642 vs 340 pd vs Ruger LCR

I have Ruger LCR I bought recently. I needed something very light because I carry the gun when running. The first time I fired the LCR I had a lot of pain in my hand, I thought from the recoil. Yesterday, almost 2 weeks later, I went to the range again and it was still pretty bad.

I was able to try a S&W 340PD at the same time and the recoil did not bother me anywhere near the LCR. It seems the stock grips on the LCR are just too big for me and the base of my thumb is being hit. I was not able to try the gun before purchasing but it felt fine at the time. I'm considering selling it and getting a 642 with the CT grips.

Can anyone tell me if the recoil with the 642 is comparable to the 340 and if the frame size is the same? I'm hesitant to buy the CT grips for the LCR and find that it is still too big, the frame is wider than the 340 so even with the CT it still might not fit my hand as well. Unfortunately since it is so new, there are no aftermarket grips yet. Someone I know is trying to find me a 642 to try before I decide to buy it but I thought I'd check here. TIA.

chele519 said:

I have Ruger LCR I bought recently. I needed something very light because I carry the gun when running. The first time I fired the LCR I had a lot of pain in my hand, I thought from the recoil. Yesterday, almost 2 weeks later, I went to the range again and it was still pretty bad.

I was able to try a S&W 340PD at the same time and the recoil did not bother me anywhere near the LCR. It seems the stock grips on the LCR are just too big for me and the base of my thumb is being hit. I was not able to try the gun before purchasing but it felt fine at the time. I'm considering selling it and getting a 642 with the CT grips.

Can anyone tell me if the recoil with the 642 is comparable to the 340 and if the frame size is the same? I'm hesitant to buy the CT grips for the LCR and find that it is still too big, the frame is wider than the 340 so even with the CT it still might not fit my hand as well. Unfortunately since it is so new, there are no aftermarket grips yet. Someone I know is trying to find me a 642 to try before I decide to buy it but I thought I'd check here. TIA.

Click to expand...

I find the stock grips on the LCR provide much more comfortable recoil than any grips I've found on the 442/642. The wider LCR grips with the special foam (Sorbothane) insert in the web area soak up the recoil for me. It's my understanding that Hogue or Ruger used special software to analyze the ergonomics of many hands to design the Hogue Tamer grips. (I've purchased the same type of Tamer grips from S&W for my hard recoiling N frame revolvers. Those grips are stock on the S&W 500 Magnum and they fit the N frames too.)

From what I've read, the LCR Crimson Trace grips are hard plastic and don't provide near the recoil absorbtion that the Hogues do. Maybe if they're narrower, they may be better for you. I'm not doubting your findings but your the first person, I've heard that complained of more felt recoil form the Hogues. I have heard that some find the grips a little wide for their hand but in most cases, wider is better as it spreads the area of contact out. (I'm not financially linked to Hogue or Ruger in any way but I do currently own three LCRs and I think the grips are great *for me*. YMMV of course.)

The 340 I tried was the scandium which is even lighter than the LCR, so going just by weight the recoil should be more. It had the CT grips too. I'm female so maybe my hands are smaller than average, I don't know. The LCR hurt from the first round, I fired 5, 2 148 gr wadcutters, 2 158 gr ammo I had from the range, and 1 +P. The person I was with then put the same ammo in his 340 and it did not bother me at all, even the +p. The area where I have pain is at the joint of the thumb closest to the hand and as it spreads out toward the tip it is less. My only explanation is that the wider grips are hitting the inside of my thumb.

I do know that the LCR CT grips do not have the cushioning that the 340 CT grips do and that's another reason I'm hesitating on getting them for the LCR. My hesitation on the 642 is reading about the internal lock and reports of some failures. I haven't had time to do more research on it yet so I don't know how much of an issue it is. Obviously if I could find one without the lock, that would be my preference but I can't find one anywhere.

