1 old 0311
member
I have a 340PD. Love it, and it is PERFECT for ankel carry.
Scandium?? No - thank - you!!
- Thread starter P95Carry
- Start date
- Status
No, I don't feel better about that, & I do regret my comments. I just took offense to your bringing that into the conversation, because it seemed some people were less than thrilled with the recoil of the Scandium guns. Nevertheless, doesn't justify, me being a smart--- to you.
Omaha-BeenGlockin
Member
What's up with the 5 year old thread???
I think many people will find it as interesting, and relevant as some others did 5 years ago. If I were on the market for one of these today, I'd enjoy this thread very much. In truth, I probably would have bought the Scandium regardless of what I read. Seems to be something that you have to try.
doc540
Member
sorry to post back on topic, but.... 
I was dismayed when I first shot my Smith 642 with .38 +P's. The backstrap was driven into my thin, boney, bass-playing hand.
So, I came here, read up a bit, and installed a set of Hogue Monogrips.
Compromised concealability just a tad with the slightly longer grip, but I'm now able to shoot much more comfortably, accurately, and confidently.
Hand size and build + grip design can make a significant difference with light frame handguns.
Yes, that's a restatement of the obvious, but someone else posted that for my benefit months ago, and I thought it bore repeating.
I was dismayed when I first shot my Smith 642 with .38 +P's. The backstrap was driven into my thin, boney, bass-playing hand.
So, I came here, read up a bit, and installed a set of Hogue Monogrips.
Compromised concealability just a tad with the slightly longer grip, but I'm now able to shoot much more comfortably, accurately, and confidently.
Hand size and build + grip design can make a significant difference with light frame handguns.
Yes, that's a restatement of the obvious, but someone else posted that for my benefit months ago, and I thought it bore repeating.
P97
Member
I basically did the same thing. I bought a 642 and didn't like it. I have big hands. I put a set of Pachmeyer grips that cover the backstrap and extend about a inch below the handle and I like to shoot it now and can hit something with it.
Bullet Bob
Member
Well, there's scandium, and there's scandium. My 351PD is the perfect pocket gun for me. I know lots of people don't like the .22 magnum for self-defense, and everybody is entitled to their opinion. I've seen a few "elephants" so to speak in the military from 1970-85, and from working in hospital emergency rooms, and I have my own opinion. The 351 even has the dreaded lock, so I'm doubly endangering myself!
The 329 is the best back country .44 Special ever invented! I have fired a very few magnums in it, don't want to do that on a regular basis with my old and fractured bones, but I can if I need to. Even with Specials it's not an all day plinker for me, but I can meet the 5 in 5 (with Specials) test if need be. If I need weight, I can always use one of the other .44's. I was concerned before I bought it about the fragility of the fiber optic front sight, but it's held up fine - at least so far. It may not be the best for targets, but you can really see that thing in the woods!
The 329 is the best back country .44 Special ever invented! I have fired a very few magnums in it, don't want to do that on a regular basis with my old and fractured bones, but I can if I need to. Even with Specials it's not an all day plinker for me, but I can meet the 5 in 5 (with Specials) test if need be. If I need weight, I can always use one of the other .44's. I was concerned before I bought it about the fragility of the fiber optic front sight, but it's held up fine - at least so far. It may not be the best for targets, but you can really see that thing in the woods!
revjross
Member
Man, we blew the dust off this old post and brought it back to life, but I'll jump in too. I just bought my Scan 357 recently and love it. It is exactly what I wanted --and that is a small VERY light revolver to throw in my pocket on the go--. Besides, I've shot it in 38sp, 38+P, and 357 mag -- It's just not that bad, certainly worth the extra recoil for the light weight in my pocket!!
jaydubya
Member
I practice with standard pressure 158gr SWC followed by five rounds of Remington FBI load. I don't practice with the big stuff because it tears up my hand. I have six battle stars on my Vietnam Service Ribbon.
Jack
Jack
doc540
Member
BulletBob, what kind of grips on that 351PD?
noskilz
Member
Holy thread resurrection, Batman! And to think the above quote would not even have been possible when the thread started.
I'll admit, I'm looking forward to the 327 magnum round, as I'm too much of a wimp to shoot 357 magnums out of a pocket gun. It doesn't help that no one can find the rounds yet.
Love that S&W 22 revolver that Bullet Bob displayed. Gorgeous photos - and gun. Now that looks like a gun you could practice with all day long. And I'll bet that would make Old Fuff proud!
Bullet Bob
Member
Doc540, I'm not sure. They're the factory grips that came with the gun. Looks like some kind or rosewood laminate to me. S&W hasn't made grips in-house for years, but I don't know who they outsourced these to.
