Smith & Wesson Forum

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

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 03-29-2012, 09:14 PM
spirit4earth's Avatar
spirit4earth spirit4earth is offline
Member
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: WNC
Posts: 529
Likes: 187
Liked 81 Times in 48 Posts
Default 642, 442, or ???

I'm looking for a revolver to supplement my 9mm. What has the best balance between power (.38+p), light weight, concealability, and manageable (fun to shoot) recoil? Oh yeah, let's add "inexpensive" to the list.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-29-2012, 09:30 PM
bootsdeal bootsdeal is offline
Member
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North Texas
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default

I've had a 642 for about 3 years and very happy with it. The more I shoot it the smoother the trigger gets, therefore no need for extra trigger work. Never a problem, and carry it as primary with +P's.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-29-2012, 09:51 PM
Bevo1's Avatar
Bevo1 Bevo1 is offline
US Veteran
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Liked 43 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Had a 642 for several years, traded it a few months ago for a no lock 442. Love them both.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-30-2012, 12:10 AM
tray tray is offline
Member
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I have the 642 No-lock. It is my daily BUG.
__________________
T. Ray
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-30-2012, 12:48 AM
Water-Man Water-Man is offline
Banned
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: N. Georgia
Posts: 181
Likes: 14
Liked 35 Times in 28 Posts
Default

Ruger LCR.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-30-2012, 01:18 AM
Dale53 Dale53 is offline
Member
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southwestern Ohio
Posts: 2,337
Likes: 209
Liked 1,195 Times in 457 Posts
Default

My daily carry is a 642 with the FBI load (158 gr lead SWC hollow point +P).

Perfectly satisfactory. I added #305 Crimson Trace grips and can also highly recommend them.

Dale53
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-30-2012, 04:48 AM
dinooch dinooch is offline
Member
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 156
Likes: 7
Liked 63 Times in 26 Posts
Default

My 442 is a great gun and very easy to pocket carry which is my most of the time carry mode. My 340sc is even lighter and will also double as a .38 if you wish. It's so light you forget you're carrying it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-30-2012, 07:12 AM
Tyrod Tyrod is offline
Member
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sunny Central Florida
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 334
Liked 993 Times in 378 Posts
Default

I have both the 642NL and 442prelock. I prefer the 442 cause i worry less about scratching it. That silver paint/clearcoat is rather delicate. I also use the crimson trace LG-305.
__________________
NRA Benefactor
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-30-2012, 07:27 AM
jrs70's Avatar
jrs70 jrs70 is offline
US Veteran
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 540
Likes: 497
Liked 203 Times in 115 Posts
Default

I carry a NL 642 and also an LCP. Most of the time both. I do like the 638. I just keep on finding good deals and never get arround to buy it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-31-2012, 12:12 AM
JayBird686's Avatar
JayBird686 JayBird686 is offline
Member
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 222
Likes: 49
Liked 75 Times in 18 Posts
Default

Here is a good price on a 642: SMITH AND WESSON 642 38 SPECIAL NO INTERNAL LOCK @ Sportsmans Outdoor Superstore:

I personally choose the 442, for cosmetic reasons, if a 642 was drastically cheaper, I would have bought.
__________________
686-4 442-1
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-31-2012, 01:41 AM
wrangler5 wrangler5 is offline
Member
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,301
Likes: 4
Liked 1,025 Times in 510 Posts
Default

I got a no-lock 442 thinking it would be less "conspicuous" if I ever had a wardrobe malfunction with my cover garment, and also for its easier (for me) to see all-black sights. It does satisfy those criteria, and is very easy to carry, but I've found that after a day in an IWB holster there is moisture on the crane that will start rust if I don't wipe it off every day. If I were doing it over I'd get the 642, which supposedly has a stainless crane and cylinder (to the 442's carbon steel parts) to minimize the risk of rust. I'd put up with the known flimsy finish, and would just paint the sights for better visibility.

