TexasCHLforum.com

Very nice TAM !

Maybe one day I'll upgrade from my 642 and get me one of those.

Nice snubby, TAM. I wish they made that model in a classic "Bodyguard" style with the shrouded, but still accessible, hammer.

Thanks guys. Two things I noticed when I took it to the range...

One is that, in my opening post, I had previously opined that I would probably swap out the OEM grips for a Hogue set. I've decided not to do that. If you look at the 3rd and 4th pictures on page 1, you'll notice that the OEM grip is actually well contoured to fill the hand. It absorbs recoil very well, and I experienced no loss of shooting form or control under recoil. So I don't see any utility in swapping out for a slightly larger grip which will trade away a modicum of concealability in exchange for a modicum of control.

The other thing I noticed is the quality of the trigger. That stainless 640 has a noticeably better trigger than my old 642 had, or than my wife's current 642 has. The 340's trigger is closer to the 640's than the 642's in quality, making it that much easier to shoot.

I will say this: This pistol conceals almost as well as my Keltec P3AT (which I hate to carry anyway and rarely ever do); and given the extra power available from the .357 magnum cartridge, I'm probably not going to bother carrying my Keltec any more at all.

Very nice!
Thanks for the pics and reports.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I will say this: This pistol conceals almost as well as my Keltec P3AT (which I hate to carry anyway and rarely ever do); and given the extra power available from the .357 magnum cartridge, I'm probably not going to bother carrying my Keltec any more at all.

Would you modify that last statement in any way if, instead of .357 magnum, you were shooting either .38 special or .38 special +P through the gun?

LarryH wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I will say this: This pistol conceals almost as well as my Keltec P3AT (which I hate to carry anyway and rarely ever do); and given the extra power available from the .357 magnum cartridge, I'm probably not going to bother carrying my Keltec any more at all.

Would you modify that last statement in any way if, instead of .357 magnum, you were shooting either .38 special or .38 special +P through the gun?

Not at all. I used to carry a 642 which was +P rated, and my carry load in that gun was the +P 125 grain Remington Golden Sabre. I routinely chose that pistol over my Keltec too whenever I needed to pocket carry. And I think that .38 Special, +P or not, is just a better self defense choice than .380 in terms of energy on target, available bullet choices, and other factors - not to mention the price and availability of ammo. Given that my new pistol offers me the choice of .357 magnum, I'll carry that over a +P .38 load for the same reasons you'd choose to carry a +P .38 load over a standard pressure .38 load, or a standard pressure .38 load over a .380 - more grunt. I rarely ever carried my Keltec anyway, and it was only when I just couldn't pocket the .38 without it being a little too obvious.

Not to slam the Keltec, because I know there are a lot of people on this board who choose to carry one, but I just think there are better choices in most circumstances. For me, it is a choice of last resort. The only advantage it has for me is that it is smaller and flatter than the revolver, and a little bit lighter. I don't think that 6+1 rounds of .380 beats 5 rounds of .38 Special, +P .38 Special, or .357 magnum. It's kind of like not being fazed that my 1911 holds 7+1 rounds of .45 ACP instead of the 15+1 of a "wonder nine." If I can't get the job done with 8 rounds of .45, then I need to be elsewhere, and I'll reload when I get there.

And any other reliability issues of small .380 pistols aside, the P3AT has one problem related to my being left handed. I put in my left front pocket, in a Desantis Nemesis pocket holster. About half the time I carried it, I discovered when I took it out of my pocket at the end of the day that, at some point during the day, the magazine release button (which faces outward during left handed carry) got depressed and the magazine was partially ejected. Just great. The one time I need it, there'll be a 50/50 chance that when I draw the pistol, the magazine will fall out, and the only ammo I'll have available to me is the one in the chamber.

Maybe if I were right handed, I might have a better experience with the pistol. Also, I have largish meaty hands, and the Keltec is just too small for me, really. I know that others might have a much better experience with them than I've had so far, and that's why I don't want to slam the gun. It's just, for me, personally, meh.

Thanks.

Congrats, how was the trigger??......guess that goes without asking on an S&W? The roller guns I have from them are excellent, normally.

Great gun. I have had the chance to handle a couple of those and was very impressed. I find the sight picture far superior to almost anything else in it's class, and who is gonna argue with .357 stopping power? A nifty gun to be sure.

Very nice!!

RiverRat wrote:Congrats, how was the trigger??......guess that goes without asking on an S&W? The roller guns I have from them are excellent, normally.

I found the trigger to similar to the 640's and better than the 642's. It ought to be. The little darlings cost twice as much as a 642.

Karder, you're right... the sight picture is actually very good. Not at all "standard snubby" fare. I found it as easy to pick up the sight picture with this pistol as I do with any of my 1911s, which is high praise.

NICE! I have a S&W 442 (.38 special) that I purchased from my father, and I'm thinking about giving it to my wife and getting myself one of these snubbie .357's. I like the idea of having some extra "punch" in a compact revolver.

MojoTexas wrote:NICE! I have a S&W 442 (.38 special) that I purchased from my father, and I'm thinking about giving it to my wife and getting myself one of these snubbie .357's. I like the idea of having some extra "punch" in a compact revolver.

And the grip on the 340 feels like it is just tiniest bit more substantial than on the 442/642.... not so much longer top to bottom, but maybe just a bit thicker across the middle. It conceals just as well, but it seems to fill the hand just a bit better than I remember the grips on my 642 did. That might be faulty memory, but that's how it seems to me.

There is no doubt that it thumps your hand when you shoot it, but it isn't as bad as all the stories you hear - unless you've got real tender and arthritic hands or something.

The Annoyed Man wrote:There is no doubt that it thumps your hand when you shoot it, but it isn't as bad as all the stories you hear - unless you've got real tender and arthritic hands or something.

I've got a Taurus 627 Tracker in .357 Magnum, with a 4" ported barrel, so I'm familiar with the caliber in general although my Tracker is a good deal bigger and heavier. The full-velocity .357 Magnums rounds really "thump" no matter what, but I'm sure I'd be able to handle it. I want something that is good for short-range self-defense...I'm not interested in extended range target shooting.

MojoTexas