I'll first say I haven't tried the Ruger LCR YET!!
The Grip of the LCR looks to be a Hogue that is very well designed & being they use the grip tang similar to the SP101/GP100 that Ruger found by looking at Dan Wessons, It may just be your hands as I've also had alot od trouble finding the perfect grips for my S&W J Frames as I have a bend pinkey.. Craig Spegel grips are the best for my Hands.
I would seek out either a different grip for the LCR or jump into a 340/342/642/442 as they are the premium concealed carry revolvers in the lightweight class..
I found a 342Ti easier to pocket carry than a 642 even though there's only a few ounces difference in weight but eventualy sold off the 342 when times were tough, They still are BTW, But kept the 642 No Dash/Pre Lock as my primary concealed carry piece & still have a 940, 547, & 686
I found the recoil of the AirLite to be more than the AirWeight with the same grips & loads, That extra 2-3 ozs realy helps in the recoil department IMO..
It does sound like you need a different grip for the LCR..
I also wonder why Ruger went with a different grip frame than the one they already had the SP101??
I used to have several Ruger SP101s but eventualy sold or traded them & now only have a 10/22 Ruger..
Good Luck with your Choice..
Gary/Hk

Unfortunately right now, the only other grips for the LCR are the crimson trace. They don't have any cushioning like the CT for the 642 and since the frame of the LCR is wider than the 340 and maybe the 642, even with those it still may be too big. I did call Ruger this morning to see if any of their other models had grips that would work on the LCR but no, I would have to wait until someone made some aftermarket ones.

If i could find a 642 w/out lock that would be great. I probably will still end up getting it, even with the lock, once I've actually tried it and if it feels the same as the 340.

Have you considered a snubby J-frame?
Fairly light and nice grips. You may not be able to shoot +P safely from one, but close up I don't believe they're *really* necessary.

The 642 is a J frame, isn't it? I'm also going to look at the 442, it appears from the S&W website to be exactly the same as the 642 and 340 except it is all alloy and no stainless. I'd prefer the black over the stainless anyway.

DeadAye said:

Have you considered a snubby J-frame?
Fairly light and nice grips. You may not be able to shoot +P safely from one, but close up I don't believe they're *really* necessary.

Click to expand...

chele519 said:

The 642 is a J frame, isn't it? I'm also going to look at the 442...

Click to expand...

You're correct; the 642 is a J-frame, as are all the other S&W's you mentioned. Both the 442 and 642 should have less felt recoil than the 340 or the LCR, and you should easily be able to find a grip that will fit your hand perfectly. That's one big advantage of the tried-and-true J-frame: it's been around so long that there are a multitude of aftermarket grips available, in every size, style and material--large or small, boot grip or finger-groove combat, wood or rubber, etc.

The 442 is a great little revolver, and I highly recommend it--it's the gun I carry most often. As you noted, it's exactly the same size and weight as the 642, and it has the black finish that I also prefer. The carbon steel of the 442's cylinder might be more prone to rust if you live in an area with high humidity (only the frame itself is aluminum alloy) but that may not be a concern if you take good care of it and wipe it down daily. I've never had even a hint of rust on my 442. Also, you can still get a 442 without the internal lock--check GunBroker.com if your local dealer doesn't have any.

I'm not sure why that other poster said "you may not be able to shoot +P safely" from a J-frame. The current production 442 and 642 are both factory-rated for +P ammo, and the 340 is even chambered for .357 magnum! With that said, however, I found that I shoot more accurately, with faster follow-up shots, when I use a standard pressure round. The recently-reintroduced Federal 125gr Nyclad hollowpoint is my first choice, with a 148gr wadcutter a close second.

The CT grips are the same for the 340, 442, and 642 so since I tried the 340 with those, I would just get those anyway. They felt great and fit my hand much better. Only time we have high humidity is July/Aug so I think it would be fine. I'd be running with it on summer mornings when the humidity is up there but it's not a problem to wipe it down once I'm done. I did shoot +P thru the 340 on Sunday and the recoil with that still was less than with wadcutters on the LCR. It is just the fit that is causing me the problem.

I looked on gunbroker this morning for a 442 without the internal lock but didn't see any that specifically mentioned it and I assume that would be a big selling point. If I can't find one, do you recommend against buying it? I've read blogs, posts, etc and I'm not sure how worried I should be about it.

DC7 said:

You're correct; the 642 is a J-frame, as are all the other S&W's you mentioned. Both the 442 and 642 should have less felt recoil than the 340 or the LCR, and you should easily be able to find a grip that will fit your hand perfectly. That's one advantage of going to the tried-and-true J-frame: it's been around so long that there are a multitude of aftermarket grips available, in every size, style and material--large or small, boot grip or finger-groove combat, wood or rubber, etc.

