There is a parallell thread elsewhere on the wheelgun forum about S&W imposing a 120 gr or lighter bullet limitation on their new 342, 337, 360, and 340 lightweight models. I'm at a loss to understand this. Physics would dictate that a HEAVIER slug would uncrimp more easily overcoming the heavy recoil on these lightweight guns. Some of the better defensive loads are indeed lighter than 120 grains. Let's hear your opinions on this one please.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Wud someone explain the 120 gr limitation on S&W 342PD's ??
- Thread starter 22lovr
- Start date
cuerno de chivo
Moderator
I've had 2 342s. IIRC he only "warning" that came with them was against +p lead. The 342 is chambered is a .38.
I would guess that flame cutting and cracked forcing cones would be possible reason in the magnums.
I am also in disagreement about less than 120gr loads being better than standard 125gr and 158gr loads.
I would guess that flame cutting and cracked forcing cones would be possible reason in the magnums.
I am also in disagreement about less than 120gr loads being better than standard 125gr and 158gr loads.
VictorLouis
New member
Me thinks you misunderstand.
They don't want you to go above that weight, not below it. The physics are as you pointed out. The heavier the bullet, or non-jacketed bullets, can slip their crimp easier under recoil.
I've cycled 158gr.+P Nyclad through mine w/o trouble. I put one round in position 5 through 2 cylinders(8 shots). While I could see that it pulled somewhat, it was no where near the point where it could cause binding.
They don't want you to go above that weight, not below it. The physics are as you pointed out. The heavier the bullet, or non-jacketed bullets, can slip their crimp easier under recoil.
I've cycled 158gr.+P Nyclad through mine w/o trouble. I put one round in position 5 through 2 cylinders(8 shots). While I could see that it pulled somewhat, it was no where near the point where it could cause binding.
Actually, 120 gr. is indeed the recommended LOWER limit for these light guns. Reason has to do with supposedly premature erosion of the forcing cone (and face of cylinder?) from the lighter rounds, since they are usually loaded hotter than heavier ones. I doubt that this would be much problem if these weights are shot infrequently (I've fired a few 110 grainers out of my 340PD, which isn't a "plinking" revolver anyway, not conducive to prolonged sessions at the range due to light weight of the gun).
KEN CHAVEZ
New member
Albert is right on with his statement.
My S&W-360Sc says on the side of the barrel "NO LESS THAN 120 GR BULLET" . This is only for the .357Mag Scandium/Tytanium revolvers, and not the .38sp Titanium revolvers. As you know the .38sp dose not burn as hot as most .357Mag's.
I have found that the more premium ammo like Cor-Bon, Hydra-Shok, Speer Gold Dot, etc. etc. have less of a tendency to uncrimp or slide out becouse of the forces of recoil.
My S&W-360Sc says on the side of the barrel "NO LESS THAN 120 GR BULLET" . This is only for the .357Mag Scandium/Tytanium revolvers, and not the .38sp Titanium revolvers. As you know the .38sp dose not burn as hot as most .357Mag's.
I have found that the more premium ammo like Cor-Bon, Hydra-Shok, Speer Gold Dot, etc. etc. have less of a tendency to uncrimp or slide out becouse of the forces of recoil.
Last edited:
Ken. thanks for 38sp. info, I forgot to mention it.
C.R.- I have found most 125gr 357mag & 158gr Gold Dot 357mag work well in my 386PD. As to why to go through the trouble to have one, at 17 oz's it is a joy to carry as a primary or BUG in a coat pocket etc. In my opinion it is worth it.
C.R.- I have found most 125gr 357mag & 158gr Gold Dot 357mag work well in my 386PD. As to why to go through the trouble to have one, at 17 oz's it is a joy to carry as a primary or BUG in a coat pocket etc. In my opinion it is worth it.