That said, I recently acquired a 649 (all stainless 5 shot in 357 Magnum, which has a "bull" barrel of ~ 2 1/8" length and an ejector shroud.) This is now my favorite both to carry and to shoot. It seems to be immune to rust, and with its all steel construction and slightly heavier barrel it's easy for me to shoot several hundred 158g rounds at a session without pain. I mostly shoot cowboy level loads (under 700fps), but several dozen of the +P loads I use for daily carry are quite tolerable too. They're too expensive to shoot many more than that at a session. (I have fired exactly one (1) 357 magnum round from it, to say I did it, and plan not to do it again - even with a big cushy Pachmayr grip I did not find it to be pleasant.) The shrouded hammer lets me cock it for single action shooting when I take on steel plates at 25 yards or more

It IS heavier than an airweight, and is not what I would choose to carry regularly in a jacket or pants pocket, but I do carry it daily in a belt (IWB) holster and pretty much forget it's there. For my purposes, it is a true all around gun.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-31-2012, 10:07 AM
JayBird686's Avatar
JayBird686 JayBird686 is offline
Member
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 222
Likes: 49
Liked 75 Times in 18 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrangler5 View Post
I got a no-lock 442 thinking it would be less "conspicuous" if I ever had a wardrobe malfunction with my cover garment, and also for its easier (for me) to see all-black sights. It does satisfy those criteria, and is very easy to carry, but I've found that after a day in an IWB holster there is moisture on the crane that will start rust if I don't wipe it off every day. If I were doing it over I'd get the 642, which supposedly has a stainless crane and cylinder (to the 442's carbon steel parts) to minimize the risk of rust. I'd put up with the known flimsy finish, and would just paint the sights for better visibility.

That said, I recently acquired a 649 (all stainless 5 shot in 357 Magnum, which has a "bull" barrel of ~ 2 1/8" length and an ejector shroud.) This is now my favorite both to carry and to shoot. It seems to be immune to rust, and with its all steel construction and slightly heavier barrel it's easy for me to shoot several hundred 158g rounds at a session without pain. I mostly shoot cowboy level loads (under 700fps), but several dozen of the +P loads I use for daily carry are quite tolerable too. They're too expensive to shoot many more than that at a session. (I have fired exactly one (1) 357 magnum round from it, to say I did it, and plan not to do it again - even with a big cushy Pachmayr grip I did not find it to be pleasant.) The shrouded hammer lets me cock it for single action shooting when I take on steel plates at 25 yards or more

It IS heavier than an airweight, and is not what I would choose to carry regularly in a jacket or pants pocket, but I do carry it daily in a belt (IWB) holster and pretty much forget it's there. For my purposes, it is a true all around gun.

Yeah I think my thinking was that if I wanted a stainless look, I wanted the whole thing stainless. I would really like a a 649. I have not had any rust. I pocket carry in a holster, so the amount of moisture is limited.
__________________
686-4 442-1
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-31-2012, 10:39 AM
photoman's Avatar
photoman photoman is offline
Member
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 5,057
Likes: 524
Liked 1,912 Times in 788 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit4earth View Post
I'm looking for a revolver to supplement my 9mm. What has the best balance between power (.38+p), light weight, concealability, and manageable (fun to shoot) recoil? Oh yeah, let's add "inexpensive" to the list.
Airweight Centennial in .38 Special.
__________________
Centennial Every Day
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-31-2012, 10:52 AM
ladder13's Avatar
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,871
Likes: 58,335
Liked 53,287 Times in 16,607 Posts
Default

I have both the 442 and 642 Airweights. Prefer the 642 because of the moisture issue. I had a 642 that was some 14 years old, it never had any sort of finish issues, and if it did, it's a carry gun and worn finishes are to be expected. You want a perfect finish on your guns, then keep them in the safe.
__________________
Sure you did
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #15  
Old 03-31-2012, 06:03 PM
spirit4earth's Avatar
spirit4earth spirit4earth is offline
Member
642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ??? 642, 442, or ???  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: WNC
Posts: 529
Likes: 187
Liked 81 Times in 48 Posts
Default

Thank you for all your replies! These guns really aren't that expensive. I love my M&P 9c, but I've found that it's a little big for me carry. But, being a poor worker, it'll be a while till I can spring for the .38. I don't have my CCL yet anyway.....still waiting...sigh....
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
357 magnum, 442, 638, 642, 649, airweight, centennial, crimson, ejector, lock, pachmayr, ruger, shroud, smith and wesson


Posting Rules
Forum Jump

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 07:26 AM.


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