I have a 642 about 3 years old. Apparently I clean to hard. The finish on the frame around and near the forcing cone has been "cleaned off"
Wondering if S&W will refinish this gun or if it is worthwhile to even mess with it. I may also check with a LGS that still does hot blueing and Parkerizing, to see if that may be the way to go. I actually prefer the factory finish on the 442's.
What say the experts on this forum?
I do plan to call S&W on Wednesday to see what they say.

My 642 is stainless.

It would help if you could post a picture of what you're seeing. Are you talking about the alloy frame or the barrel extension into the cylinder window, i.e. the forcing cone? I ask because the 642 doesn't have a barrel shroud.

S&W usually says the finish on the alloy frame is only warrantied for 1 year. People have had mixed results getting S&W to re-finish their guns under warranty.

Also, it's generally recommended to avoid cleaners with ammonia in them, like Hoppes No. 9, so you may want to check the ingredients list of any cleaners you use.

My first 642-1 had really bad finish wear on the alloy frame, but it didn't affect function so I just ignored it.

If it's the alloy frame, it can't be blued or parkerized, but there are other finishes that can be applied, like Cerakote, Cerahide, etc.

Not the frame.

Just sent one back for refinishing.....whatever the coating is on the frame had begun to flake off, and the unprotected alloy had started to oxidize. Primarily inder the grips.

__________________
Ret. LE, FA Instr, S&W Armorer

Hi:
The Model 642 finish has a clear coat over it. This issue with the finish start with black freckles (small black spots) as the clear coat begins to peel. S&W has replaced two Model 642s for me in the past with new replacement revolvers. My wife and daughter both CCW Model 642s. I haven't checked the finish on both revolvers lately, but since this post, I will now

The 642 finish debate lingers on. It's a clear over the aluminum frame, and doesn't hold up very well when carried in a pocket or purse everyday. Smith doesn't always fix the issue when it happens either. Luck of the draw it seems. I decided to go a different route with mine, and haven't looked back.

__________________
1st smiles,lies.Last,gunfire.

I like the route you took , looks good and I have one that needs to make the trip...please outline proceedure .
Gary

I bought a 642 that looked like it had been carried in a tool box with loose tools over very rough roads for a good long while and then tied on a cord and towed down the asphalt for several miles. Function and mechanical condition was good. I got it for cheap because it looked so bad. Took it home and it works and shoots well. Can't see the looks when holstered. I like carrying it. IF I shoot a predator with it (and I hope I never have to!), I hope he is further antagonized because I shot him with such an ugly gun!

The finish on these revolvers is terrible, but they work, in my experience. I love nice looking guns, but I like guns that work for what I need them for even better. And I especially like cheap guns that work!! Bottom line is that I don't have to worry about putting any blemishes on this one. I keep it well maintained and use it totally without concern about it's looks! Far as I can tell, this is a good thing (for me!).

__________________
So long ... Ken

Yep.....and you won't necessarily miss it when it's in some jurisdiction's evidence room for years either.

__________________
Ret. LE, FA Instr, S&W Armorer

Not all of it . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Just posted pics. I mis-spoke, it is the frame not barrel shroud. I was thinking of a different gun.
Frame is alloy with a coating of some type. My 442 is the same frame with a black coating and it has not worn off.
Called Smith today. Person on the phone was not very knowledgeable regarding models. He did say he would send me a shipping label to return to Smith for inspection and determination.
FWIW, I had a Chiefs special, nickel plated that I bought in about 1980
When I sold it around 1998 or 99, the finish still looked very good in spite of being cleaned with Hopps #9 and being carried every day during that time in an ankle holster.

Absolute same for me....

Hopefully S&W will take care of you.

The only reason I don't go for the 442 is the carbon steel that could rust if one doesn't stay on top of preventive maintenance. I'd rather have the stainless steel barrel/cylinder/etc. and a bad alloy finish.

Of course, S&W could solve this issue by going back to anodized frames like their no-dash 642s from the 90s. But that's just my opinion, for what it's worth.

I had a 642 and the clear finish over the aluminum frame flaked off.
I am very meticulous with my firearms.
S&W did nothing for me when I called & brought it to there attention.
Its the worse finish I have ever seen on a firearm.

What and where did you have it done? (thanks)