The 442 is a great little revolver, and I highly recommend it--it's the gun I carry most often. As you noted, it's exactly the same size and weight as the 642, and it has the black finish that I also prefer. The carbon steel of the 442's cylinder might be more prone to rust if you live in an area with high humidity (only the frame itself is aluminum alloy) but that may not be a concern if you take good care of it and wipe it down daily. I've never had even a hint of rust on my 442. Also, you can still get a 442 without the internal lock--check GunBroker.com if your local dealer doesn't have any.

I'm not sure why that other poster suggested you "may not be able to shoot +P safely" from a J-frame. The current production 442 and 642 are both factory-rated for +P ammo, and the 340 is even chambered for .357 magnum!

Click to expand...

chele519 said:

I looked on gunbroker this morning for a 442 without the internal lock but didn't see any that specifically mentioned it and I assume that would be a big selling point. If I can't find one, do you recommend against buying it? I've read blogs, posts, etc and I'm not sure how worried I should be about it.

Click to expand...

Others may feel differently, but I refuse to carry a revolver with the internal lock. It may be a somewhat rare event, but there have been many documented incidents of the lock engaging on its own, rendering the gun useless until it's unlocked. I'm not willing to take that chance with my carry gun, especially when no-lock guns are so readily available.

When you're searching GunBroker, type the words 442 no lock into the search box (without parentheses, to get the most results) and you should find at least four currently for sale. One is actually a mid-90's no-dash version, a true pre-lock like the one I carry, while the others are the recent 442-2's built without the lock.

Here's my 442. Although not shown here, I now use CT lasergrips on all my J-frames:

Well..... I sure feel as dumb as a rock this morning

I meant to type early J frame -

But, as for part B; A long time ago I had a model 36 and a box of +P at a range. An *expert* told me (rather forcefully) that I was risking blowing up my gun & hand with the +Ps and, in fact, should NEVER shoot them in ANY J frame S&W.... And, like a dumb sheep, I've believed this ever since. (I also went out and got a 10-5 that I still have )
Anyway ----- THANK YOU ALL for the correction and I honestly did not mean to spread misinformation. My sincere apologies!

I think I see a rock over there that I can fit under

Thanks for that. I found them. I'm nervous about buying a used gun online like that but the price is right. It looks fine to me in the pictures but do you have any idea what S&W does about warranties on used guns? The benefit to that item is that he does accept credit cards so I think there would be some recourse in the event it does not work. Everyone I have talked to around here says that the lock is not a problem, even a police firearms instructor that is a ffl. I called someone at the trading post in the next state. He also said he has never heard of a problem but that he doesn't like the lock. I asked if he could buy one without would he pay extra and he said absolutely. So, I just have to see if I can get someone I know to look at these pictures and help me. Our local police chief is coming by the office today to show me his 342 so maybe he can take a look.

DC7 said:

Others may feel differently, but I refuse to carry a revolver with the internal lock. It may be a somewhat rare event, but there have been many documented incidents of the lock engaging on its own, rendering the gun useless until it's unlocked. I'm not willing to take that chance with my carry gun, especially when no-lock guns are so readily available.

When you're searching GunBroker, type the words 442 no lock into the search box (without parentheses, to get the most results) and you should find at least four currently for sale. One is actually a mid-90's no-dash version, a true pre-lock like the one I carry, while the others are the recent 442-2's built without the lock.

Here's my 442. Although not shown here, I now use CT lasergrips on all my J-frames:

Click to expand...

chele519 said:

Thanks for that. I found them. I'm nervous about buying a used gun online like that but the price is right. It looks fine to me in the pictures but do you have any idea what S&W does about warranties on used guns? ...

Everyone I have talked to around here says that the lock is not a problem....

Click to expand...

It certainly is a leap of faith to buy a gun sight unseen, but I've done it many times and it's worked out OK all but once (more on that in a moment). GunBroker offers buyer protection against unscrupulous sellers, so it's probably one of the safer places to buy online.

