Could someone please tell me if there is any difference between the black finish on the 442 or the "stainless" finish on the 642 as far as durability is concerned?

I had a 642 before, and had no problems with wear on the finish from normal pocket or holster carry, shooting, or cleaning. A LGS has a couple of 442's in his case, and I was wondering if the darker finish will wear more noticeably.

Thanks.

My 642 was sent back twice for finish flaking off. I had a seperate cleaning kit and only used rem oil as per the instructions. Don't really consider rem oil a cleaner though hope they've gotten better. For such a quality company like s&w to put such a fragile finish on their product is inexcusable

I have a 442, and the black finish wears well, except when the gun is mistreated, like dropping it on concrete. Since the Aluminum underneath is relatively soft, it gouges when stainless won't. When that happens, the finish is gone, and it doesn't really matter what the finish was, it is just gone. With black on Aluminum, it really shows when this happens.
OK, I will tell. I had left my 442 in my truck while in the Post Office, as per Federal regulations. Without making any comments about how stupid these laws are, well, maybe I just did, I returned and re-holstered in my pocket holster while sitting down in the truck. The only alternative is to do so while standing outside, and that is not very discrete. Anyhow, apparently, I didn't get the gun seated well in the holster and when I made my next stop, I got out of the truck and the revolver liberated itself from my pocket and landed at my feet. I was all over it in about a half a second but the damage was done. The 442 still functions fine.

Best,
Rick

Thanks for the replies. So the finishes of both the 642 and 442, when exposed to "wear and tear" are pretty much equal?

And so the appearance of the 442, when the finish is damaged, will look worse than on the 642 mainly because the 642's underlying metal is closer in appearance to the paint (or whatever) coating is on the metal?

I wonder what Ruger puts on their LCR's plastic/aluminum parts?

And kbm6893, can I ask how long you owned your 642 before the finish flaking-off started? I've got a late model model 60 that weighs about 25-1/2 oz loaded, and for pocket carry it's just a little too heavy...the 7oz difference in weight is pretty noticeable in a pocket.

The finish on the 642 is like a clear lacquer. It started to come off mine right off the bat. I removed the rest of the finish by spraying it with Gunscrubber (it bubbles it right up and off) and some elbow grease. It now has kind of a matte, bare aluminum finish.

My 642 started to wear after about 3 months. I read here where people sent them back to be refinished, but I didn't want to deal with that. I sold it and bought a Ruger SP101. The 642 was one of the few Smith products I didn't really like.

My 642 is a decade old, carried quite a bit, and it's finish is still near perfect. I occassionally add a coat of Johnson's wax to the finish for proctection. I figure the wax has to wear away before the finish does. So far, so good. I don't find this any more work (actually much less) than oiling a blued gun.

My 442 had some flaking on the barrel within a few months of carry it. My gun smith said it gives it character. Not worth the lost time with it to send it in.

__________________
686-4 442-1

I have a 442 that I've owned since the '90s, shows a little holster wear on the usual spots, barrel edges, frame corners, etc.

Overall, the black finish seems to stand up better than real bluing. You realize of course that is a matte finish?

Same thing here, other than a little holster wear, the finish on my daily carry 442 is holding up just fine.

I have EDC'd my 442 for a couple years now, in an Uncle Mikes pocket holster. There is a little wear on the high points and sharp edges. No flaking though.

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

This question comes up a lot and I never know quite know how to answer...

If you take efforts to protect either one of them, they will look as good as new other than a bit of edge wear and there is nothing you can do to prevent that. Carry guns will eventually look like guns that have been... we'll... carried.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

This one has been carried daily for several years in a pocket or holster. Finish wear is normal for the use given.
Bob

Any chance of seeing a picture or two, sir?

We have a 638-3 and a 642-1, both with the same metallic gray painted finish. The 638-3 has a couple of places on the back strap that probably got bumped by some clumsy guy (that would be me ) going in and out of a small safe.

Someday, I would like to refinish that puppy. Removing the original finish and leaving the aluminum bare might be an option. Hence my selfish request for a picture, please.

I have a 642, purchased new, that has been carried quite a bit over the past approx. three years. It has that grey metallic looking finish that's probably anodizing, but looks like paint with a clear coat over it. The aluminum frame does show some little areas where it appears the finish has been worn or chipped off. I don't get the impression that the finish is a very durable one. That's OK with me because the 642 is several ounces lighter than my old 640, and I consider this gun to be one that is carried a lot, but only shot a little. I suspect the black finish on the 442s is similar in durability, but would show the wear more as the finish wore or chipped through to the base metal. I much prefer stainless guns in general, whether compact or full sized, but there's no getting around the fact that the alloy framed guns are substantially lighter...ymmv

__________________
NRA Life, COTEP 640

There are a few of us out here who's 642's finish is, well, defective. I know this for sure because on one side when I would rub my thumbnail against it flaked off. The other side seems to be able to wear like an "acceptable" clearcoat. Personally I think the clearcoat style finish is inadequate for a cc gun. That said I have talked with S&W and they gave me the neccessary info for warranty repair but I still have not sent it in because it still does everything I wanted it to do and I don't want to be without it even though I have another cc gun. By the way, I purchased mine a little over a year ago and from my research the bulk of the negative comments I have seen regarding this issue are for more recently made 642's, Rick.

__________________
MCRGO member

Sorry for the bad pic, but here is my 442 and its blemishes:

__________________
686-4 442-1

A fellow Deputies back-up 442 got ran through the ultrasonic machine at work a couple years ago. This is the same machine that we use to clean our duty Sigs. The finish almost completely came off the Smith. I would be careful with the finish on these guns.