I cant make up my mind between the 442 performance center "chattanooga" model or the 642 performance center "talo" model with the plastic wood insert grips.

They both do not use the ILS
both have SS cylinders and aluminum frames
both have PC tuned actions

So I think the only difference is the black finish on the 442. Is that the only difference between them and if it is..How does the black finish hold up with ccw vs the stainless look of the 642.

Thanks in advance and let me know if i missed anything that will help me decide which j frame to get.

If you can handle both first pick which one has the best trigger to you between the two examples.
They differences are really what color so which color do you like better?
As far as the finish on the aluminum if you truly use it as a carry piece they will both show wear.
They are for all practical purposes mechanically the same so if you can handle first I'd just get whatever speaks to you.

__________________
Straight shootin'
SWCA#2439

Read on other posts that the black does not hold up very well and that those who opted for the black wished they went with the stainless because of its ability to better hold up.

Truth is, neither finish is super durable. My experience is that the 442 finish stays looking good a bit longer than the 642. YMMV

442 conceals better. 642 sights are easier to see in low light. Six of one. Half dozen of another.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

Here is a thread about the Talo Performance Center 642
Anyone Here Own the Talo Exclusive 642?

I have a PC642 it has replaced my Model 640pro for concealed carry. I am not too worried about the durability of the finish as long as the pistol functions every time.

I vote 642 of your choices.
I carry the M&P340, love it, but don't wanna scratch it.

__________________
Some assembly required..

THANKS for the replies guys. My problem is i cant find performance center models in my area,just the standard models so i wont be able to handle and will be ordering on the internet. I wish i could try trigger before purchase but not possible. Hopefully trigger is uniformly good on both models.

Carry guns get dinged for sure.

Attached Images

	IMG_9917.jpg (56.1 KB, 80 views)
	IMG_9916.jpg (64.8 KB, 93 views)

__________________
Straight shootin'
SWCA#2439

I own 2 of the Chattanooga 442PC models, and frankly, have been less than impressed. The DA on one was stagey and died on the firing line. My gunsmith corrected this by smoothing the bottom of the recoil spring guide. Also, the sideplate screws loosen when firing and require some form of Loc-tite. The 2nd Chattanooga is merely OK.

I would examine the 642 for the more obvious flaws and go with this model. Be advised there are several 642 variants and I believe even the plant has trouble distinguishing between them.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

P.S. Why can't the LGSs in your area order a PC gun for you? My LGS owner sits at his computer most of the day looking for mdse customers request that he doesn't have in stock.

Have you shot any of these lightweight J frames before? I have the shrouded hammer 638, and std 38 specials get old in a hurry.

I got a 640 Pro late last year, and I love it. I now carry it owb and iwb instead of my M&P Shield 40. They weigh about the same.

Depending on how you intend to carry it, the added weigh of the 640 may be negligible as it is for me. The 640 gives me a more durable finish, much more fun at the range, and the option to shoot 357.

Here is how the black finish has held up on this 340PD. Been pocket carried for about 5 years.

__________________
Where's my froggy?

for what it is worth... I have a 642 nl and a 640 no dash and really prefere the 640... just my thoughts on the matter.

I just picked up one of the Chattanooga 442's last month and am extremely happy with. Extremely nice smooth trigger that I can stage perfectly when I want to, plus I think it looks awesome. I've got about 300 rounds through it so far. Maybe I've been lucky and got a good one, knock on wood. But that Talo 642 was on my list also before I bought the 442. I wanted something light to carry in my pocket. Tough choice.

Either will be fine. Looking at both models I prefer the "talo" model but that is just me. Both will mark up but your gun is a tool. Use marks are classy.
Any S&W trigger can be smoothed with very little effort on the owners part. Now days a PC gun still needs minor work. I have a bunch of PC and factory guns and all of them needed some trigger help. Lot's of videos to help with your schooling.

Have fun and don't worry. You can't really make a mistake.

BTW, I wouldn't choose the gun based on grips. Most likely you will buy something else anyway.

Between those two I'd take the 642...but if it were up to me I'd take an all-steel model any day...or even one of the older airweights e.g. a model 37.

Just my 2 cents

Thanks for the replies guys. And nice pics of worn j frames. I think it gives them good character. I'm leaning towards the talo 642 PC but I will take a look at the 640 and the 340 MP. Is the 340 MP same black finish as the Chattanooga model? Also for you guys with the 357 J frames are they the same size as the 38 models or slightly bigger?

I don't know where you heard that - I have heard the opposite, that the 642 finish was more wear susceptible.

I have a 442- early 1990's vintage, and a 38-2 from 1998, both in the matte black finish, both are in excellent shape, no more holster wear than a blue gun in a properly fitted holster.

BTW, I'm talking about air weights here, when you refer to a 642 as stainless, it is an air weight, with a stainless barrel and cylinder. A true stainless (all stainless steel construction) is obviously more durable.

__________________
Tony

I have them both. Bought one for wife, an got the 642 for me. They both are nice. I hated the clip grip on her 442, had a pair for her anyways, but that clip one is not for me. Cant go wrong with either, 642 is pricier, but for me I would grab the 642.

I can tell you first hand after about 8'years of on/off pocket carry in a soft pocket holster, the finish on my 642 was peeling off in many spots.

Based on my experience with my 637 I would get then 642. The protective finish has held up well on the 637 and it's a 2011 model, carried regularly and shot every time I go to the range. YMMV.