One note about buying an Airweight S&W sight-unseen: Be sure to have the seller check for cracks in the frame right under the barrel/forcing cone. That's a flaw common to Airweights, caused not by shooting or misuse, but by a factory overtorque when S&W installed the barrel. The only time a GunBroker purchase didn't work out well for me was when I bought an older 442 on GunBroker advertised as still NIB, and it arrived looking like this:


Even though the gun was broken and unsafe to fire, the seller refused to make it right (no surprise, since it turned out he was a lowlife falsely representing himself as a police officer). So GunBroker gave me instructions on how to make a claim with them for a refund, less a deductible. Turned out it wasn't needed, however, because when I emailed S&W Customer Service the pic above, they sent me a prepaid shipping label to return the gun to the factory, and immediately offered to replace it with a brand-new 442 for free! They never even asked if I was the original owner. They really stood by their product--great customer service!

Regarding the lock issue: Most people who've never seen or heard of a lock failure probably have no worries about it. But here's a report from Michael Bane, host of a show on The Outdoor Channel, who actually caught the failure of the lock on camera when filming an episode of his show:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/92016-one-more-lock-thread-twist.html

It'll be interesting to see if that footage makes it on air. But that first-hand report from a trustworthy source confirmed to me once again that I made a good choice by buying only pre-lock revolvers.

One last note: Before buying online, you might want to check with your dealer to see if no-lock 442's are available from any distributor. I believe they were a limited run when they came out a few months ago, but there still could be some in the pipeline.

I have called all the dealers within 30 miles, probably 10-15 shops, on my lunch break. One guy just sold 3 recently and was going to check with his distributor to see if he could get another but everyone I talked to said they can't get any. I did find a few online in different spots and they are listed as NIB but I'm going to post a new thread and see if someone is familiar with the shop. The only problem with sending it back to S&W if there were a problem is that if they sent a new one out, it would be with the lock. That makes my paying extra for a no lock one pointless.

I spoke to someone at the same shop where I bought the LCR. They said that S&W was still making the 442 without the lock and they could order one. I'm skeptical that is what will actually come in but it's the only place locally I can find one.

The 642, as has been stated, is an all stainless-steel J-frame snub and it should be considerably more comfortable to shoot, assuming similar grips, than the 340PD. I have both a 640 and 340PD and assume the 642 is similar to the 640. The PD is far more brutal because it weighs about 1/2 what the steel guns do. Lots of different grips are available for J-frame Smiths.

dc7;
That is a REALLY nice picture of the 442.

My daily carry is the 642 with +P FBI load.

Dale53

Oops, in looking at the specs for the 642 I see that it is basically the same as the 442, has a steel barrel and cylinder, but an alloy frame, the main difference being that the 442 is blue and the 642 is white, and both are chambered for 38 Special +P. It weighs 15oz. whereas the 340PD weighs about 11.....empty weights. The all-steel guns like the 640 are heavier. They'll recoil less but are less pleasant to carry.

I had an old all steel one that I traded for the LCR. Like I said, what was so surprising is that the recoil on the 340pd did not bother me at all. And my hand even hurt from firing the LCR immediately before. I guess the slimmer frame really makes a big difference, at least for my hands.

Unfortunately, I'm not comfortable buying one without the lock online. I did talk to one place on the phone but when I look at their feedback, they only have 2 positive ratings out of 206 transactions. They only have 1 left and just closed for the night so I can always call in the am if I decide overnight. I still have one other place trying to see if they can find me one but if not, I will stick with the internal lock and do what others have done and remove the flag thing, if I feel like I can do it correctly.

MTKTM said:

Oops, in looking at the specs for the 642 I see that it is basically the same as the 442, has a steel barrel and cylinder, but an alloy frame, the main difference being that the 442 is blue and the 642 is white, and both are chambered for 38 Special +P. It weighs 15oz. whereas the 340PD weighs about 11.....empty weights. The all-steel guns like the 640 are heavier. They'll recoil less but are less pleasant to carry.

Click to expand...

chele519 said:

Unfortunately right now, the only other grips for the LCR are the crimson trace.

Click to expand...

I am hoping to get a real nice set of wood grips for the LCR soon!

There are many threads on this Forum that describe ways to remove or disable the lock. Some methods are reversible, some aren't.

I've put full power .357 magnum through my 340Sc for years and have never had a problem with the lock, but I still don't like the lock.

Your OP said you want the gun for a running companion. IMHO you want the lightest gun possible. It's not a range gun or plinker. It's a "carry a lot, shoot a little" but you always have it gun. It won't leave you unarmed because you didn't want to bother carrying something heavier (been there, done that).