More then you know. My friend Bill Jordan, of the U.S. Border Patrol, recommended the combination of a lightweight J-frame aluminum/steel revolver chambered in .22 WRF, not only for practice but also back-up and off-duty carry…
This was in the days before the aluminum/titanium revolvers were available, and the .32 H&R and .327 Magnums had yet to be introduced. Even so, as much as he liked the .357 Magnum in his duty guns he recognized that cartridge’s limitations is small, lightweight pocket guns.
I would point out that after years of serving on the U.S./Mexican border, his perspectives came from real life experience, not Internet theory. In addition the man could draw and shoot in less then a blink of an eye, and hit what he was shooting at - exactly where he intended. That skill was the result of extensive practice. This gave him the confidence to use lighter cartridges when he thought that was advisable.
jfh
Member.
About grips:
In my earlier post in this thread about my j-frame / M&P 340 'acclimation program' (found here), I neglected to mention that both guns had been equipped with CT Lasers from the beginning. I put a 305 (Long) on the 640, and a 405 (boot) on the M&P 340.
The 405, with its recoil pocket of soft vinyl, had two benefits--it did offer noticable recoil reduction, and it filled my hand a bit better. Later, when I was well familiar with these (and had bought an M60-3" and the 442 mentioned earlier), the recoil pocket was appreciated but not necessary.
Currently, the M60 is equipped with a Pachmyr (Bantam?), and the 442 has that standard / long S&W (Uncle Mike's) grip with its exposed backstrap.
I've tried moving grips around, etc., but overall, the CT-405 / boot grip is the preferred one for me for pocket carry. The longer grips are noticable improvements in flip control, but were not really necessary once my hand got conditioned.
I will also speak highly of the benefits of a laser sight, for a few different reasons--one, they are potentially a help for aging eyes, particularly in dim light. Two, they are an invaluable aid for learning to point shoot. Finally, they can be an important training tool--you can use the laser to watch the 'bobble' as the hammer drops, and I found that invaluable in learning to shoot DAO.
I will mention that I did have some trouble with the 405--the recoil pocket tore on the first one after about 75 rounds, and the replacement one CT sent out (no charge) tore after 5 rounds. The third one is somewhat tore out after about another 750 rounds, and I will get a replacement grip when I do an annual maintenance routine in about a month or so.
Despite this problem--which appeared to be probably a faulty molding in the grip where the lower-left side of the recoil pocket is secured--I am completely satisfied with the CT package. The grips have a 3-year warranty, and the CT service has been exemplary.
I should mention that, at about 850 rounds or so, the only ongoing problem with the M&P340 has been a problem with cylinder binding on the shaft when shooting my reloads. The problem appears to be the result of "dirty" ignition, and has been relieved by the used of 357 cartridges (loaded to that 38+P factory round performance level) and some tweaking. I think it occurs because the M&P340 is simply built to tighter tolerances than the aluminum-alloy guns, and it is resolved by a good cleaning.
Excellent gun, excellent grips--18.3 oz c/w six 38+P cartridges--what more could I ask for?
Jim H.
In my earlier post in this thread about my j-frame / M&P 340 'acclimation program' (found here), I neglected to mention that both guns had been equipped with CT Lasers from the beginning. I put a 305 (Long) on the 640, and a 405 (boot) on the M&P 340.
The 405, with its recoil pocket of soft vinyl, had two benefits--it did offer noticable recoil reduction, and it filled my hand a bit better. Later, when I was well familiar with these (and had bought an M60-3" and the 442 mentioned earlier), the recoil pocket was appreciated but not necessary.
Currently, the M60 is equipped with a Pachmyr (Bantam?), and the 442 has that standard / long S&W (Uncle Mike's) grip with its exposed backstrap.
I've tried moving grips around, etc., but overall, the CT-405 / boot grip is the preferred one for me for pocket carry. The longer grips are noticable improvements in flip control, but were not really necessary once my hand got conditioned.
I will also speak highly of the benefits of a laser sight, for a few different reasons--one, they are potentially a help for aging eyes, particularly in dim light. Two, they are an invaluable aid for learning to point shoot. Finally, they can be an important training tool--you can use the laser to watch the 'bobble' as the hammer drops, and I found that invaluable in learning to shoot DAO.
I will mention that I did have some trouble with the 405--the recoil pocket tore on the first one after about 75 rounds, and the replacement one CT sent out (no charge) tore after 5 rounds. The third one is somewhat tore out after about another 750 rounds, and I will get a replacement grip when I do an annual maintenance routine in about a month or so.
Despite this problem--which appeared to be probably a faulty molding in the grip where the lower-left side of the recoil pocket is secured--I am completely satisfied with the CT package. The grips have a 3-year warranty, and the CT service has been exemplary.
