60 years doesn't improve perfection much

T

trigger643

New member
Designed to be one thing -- a reliable, easily concealable, rapidly retrievable defensive weapon capable of delivering accurate lethal force within the confines of the average defensive shooting distance...

1952 Centennial, SER# 38xx (first year of production)
2012 340PD circa 2012

 
C

chewie146

New member
Now, I know the grip safety isn't exactly necessary on a DA revolver, but does anyone know why they discontinued it? Is it simply to simplify production or was there a reliability issue?
 
B

BigG

New member
The grip safety while neat is a unnecessary complication on a DAO revo with a heavy trigger pull.
 
O

Obambulate

New member
I believe it was originally marketed as the ultimate in handgun safety, that even if something caught on the trigger the gun would not fire without also having steady pressure on the backstrap. You have to admit, it is quite safe.
 
T

trigger643

New member
The Centennial has a small pin stored under the grip provided by S&W to pin the safety into the off position.

The 340pd is just plan and simple a puta to shoot. I don't care who you are, there is no fun with this little 11 ounce .357 magnum (weight/energy ratio is the highest for a production handgun, or at least it was when it was introduced).

I've been carrying j frames for nearly 30 years, starting with a model 40, then 49, then my first 340pd for about the last 10 years, before acquiring this one.

The 340pd goes to the range once a year and gets 5 rounds fired. Regular practice is done with an all steel gun, either a model 40, 49 or occasionally my night stand gun, a 638, also equipped with CT grips.

These guns do what they were designed to do. If I ask more of them, I'm wasting my time and ammunition.
 
C

Colt46

New member
There is nothing new under the sun

You could make a case for the Ruger LCR to be surpassing the 60 year old design, but they are hideous(despite their high esteem).
The firearms community can be really conservative in what they want.
Caseless ammo comes to mind.
 
D

dahermit

New member
I believe it was originally marketed as the ultimate in handgun safety, that even if something caught on the trigger the gun would not fire without also having steady pressure on the backstrap. You have to admit, it is quite safe.
Click to expand...
I have never heard of a problem with j-frame snubbies firing because of catching the trigger on something. It strikes me that to put a grip safety on a snubbie because it could happen, is like carrying a lightning rod around with one because lightning could strike a person. In short, if that is what they were thinking, it is the proverbial, ingenious solution to a non-existent problem.
Safe yes, but a safety as there are on autos would make it safer still, but who would want one on their revolver?
That said, I would buy one of the Centennials just for the heck of it...kind of like the looks of it.
 
J

jhvaughan2

New member
I have never heard of a problem with j-frame snubbies firing because of catching the trigger on something. It strikes me that to put a grip safety on a snubbie because it could happen,
Click to expand...

Easy to say now with 20/20 hind site but we must remember that when the centennial came out S&W had not had a true "pocket" revolver in ~40 years. Hammerless revolvers were truly meant for the pocket, while the Chief's Special was meant for a holster. I suppose it was just assumed that a true pocket revolver would need some extra protection from other stuff in the pocket, like they thought 60 years before.

Obviously it proved to be un-true. The grip safety did not last long.

BTW I've never understood safeties on DA autos. But you'll find them there too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top