Over a year ago I picked up a titanium J-Frame cylinder from Midway, with the intent of swapping it into my 360J. Turns out, my 360’s timing is ok with the steel cylinder, but just a hair off on one of the chambers with the titanium cylinder, so the cylinder went in a box and the 360J went back how it was.

I've been getting a lot of good use out of the 642UC that I bought earlier this year, and somewhere along the line I got the idea that an ultralight, snagless J-Frame would be a cool addition to the lineup…something I could truly toss in a gym shorts pocket and forget it's there. Kind of like a 340PD, but .38 only and for half the price (I don’t really want to shoot magnums out of one of those anyway!). That 642UC is about perfect as it is and I didn't want to mess with it, so I started looking around for a base model 642 to be the host for my little project.

A local shop that does a lot of police trade in business had two 642-2s for a reasonable price last week, so I decided to grab one. I looked them both over before buying, and one was pretty filthy, had some orange paint on the front sight, and a slight hitch in the trigger pull on two chambers. The other was spotless, but had carry up issues and wouldn't lock up on three of the five chambers if I dragged my thumb on the cylinder. I bought the first one.

A thorough cleaning and a little polishing inside and I was pretty happy with my selection. I managed to reduce the hitch in the trigger pull to a point where it’s barely noticeable, and with use will hopefully work itself out completely (it’s always a bit of a balancing act messing with the ratchet…too little and you have a sub-par trigger, too much and you can ruin the lockup). Best of all, the titanium cylinder fits and times up perfectly with the gun’s original ratchet.

The lock is a problem. I used to tolerate them, but I had the flag pop up on my 329PD under recoil earlier this year, so now I don’t trust them, especially on the airweights. It’s an even bigger problem on a centennial since it’s completely internal and you can’t just push it back down to get the gun back into action like you can with the external hammer guns. Removing the flag is a simple matter (I left the lock cylinder in to keep the hole plugged, as without the flag it does nothing), but on the J-frames there’s a small hole in the frame behind the thumbpiece for the flag pivot that is now open. It’s not huge, but I don’t like it, and I don’t know that anybody makes a plug kit for it.

Here’s a photo of the 642-2 next to the 642UC. You can see the small hole from the plug removal on the -2. The contrast in the finish condition also shows the effects of 10 months of daily pocket carry on the UC.



With the TI cylinder, the -2 is LIGHT! On a scale it’s only about 2oz difference, but I found I can toss it in a gym shorts pocket and walk 2 miles without having to adjust the waistline every couple hundred feet like I do with a steel-cylindered gun. The stock sighs are extremely low profile, too, so it’s about as snagless as you can get. In that regard, I achieved my goals.

The problem I’m encountering is that it shoots high. It did this when I shot it with the steel cylinder, too, before I installed the titanium one, so that isn’t the issue. I wanted to make sure it wasn’t just something that I was doing, so I broke out the whole snubby J-frame lineup for some testing.

The 360J is chambered in .38+P with a steel cylinder, and was my first J-frame. I’ve since developed an appreciation for the snag-free nature of the centennial models, so it doesn’t get carried as much as the others. I also found that my grip has evolved a bit to where I ride high enough on the backstrap that the hammer interferes with my hand. Nevertheless, the sights on this one seem to be pretty well regulated.

The 640 Pro actually shot kinda low, but I typically carry it with Magnums so point of impact comes up a bit with those. This gun has a fantastic trigger, and is probably the smoothest of the four. It also has a true 2” barrel instead of 1 ⅞, which makes more difference on a chronograph than one might think, and allows for a longer ejection rod.

The sight picture on the UC took a little getting used to. You have to bury the dot in the very bottom of the U notch and cover the target with it, but once you figure that out it’s dead on.

And finally, the 642-2, which seems to want an extreme 6:00 hold.

All targets were shot at 10 yards, standing with a 2-handed unsupported grip. The first set of targets was a 148gr Full-Wadcutter target load moving at about 700fps.



The second set was a 158gr LSWC at about 850 FPS



Finally an overlay of both loads on the original target:



The 158s tended to impact a bit higher, but not much. The 642-2 was WAY high compared to the other three with both loads. The wider group was probably my fault (I’ll blame it on the slight trigger hitch and harsher recoil), but the overall rise in the point of impact was definitely the gun.