I should mention that, at about 850 rounds or so, the only ongoing problem with the M&P340 has been a problem with cylinder binding on the shaft when shooting my reloads. The problem appears to be the result of "dirty" ignition, and has been relieved by the used of 357 cartridges (loaded to that 38+P factory round performance level) and some tweaking. I think it occurs because the M&P340 is simply built to tighter tolerances than the aluminum-alloy guns, and it is resolved by a good cleaning.
Excellent gun, excellent grips--18.3 oz c/w six 38+P cartridges--what more could I ask for?
Jim H.
MCgunner
Member
I traded my P95 in on a Taurus M85SSUL. I don't find the Taurus that rough even with hot .38, though I normally practice with wadcutters. However, I've fired a 12 ounce .357 and, uh, well, I'll keep my SP101, thanks. If I'm going to be shooting .38 +P anyway, heck, I'll spend less money on a .38. Like Smiths? Get a 642 and be happy. It's a lot less money and works just as well with .38.
Mostly what I carry, though, is a Kel Tec P11 loaded with +P 9x19 115 grain JHP, 11 rounds on tap, 410 ft lbs, and easier to both shoot and reload than a light weight .38. The gun really points natural for me, too. I got both the Taurus and the KT when I got my license near 12 years ago. I might have 6K through the Taurus, got twice that out of the KT, that's how much I enjoy shooting it. Some complain about the little 9s, but they are easier to shoot than little .357s hands down, no contest. They give up a little punch, but not as much as do the .38s and they do have firepower on their side. I just think of mine as a little 14 ounce square concealed hammer revolver that uses the ultimate in speed loaders.
I don't find the Taurus that rough even with hot .38, though I normally practice with wadcutters. However, I've fired a 12 ounce .357 and, uh, well, I'll keep my SP101, thanks. If I'm going to be shooting .38 +P anyway, heck, I'll spend less money on a .38. Like Smiths? Get a 642 and be happy. It's a lot less money and works just as well with .38. Mostly what I carry, though, is a Kel Tec P11 loaded with +P 9x19 115 grain JHP, 11 rounds on tap, 410 ft lbs, and easier to both shoot and reload than a light weight .38. The gun really points natural for me, too. I got both the Taurus and the KT when I got my license near 12 years ago. I might have 6K through the Taurus, got twice that out of the KT, that's how much I enjoy shooting it. Some complain about the little 9s, but they are easier to shoot than little .357s hands down, no contest. They give up a little punch, but not as much as do the .38s and they do have firepower on their side. I just think of mine as a little 14 ounce square concealed hammer revolver that uses the ultimate in speed loaders.
shooter429
Member
Think about the number of Sc guns coming out now versus 5 years ago. More relevant today, I think. In any event, they have there place and their limitations. If I could get one w/o the lock, I would go back to them in a HB. Oh well...the 642 is still a great option.
Shooter429
Shooter429
FranklyTodd
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 517
I totally respect anyone's opinion that's fired one (including if you think they suck), but it's amusing the high percentage of people who chime in on lightweight snubby-bashing, saying something like: "I've never shot one, but I think they are way too light . . ." It's ok to just read a post and not chime in, really . . .
I carry an M&P340 with CT grips each and every day - and I love it. To folks that think you need to practice hours and hours per week with their exact carry gun, and their exact carry cartridge - well, I just don't agree. I draw/dryfire a couple days per week and put 50-100 rounds through it a couple times per month at most. A snub nose revolver with a laser grip is not exactly rocket science, no matter how much/little it weighs.
I carry an M&P340 with CT grips each and every day - and I love it. To folks that think you need to practice hours and hours per week with their exact carry gun, and their exact carry cartridge - well, I just don't agree. I draw/dryfire a couple days per week and put 50-100 rounds through it a couple times per month at most. A snub nose revolver with a laser grip is not exactly rocket science, no matter how much/little it weighs.
oscarswanson
Member
S&W 360 12 oz. .357 = bloody hand
Ruger .454 Alaskan = brused hand
Taurus Titainium 617 20 oz. .357 with ribber grip = perfect.
Glock 27 or 33 or 26 = my favorite carry guns.
Ruger .454 Alaskan = brused hand
Taurus Titainium 617 20 oz. .357 with ribber grip = perfect.
Glock 27 or 33 or 26 = my favorite carry guns.
DAdams
Member
Convergence of Technologies
History will bear out the Sc/Ti format might now be considered an experiment gone too far or bad science. An extreme swing of the pendelum. Great idea at the time with state of the art materials, but as with many great ideas, theory is one thing practice is another.....then the developmental team got it right!!
