S&W 642/442 vs the Scandium .38/357s

If shooting the same ammunition, the shootability difference is not very great at all. Neither is particularly difficult to shoot with .38 Plus P's. What is the ability to shoot 357 Magnums worth to you? That has to be figured into your cost equation, too. I bought one of the discontinued 342's that only shoots .38 Specials. It cost me $479 brand new. It weighs about 11 oz. It was a difference of more like $25 an ounce compared with an Airweight gun that shoots the same cartridge. If you plan to belt-carry, the lighter weight is probably not going to be a factor. If you pocket carry, you are talking 25% less weight in the Titanium-cylinder gun. That is significant. For those who have never pocket-carried a Sc or Ti gun, the weight of an Airweight S&W or a Total Titanium Taurus may not be much of an issue in their pocket. If they ever spend a day with a Scandium or Titanium J-frame in their Dockers, they will understand why I say that the difference is significant.

Clemson
 
The 342 is much cheaper than what I saw at the gun show last year when I bought my 642. What do you think about laser grips on the snubbie? Also, the 342 and 360 etc weigh 12 oz. not 11 and loaded they weigh what a 642 weighs empty. Haven't carried the Scandium but have no issue with my 642.
 
Vote here for the 15 oz airweights of any snagproof design. Mod 38, 642, 638 etc. I carry mine IWB or in a jacket pocket. Even the 12 oz guns arn't comfortable for pants pocket carry in summer. If that's a requirement, you might look at something like a flatter lighter 7 oz Kel-tec-380.
 
...the 342 and 360 etc weigh 12 oz. not 11 and loaded they weigh what a 642 weighs empty....
Click to expand...

Just to put this one to rest, I weighed my 342 on the company (chuckle, chuckle) digital postal scale. It weighs 11.5 oz empty and 13.9 oz loaded with Speer 135 grain Gold Dots. My gun has the laminated wood grips. According to the S&W website, the 642 weighs 15 oz empty. That makes the 642 an even 30% heavier than the 342. I still contend that the difference is significant when carrying in a pocket. It is inconsequential if you are going to carry in a belt holster.

Clemson
 
Well, actually I have done the same but not with a 342 but a 340 PD. With the original boot grips the 340 was 12 oz on the money and with Remington Golden Sabers it was 15 oz. I used a postal scale too! Oh well, that's the post office for you:) The three oz was negligible to me when carried in a pocket holster and I guess not worth the $600+ that the 340 cost. Also, when I shoot the 340 using plus Ps it did kick harder than the 642. Oh well, to each his own.
 
I don't have any of the scandium/ti guns but have really been thinking about a 340. A large point of interest to me is the scandium frame. While the aluminum frames may now be tough enough for plus P .38 loads (the earlier ones were not thought to be so), I am certain the scandium-enhanced frames are, in fact, tough enough, since they are rated for .357. That and the availability of using .357 loads if desired (I can hardly imagine it) makes the 340 more desirable than the earlier 342 or the heavier 642. I haven't yet found it so desirable I've plunked down the price, though.
 
I have the 340PD and I prefer its lighter weight to the 442 I carried for a long time. I believe there's 4 ounces difference - which is about 20 quarters.

I shoot the Federal 125 full power .357 load in it. But no more than maybe 15 rounds a visit. It smacks the hand too hard. I mostly practice with 38 ammo.

After about 100 of the .357 rounds and a ton of 38's, the gun is still tight as new. I use the grips they sell on the 640, but ground them off to boot grip length.

The .357 recoil is Terrible in a gun as light as the 340PD, but I doubt if you'd even feel it if you had to defend your life with it.

adk

---------------------
 
Difference between the scandium and airweights is just about 3 oz ( depending on grip choice)

Have they resolved the issue with bullets pulling under recoil on the scandium models?
 
Last edited:
I tried several factory 357 loads in my 340PD. Two that did not pull were the Federal full power 125 grain and the Proload 125 Lite. I've heard the full power Remington 125 also does not pull.

These Fed and Rem 125's have high velocity, and are said to be the top stoppers in 357. I believe part of their velocity comes from their tight crimp.

I get 1180 fps with the Fed 125 from the 340PD. It shoots at about 1280 fps from the 640.

The 357 mag 640 is heavy, but you can carry it in your pocket if you have to, because it's small. I've heard that its weight makes follow-on shots a lot easier. (I've always wanted one - in case anyone wants to sell one.)

Thanks. adk

----------------------------
 
I've had the "beast", my 340SC, for about three years. It replaced my 649 as my "always" gun. The 649 weighs more than twice as much as the 340.

Prior to buying the 340, I researched as much as I could. Everything I read indicated that it would be carried a lot but seldom shot. One writer said that "shooting it was like shaking hands with the devil". I agree. It kicks like a mule. I wanted a light .357 as I don't like .38's, so I chose the 340. My primary carry method is in a pocket holster in my right front pocket. Now that I'm retired, I wear shorts five or six days a week. The "beast" is excellent for my purpose.

My carry ammo is Federal 130 gr Hydra-Shoks. I developed a light .357 load for practice that has the same POA/POI as the Federals.

The price difference is significant but it was worth it to me.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top