Has anybody else encountered this issue with a fixed-sight J-frame before? If so, how did you resolve it? Would a different load bring it down, and if so, what would you suggest? IMO it needs a taller front sight, but I don’t see how that would be accomplished. Should I even try to fix it, or just suck it up and hold low?

Thanks for this post, 92. I also have a 642-2 with the internal lock and, based on your experience, went looking for a titanium cylinder for it.

* As an fyi for anyone else wanting to do the same, the best price I found was at MidwayUSA and there are four cylinders remaining.

I also ordered a Wilson Combat Custom Tune Spring Kit because why not?

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
Has anybody else encountered this issue with a fixed-sight J-frame before? If so, how did you resolve it? Would a different load bring it down, and if so, what would you suggest?

Try some 130s, 125s, or 110s. Lighter bullets generally hit lower for me than 158s in my revolvers.

I sent my 340 back to S&W because they'd milled the topstrap incorrectly and it was hitting about 12-16" to the right of POA. They "adjusted the barrel" and it was "within spec" and now it only hits about 8" to the right. LOL

It's a crapshoot with fixed sights. If you can't find a load that hits where you want, you can try to modify the front sight. Me, I'd just remember that I have to hold low with that particular gun.

Out of curiosity on the titanium cylinder, does it offer any advantage besides lower weight,on the J frames? Does it have offer less wear on the front of the cylinder compared to the standard factory option or with different ammo types? I have a few J frame 442 models myself and am interested in those cylinders for a 2 tone look.

92… I did the same exact thing to my 360j, thankfully my timing is right on with the ti cylinder installed, I used the ejector and star from the original 360 cylinder and it’s been perfect, I did have to shim for a bit of excessive end shake, it was in tolerance but I tightened it up just a bit. I’ve often thought about doing the same to a 642 or 442as you did with yours, I think it would be a niifty pocket carry. I am going to Bob my 360 hammer eventually, but I have been wanting a 642 for a while so if I can find a decent one, I may be ordering another to cylinder. I enjoy your pics, a 632 uc is on the short list also I just need to quit spending on 1911 stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
Out of curiosity on the titanium cylinder, does it offer any advantage besides lower weight,on the J frames? Does it have offer less wear on the front of the cylinder compared to the standard factory option or with different ammo types? I have a few J frame 442 models myself and am interested in those cylinders for a 2 tone look.

No. If anything, there are disadvantages. The Titanium cylinder is more fragile and is susceptible to erosion if the coating is damaged, so you have to be careful when cleaning and can't use abrasives or harsh chemicals. There's also increased felt recoil with the lighter weight, and likely a higher susceptibility to inadvertent engagement of the internal lock.

It's the way to go if the primary goal is cutting weight, but I wouldn't do it for any other reason. If I could only have one I'd keep the 640Pro or the UC, but thankfully I'm not limited to one and can customize some towards specific roles.

quote:

Originally posted by 1KPerDay:

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
Has anybody else encountered this issue with a fixed-sight J-frame before? If so, how did you resolve it? Would a different load bring it down, and if so, what would you suggest?

Try some 130s, 125s, or 110s. Lighter bullets generally hit lower for me than 158s in my revolvers.

I sent my 340 back to S&W because they'd milled the topstrap incorrectly and it was hitting about 12-16" to the right of POA. They "adjusted the barrel" and it was "within spec" and now it only hits about 8" to the right. LOL

It's a crapshoot with fixed sights. If you can't find a load that hits where you want, you can try to modify the front sight. Me, I'd just remember that I have to hold low with that particular gun.

Thanks, I'll give that a try. 110s would be appropriate for this project, too, as they'd shave another fraction of an ounce off the carry weight . I remember reading your story about your 340...that sounded like a nightmare . Mine's less than 8" high, so I imagine they'd consider it to be "in spec" as well.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:

quote:

Originally posted by 1KPerDay:

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
Has anybody else encountered this issue with a fixed-sight J-frame before? If so, how did you resolve it? Would a different load bring it down, and if so, what would you suggest?

Try some 130s, 125s, or 110s. Lighter bullets generally hit lower for me than 158s in my revolvers.