M&P 340
All the good, none of the bad plus the XS night sight and trench are spot on. The IonBond finish on mine is holding up very well. The perfect balance.
There is another convergence that works to this formats favor. Speer and Buffalo Bore both recognized the special ammunition requirements for short barrel revolvers and addressed the need. Low flash powders and right sized load(s) have optimized this package to nothing short of amazing.
Add the Hogue Monogrip or CT 305 and it is concealed carry perfection. (Almost, 6 rounds and deep sixing the ILS, would be perfection).
S&W is so convinced this is an optimized materials package they developed the entire Night Guard line-up based on Sc/Ss, Ionbond, 38spl through .45.
History will bear out the Sc/Ti format might now be considered an experiment gone too far or bad science. An extreme swing of the pendelum. Great idea at the time with state of the art materials, but as with many great ideas, theory is one thing practice is another.....then the developmental team got it right!!
M&P 340
All the good, none of the bad plus the XS night sight and trench are spot on. The IonBond finish on mine is holding up very well. The perfect balance.
There is another convergence that works to this formats favor. Speer and Buffalo Bore both recognized the special ammunition requirements for short barrel revolvers and addressed the need. Low flash powders and right sized load(s) have optimized this package to nothing short of amazing.
Add the Hogue Monogrip or CT 305 and it is concealed carry perfection. (Almost, 6 rounds and deep sixing the ILS, would be perfection).
S&W is so convinced this is an optimized materials package they developed the entire Night Guard line-up based on Sc/Ss, Ionbond, 38spl through .45.
rdrancher
Member
I just purchased a set off of feebay a few weeks ago, and I've seen a couple of sets here and there since then. Put up a WTB for S&W laminated boot grips. They're out there.
rd
hhb
Member
Firing a scandium revolver is like grabbing onto an electric fence!!!!
Vern Humphrey
Member
As Will Rogers said, "There's three kinds of people. There's them that can learn from books. There's them that can learn from others. And there's them that's gotta pee on the electic fence for themselves."
Bad science? This is a little amusing. The weight difference between a 340/340pd and an M&P 340 may or may not be significant to the user. But no one can honest say they can feel any difference between the two firing equal cartridges, whether 38 special or 357. The only real difference between the 340/340pd and the M&P 340 is the cylinder. Someone will say the SS cylinder is stronger or something than the titanium. It is really neglegible for the application. One could also say the titatium is more corrosion resistant. Both statements are true. But almost silly. There are always a few claims out there of titanium cylinders failing. Stainless steel cylinders can fail too, actually anything can. How many titatium failures can be duplicated when using them as they were designed to be used?
All good? But it is heavier (though not significantly to most). None of the bad? It will still be equally "painful" to shoot and still very expensive.
It is too bad the M&P 340 isn't offered without the tritium sight. While many like this option, it significantly increases cost and the tritium doesn't last forever any way.
For the money, the M&P 340 is probably a better buy, but the fact is, any of the 340 variations are basicly the same gun.
Some will argue about the stainless steel and titanium cylinders, but most of the metal in these guns is ALUMINUM. Compromises are made to have the ultimate lightweight carry guns. If one is so concerned about ultimate strength and recoil, just get an all steel gun with a big fat grip.
I have a 386 Sc Mountain Lite 3" and finally got around to firing the little beast. I was really expecting to be beat up by this revolver. I fired around 100 rounds of .38 and .357 (50/50 mix) through it on Saturday. I was really disappointed. My hands didn't go numb or bleed. I loved shooting the weapon. I can fire 7 rounds of .357 158 JHP from it faster than you can read this sentence. The 386 is light, powerful and a joy to carry. It is not a pain to shoot for anyone of average strength.
I had a friend over that shot the 386 a little less than 50 rounds and he to commented that all the hype and hoopla about the TiScan's horrible recoil was due to speculation mostly.
Long live the TiScan models. Now to find a good carry holster and to do something about that silly S&W lock.
M'bogo
I had a friend over that shot the 386 a little less than 50 rounds and he to commented that all the hype and hoopla about the TiScan's horrible recoil was due to speculation mostly.
Long live the TiScan models. Now to find a good carry holster and to do something about that silly S&W lock.
M'bogo
I got over my lightweight handgun/powerful cartridge prejudice when I owned a S&W Shorty Forty-Five (remember those?) It was a very nice shooter, but it had a heavier slide that seemed to help dampen some of the recoil.
But I'm leery of scandium myself in a powerful caliber, and I'm not very recoil sensitive either. I handled one of these in .38 Spl caliber and quickly decided it wasn't for me.
P.S. And I didn't realize that this thread was as old as Methuselah!
Last edited:
- Status
