become a problem to my aged (73) hand and wrist.

The gun is wonderful for carrying, easy to shoot accurately, and only became a problem when my muscles became weak and my bones brittle -- and I resumed shooting a lot after a few years of being in an out of hospitals for major surgeries.

I used to have a concealed carry permit, but let it expire while I was in hospital last year. I don't think I will re-apply. All I need is a heavier gun for home defense.

 

[Alan Fud]

There have been reports of the titanium cylinder of the 340 seizing up with aluminum casing ammo. I've experienced this myself with my 342 (the .38 version of the 340). This problem does not exist with the steel cylinder of the 642.