I sent my 340 back to S&W because they'd milled the topstrap incorrectly and it was hitting about 12-16" to the right of POA. They "adjusted the barrel" and it was "within spec" and now it only hits about 8" to the right. LOL

It's a crapshoot with fixed sights. If you can't find a load that hits where you want, you can try to modify the front sight. Me, I'd just remember that I have to hold low with that particular gun.

Thanks, I'll give that a try. 110s would be appropriate for this project, too, as they'd shave another fraction of an ounce off the carry weight . I remember reading your story about your 340...that sounded like a nightmare . Mine's less than 8" high, so I imagine they'd consider it to be "in spec" as well.

I couldn’t say for sure but I’d much rather have it hitting high than being off for windage. With yours at least center mass shots will be neck/head at worst from what I can tell. I have to hold off to the left of a 2/3rds IDPA size torso at 18 yards to get hits. It’s pretty ridiculous. Let us know if the lighter pills help bring the POI down.

^ I definitely agree with you there. I'll give it a try and report back.

Thanks, I appreciate the info..

Removing the "lock" is pretty simple. There are (or were) some youtube videos on how to "not" do it & there is a guy that makes plugs to fill the hole. inexpensive but very high quality. I've done it on 5 of my S&W revolvers.

quote:

Originally posted by Delta-3:
Removing the "lock" is pretty simple. There are (or were) some youtube videos on how to "not" do it & there is a guy that makes plugs to fill the hole. inexpensive but very high quality. I've done it on 5 of my S&W revolvers.

The plugs will fill the lock cylinder hole. They don't address the smaller hole behind it on the J-Frames for the flag pivot. That hole doesn't come through to the outside on the K,L,and N frames, but it does on the Js because they are thinner.

What am I missing. I have had a 340 PD for many years and I purchased the plug and took the lock out several years ago. On my 340, I see the location of the small hole you are referring to but mine is filled and looks just like the plugged key hole, only smaller. I vaguely remember maybe cutting off part of the flag and leaving it in to keep that hole filled, but getting old does strange things to the memory. Does that ring a bell with anyone? Anyway, on my 340 the lock is removed and both of the holes are filled. I'm sure that there is a relatively easy way to fill that small hole since I did it on my 340, I just don't remember how.

quote:

Originally posted by jimacp:
What am I missing. I have had a 340 PD for many years and I purchased the plug and took the lock out several years ago. On my 340, I see the location of the small hole you are referring to but mine is filled and looks just like the plugged key hole, only smaller. I vaguely remember maybe cutting off part of the flag and leaving it in to keep that hole filled, but getting old does strange things to the memory. Does that ring a bell with anyone? Anyway, on my 340 the lock is removed and both of the holes are filled. I'm sure that there is a relatively easy way to fill that small hole since I did it on my 340, I just don't remember how.

If you left the flag in (in full or in part), it would fill the small hole. I did consider cutting up the flag and putting the stub back in, and I may do that once I am confident that this gun is working to my satisfaction and I'm sure I won't be selling it.

I acquired and loaded up some 125gr and 110gr XTPs this week, and am hoping to shoot them tomorrow to see how they correspond to the sights.

The 642 and the 642UC got flipped around in the middle target photo.

quote:

Originally posted by Excam_Man:
The 642 and the 642UC got flipped around in the middle target photo.

Good eye! That was just the photo, though....they were shot in the correct order.

Got out today with some 125s and 110s. I loaded up 10 rounds in 3 spearate power levels for each load (started at the bottom of the .38 Spcl load level, the top of the +P level, and one in between). Apart from a number of shots that I can only blame on myself (cut me some slack, it's a J-frame with trench sights at 10 yards!), the 125s were what I'd call acceptable for elevation (especially when compared to the 148s and 158s on the targets above), and the 110s are pretty much dead on.

I guess it's gonna be a diet of lightweight bullets for this Airweight!

Sweet!

Went back out with the chronograph today with 10 of the 110gr XTPs over some Unique, as well as another load over Power Pistol. Looks like the Power Pistol load is the keeper. It was more consistent than the Unique load and averaged 941 fps. It would have held the X-Ring at 10 yards, too, if I hadn't shanked a couple. Point of aim was dead center on the X.

Looks great. I assume the PP load is pretty blasty and flashy?