Until recently I had a 442 with the lock. I gave (lent?)it to my daughter and am thinking of getting another.

I would get the no lock model but I'm not sure if I would get a 442 or 642. I really liked the way the 442 looked but I like the fact that the 642 has a SS barrel and cylinder. Is there an issue with the finish coming off of the 642? I live in a damp, humid state and thought the 642 might hold up better although my 442 held up well after 5 years.

I already have a 36 and a 60 but like the light weight of the alumimium guns.

Thanks for the help.

R

I didn't know SS gun finish can "flake off" ?

I bought my no-lock 642-1 brand new in January, 2011.

Here is a picture I took of the backstrap in August, 2011:



Here is a picture of the same gun taken in November, 2011:



I will say that the finish issue is purely cosmetic and doesn't affect the functioning of my gun. I will also say that I handle my gun quite a bit, having fired about 1,200 rounds and averaging maybe around an hour or so of dry fire practice drills per week over the past year. It's also been my primary carry gun pretty much from March/April of last year to the present. Other people have had 642s with minimal, if any, finish issues.

I will probably get another airweight Centennial at some point, probably another 642 rather than a 442 because the better corrosion resistance of the stainless steel components outweighs any potential finish issues for me. I will probably have my first gun re-finished, either by S&W if it'll be covered under their warranty or, more likely, have it finished in Cera-Hide by CCR. If the second 642 develops finish issues, I'll just have it re-finished when it starts getting really bad.

But if you're willing to do a little more work the 442 shouldn't be a problem if rust is a concern. I just prefer to be a little lazy when it comes to gun maintenance.

FYI, I've only used Break Free CLP for cleaning and Gun Butter for lube.

The 642's frame is aluminum, just like the 442, but its finish is different and tends to wear more easily by most accounts.

Welcome to the forum. The finish may be different on the "newer" stainless Airweights compared to the early ones, I don't really know. This 632 Airweight has been around for almost 20 years, is well used, and still cleans up pretty good for a picture.

Attached Images

632BlueIns.jpg (71.9 KB, 122 views)

The S&W site now lists the 442 cylinder as stainless (coated) not carbon.

FWIW I have had my M442 since 1994 and the M642 since 2002. No problem with either gun's finish, however, they are not carried every day.

All of the recent production 442's have a stainless barrel and cylinder. I've carried a 642 on and off for years and the finish does show some wear. I've also been carrying a 442 lately and the finish on the 442 shows scratches. Six of one and half dozen of another. I don't worry too much about the finish on my carry guns.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

If you wax your 642 with a good carnauba wax a few times a year, it shouldn't wear unless you are really rough on it.

__________________
686, 629, 15-22 MOE FDE

what are you using to clean your 642 with? Hoppes does not play well with the clear finish.

__________________
The American dream is alive

I'm no metallurgist by a long shot, but for years and years, anodized aluminum always resulted in a very durable black finish. Similar to bluing steel is actually a "rusting process"...anodizing aluminum is much the same.

I have a feeling that they "coat" now and not so much anodize anything like they use to and neither the black, or the so-called stainless is very durable.

I had old pot-metal anodized BB-guns that were more durable than the finishes they put on guns today. Still got one....a Daisy BB-pistol that looks as good as it did when I purchased it for my son some 35-years ago.

Just my opinion....but if you want a blued gun get a blued gun. If you want a stainless gun get a stainless gun. Most of the finishes they put on guns today seem to be coatings and not chemical treatments or processes. I love my Airweights and AirLites, but you have to live with the finish on the guns.

+1. I have been doing this on my clear-coated 642 from the beginning (years) and have experienced almost no wear. You, of course, have to wear through the wax before the finish can wear. The only wear I have at all is a tiny bit at the top back corner of the frame by the rear sight notch. I would actually have to show it to you in order for you to find it. The wax works great!

I clean and protect the stainless portion of the gun with CLP.

Well....I know this sounds like a bash, but it's not. I own a basket-full of Smiths (including two coated AirLites) and love every one of them. It's just a sad situation when we now have to "wax" our guns like we do our cars.

Aluminum can be hard-anodized in just about any color. I guess it's easier to paint one than it is to anodize it.

I had a 642 w/lock, but the finish wore thin with heavy use. I have a 442 n/l and an M&P 340 w/l that seem to hold up better to my everyday carry.

Randall

I've got an early no-lock 642. It's some kind of transition model because there is no serial number on the butt, it's on side of the frame instead. I carry it a lot and the finish has held up very well. It sounds like they've changed things for the worse.

__________________
Loyalty Above All.. but Honor

Yep....my old Model 38-2 is just as black as it was the day they built it. The bluing on the end of the barrel is showing some holster-wear, but the aluminum anodized parts are still darn near as new.

Attached Images

S&W 38-2.jpg (64.4 KB, 47 views)

Thanks for all the info. I did not know the new 442's had a SS cylinder, I wonder if the barrel is SS also.
R

Understand that I installed the SS parts in my older Model 38-2, but I believe the new guns have "coated" stainless steel barrels and cylinders.

I really don't see waxing the gun any different than oiling my blued guns. Just different 'stuff.' I would, however, prefer that the 642s were anodized.

I know and I see your point. But....I never really have to do much at all to an anodized or stainless steel gun. Little oil now and then on moving parts and that's about it. I suppose REAL stainless steel is the most forgiving. Get a scratch....buff it out and your done. I CC older Airweights and abuse (shoot a lot) my stainless guns.

I also have a couple of 317's and they are even worse with that clear-coated cylinder. If I carry one, it's in a vest or pants pocket with nothing else in there, not even a chap-stick.

Decided on the 442, here is a pic:

Good decision, great photo. I think after reading this thread I may have to get me a black j to go with my alum guns. Very sharp looking gun.
Frank.

I have the same model, your going to like it.

Good choice.