Smith & Wesson Forum

Advertise With Us Search
Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson Revolvers > S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present

Notices

S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present All NON-PINNED Barrels, the L-Frames, and the New Era Revolvers


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-08-2015, 08:37 PM
DUNTOV DUNTOV is offline
Member
Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames  
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: IOWA
Posts: 555
Likes: 6
Liked 64 Times in 34 Posts
Default Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames

Are these current model alloy frames the same size as the steel .357 J frames? And are the .38 J cylinders the same length as the .357 cylinders?

thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-08-2015, 09:34 PM
kaaskop49 kaaskop49 is offline
Member
Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames  
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Demon-class planet
Posts: 7,403
Likes: 29,169
Liked 8,461 Times in 3,772 Posts
Default

Cylinders are same length in both caliber guns. I don't have any measuring instruments handy, but the .357 J-frame is slightly bulked up over that of my 637, especially at the point where the bbl enters the frame. Also, the top strap is thicker/higher. The bbl is longer in the Mag: 2.125" vs 1.875" on the 637 (and the other .38 cal. Js you cite. The Mag bbl is also thicker.

My eyes are not good enough to tell, but the crane/yoke may also be slightly more built up, but I may be incorrect. I was amazed to learn from reading SCSW, that altho the model 10 and Model 19 are both K-frames, the frame of the .357 K model is slightly longer. Best I can do.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #3  
Old 08-09-2015, 10:18 AM
DUNTOV DUNTOV is offline
Member
Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames  
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: IOWA
Posts: 555
Likes: 6
Liked 64 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaaskop49 View Post
Cylinders are same length in both caliber guns. I don't have any measuring instruments handy, but the .357 J-frame is slightly bulked up over that of my 637, especially at the point where the bbl enters the frame. Also, the top strap is thicker/higher. The bbl is longer in the Mag: 2.125" vs 1.875" on the 637 (and the other .38 cal. Js you cite. The Mag bbl is also thicker.

My eyes are not good enough to tell, but the crane/yoke may also be slightly more built up, but I may be incorrect. I was amazed to learn from reading SCSW, that altho the model 10 and Model 19 are both K-frames, the frame of the .357 K model is slightly longer. Best I can do.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103
thank you--
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #4  
Old 08-09-2015, 10:28 AM
wesnellans's Avatar
wesnellans wesnellans is offline
Member
Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames  
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Indiana
Posts: 69
Likes: 26
Liked 79 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaaskop49 View Post
Cylinders are same length in both caliber guns. I don't have any measuring instruments handy, but the .357 J-frame is slightly bulked up over that of my 637, especially at the point where the bbl enters the frame. Also, the top strap is thicker/higher. The bbl is longer in the Mag: 2.125" vs 1.875" on the 637 (and the other .38 cal. Js you cite. The Mag bbl is also thicker.

My eyes are not good enough to tell, but the crane/yoke may also be slightly more built up, but I may be incorrect. I was amazed to learn from reading SCSW, that altho the model 10 and Model 19 are both K-frames, the frame of the .357 K model is slightly longer. Best I can do.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103
Carrying this a bit further, I compared my 1992 60-7 to my 2014 642, and found that the reason my 60 was loose in my holster that fit my 642 great was that not only was the cylinder slightly longer in the newer gun but the frame was substantially thicker at the topstrap in both width and height above the cylinder.

So, you'll even find some holsters don't work the way they ought between "generational" differences.
__________________
Yep. I'm THAT guy. ;)
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #5  
Old 08-09-2015, 11:38 AM
kaaskop49 kaaskop49 is offline
Member
Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames  
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Demon-class planet
Posts: 7,403
Likes: 29,169
Liked 8,461 Times in 3,772 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wesnellans View Post
Carrying this a bit further, I compared my 1992 60-7 to my 2014 642, and found that the reason my 60 was loose in my holster that fit my 642 great was that not only was the cylinder slightly longer in the newer gun but the frame was substantially thicker at the topstrap in both width and height above the cylinder.

So, you'll even find some holsters don't work the way they ought between "generational" differences.
Great post! I'm on my way out the door so I have to check that later for my own information. I can attest to the fact that the top strap on my early model fly-weight 360Sc is MUCH thicker than that of my other Js. Poster 'wesnellans' is absolutely correct on the holster-fit issue, one of the reasons I use the suede pouch IWB jobs.

Also, even though the guns we're describing are all RB-Js, there can be a grip-fit issue. The old Bianchi "Bodyguard-style" rubber grip will NOT fit on my 360: there are frame variations near the hammer that differ from .38 Js.

Thank you, wesnellans!

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #6  
Old 05-18-2016, 09:38 PM
ar15newbie57 ar15newbie57 is offline
Member
Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 33
Likes: 8
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Can anyone tell me the cylinder width of a 442 or 642 revolver? When I retire, I plan to move from CA to AZ and will carry concealed. (Wish it was tomorrow!) I like the simple operation and classic reliability of a revolver for a tense situation, but I am wondering about the width of a wheel gun versus something like an M&P Shield. I am admittedly chubby, and would carry either in pocket holster or IWB, just front of the right pocket.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-18-2016, 09:54 PM
L-2's Avatar
L-2 L-2 is offline
Member
Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames Current J frame 442/642/637/638 frames  
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nevada
Posts: 503
Likes: 787
Liked 289 Times in 149 Posts
Default

For Post #6, I measured the cylinder width of my 642 at ~1.306".
__________________
66/642/640/627/586/60/638/686

Last edited by L-2; 05-18-2016 at 09:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Current & Recent K-Frames Alpha_Mutt S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 11 10-15-2011 10:07 AM
WITHDRAWN: grips (current J frames) DUNTOV WANTED to Buy 3 04-13-2011 09:42 PM
Any current 3" J-Frames?? Natty Bumpo S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 5 06-28-2010 05:20 PM
Why no current Airweight K frames? chp S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 12 04-13-2010 01:20 PM
Early round butt frame same as current? dbarale S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961 6 01-06-2008 02:56 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:20 AM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)