Guys I'm thinking on getting back into the J-frame game for CCW.

What are the pros/cons between the 442 and 642? I used to own a 642 but sold it years ago. Thinking about getting a 442 as it looks more like a classic blued gun. Going to put some wood service stocks with Tyler-Ts on whichever gun I get.

Thoughts?

I bought the 642 because I like stainless. Especially when I'm carrying it in a pocket holster.

Flip a coin. Either goes without saying, an iconic revolver. IMO, simply a matter of looks and personal preference. Enjoy which ever you buy. This 642 has been my partner for over 8 years.

__________________
John

I have carried a 642 for about 12 years in a Mika pocket holster. The finish on the frame has held up exceptionally well, but I believe it to be anodized with a clear coat over the anodizing. The newer finishes have the reputation of peeling.

The 442 is a beautiful revolver. I have not heard or read of any abnormal issues with the finish.

I am going to add another to the mix. I don't carry all the time, but when I do it is a 342 in a pocket holster. Light enough that you can forget it is there. Just thought I'd add another option.

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

640, steel frame.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

I have both, but prefer the 642 as a carry weapon due to the stainless steel. The 442 is prone to developing rust due to its carbon steel in humid climates. I also subscribe to the Massad Ayoob perspective that if I draw a gun, I want them to be able to clearly see it and the 642 will offer more visibility in low light.

I have had the 442 and the 342, but never a 642. The 642 to me is to heavy for extended carry, especially in summer clothing. The 442 is not bad as far as weight goes. When I found the 342 with it's very light weight I bought it and tried it out. At the time I had two 442's, both are gone now. I put Hogue grips on mine and carry it when I feel the need. The 342 is made of scandium and titanium. Not sure what S&W makes now that replaced it. I have had no issues with wear on the gun so far and have had it for over 10 years. The 342 is silver toned, so no problem with the bad guy understanding you have a weapon.

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

As always, I vote for the 442.....

DSCF1725.jpg

I have a 442 and don't have any problems. I've owned/carried, at one time or another, a 637 and a 642; first J frame was a blue model 36 in 1976. Nothing wrong with stainless/alloy finish, I just prefer the matte black color of the 442. There are times when I carry the 442 in an ankle holster. I find the dark color helps the gun disappear in the holster and the black background of my socks. A 642, or any other stainless/alloy frame gun, "could" be revealed if my trouser cuff inadvertently caught on something. With the 442, I don't worry about it.

I recently bought a Charter Boomer and got the one that comes in black nitride. The finish is more gray than the black on the 442, and it holds up extremely well (so far) in the heat and humidity of the south.

I am a 442 NO LOCK kind of guy

the 442 and 642 weigh exactly the same/////


SKU: 150544
Model: 442
Caliber: .38+P
Capacity: 5 Rounds
Action: Double Action Only
Barrel Length: 1 7/8"
Front Sight: Integral
Rear Sight: Fixed
Overall Length: 6 5/16"
Weight Empty: 15 oz.
Grip: Synthetic
Material: Aluminum Alloy Frame/Carbon Steel Cylinder
Finish: Matte Black

SKU: 162810
Model: 442
Caliber: .38+P
Capacity: 5 Rounds
Barrel Length: 1 7/8"
Front Sight: Black Blade Front
Rear Sight: Fixed
Grip: Rubber Grips
Frame: Small - Centennial Style
Finish: Blue / Black
Overall Length: 6 3/8"
Material: Alloy
Weight Empty: 15 oz.

I just got this 442 and added a couple bits.



I think it's the best of all worlds. I too was concerned about the peeling on the 6xx J-frames. No lock, some stainless parts, looks good, and they are darn cheap right now.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

The 442 has a carbon steel cylinder that can rust. The 642 cylinder is stainless.

This might be an advantage in hot, humid climates.

I guess it is just how I perceived it. The 642 just felt heavier. But the 342 is what I like now.


New In Box SMITH & WESSON, Model 342 Airlite Ti Centennial Revolver, 38 Special,
1 7/8" Stainless Steel Barrel, Internal Lock, Uncle Mike's Boot Grip.

SPECIFICATIONS:

Caliber: 38 Special +P
Action: Double Action Only
Saftey: Internal Lock
Frame: J-Small; Round Butt.
Mag Capacity: 5 Rounds
Barrel Length: 1 7/8"
Hammer: Internal
Trigger: .312" Smooth Combat
Safety: Internal lock prevents trigger or hammer
movement
Front Sight: Pinned Black Serrated Ramp
PD Model- Red Ramp
Rear Sight: Fixed Notch
Grips: Uncle Mike's Boot
PD Model-Hogue Bantam
Weight: Uncle Mike's Boot 12 oz.
PD Model- 10.8 oz.
Overall Length: 6 5/16"
Material: Aluminum Alloy Frame, Barrel Shroud and Yoke;
Titanium Cylinder
Finish: Black/Gray, Matte Stainless/Grey

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

Like others have said the two models are about the same. I just prefer a dark revolver b/c it can be more discreet under certain situations. Walking through a dark parking lot or garage, when things make you uncomfortable, you can carry in your hand hidden behind your leg and it won’t be as obvious as a silver colored or shiney gun.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

Because of my job, I also carry only occasionally. I like my 442 in a Nemesis pocket holder and with aftermarket rubbery Hoguegrips to cushion my middle finger knuckle from recoil. Had a trigger job done to bring the pull down just a bit. I think that my 637 would do just as well without snagging on the draw.

I personally love stainless steel guns. "Stainless is forever"!!! My 640 Pro is on or near me always. It's like a AMERIAN EXSPRESS CARD, I never leave home without it!!!!

Attached Images

IMG_20171126_111517527.jpg (100.2 KB, 161 views)

I carried my 642 for a very long time. It replaced my Beretta 950 BS after carrying that for an even longer time. But I have recently switched to a 649. I like everything better about a full weight J frame over a lightweight and in jeans or shorts, dress slacks, suit pants, whatever, it carries easily.

It's not the only gun I carry but since the house fire it is until I get re-organized.

I like the 442. The one with bootgrips has been carried in my pocket for 7 years. The one with Hogue Tamer has been carried mostly in the waist sometimes in the pocket for 6 years. Both get shot a couple times a year. The Hogue Grip gun get shot twice as much. The finish is holding up well. Three months out of the year they are in Florida. The rest of the year mostly in Ohio.

Attached Images

B07803CB-2A6A-467D-B2F2-EC4714EE54D8.jpg (60.2 KB, 351 views)

__________________
Two Handguns every day

I bought the 442 for my wife. But it came back to me when she declared she wasn't comfortable shooting it. I love it. Has shown little wear in the year or so I've carried it. It's my No.1 EDC choice. And while it's hot here it's the reason cargo shorts will never go out of style with me. Gun, holster, speed strip, knife, wallet, eyeglass case, car keys, something I'm carrying for my wife...

Only "issue" I've observed was rust forming around the grip screw head. But now I just remember to hit it with a drop of CLP on a toothbrush. Otherwise, it's just an occasional wipe down with a homemade silicone cloth. And I love the stock boot grips.

I really wasn't a J Frame kind of guy, then I won a 442 Power Port in an NRA drawing a few years back. I dry fired a couple hundred rounds with snap caps just to get the feel of it and break the parts in a bit. I took a liking to it. I ended up putting a Wolff spring kit in it and doing a few armorer trained tricks to it, nothing fancy. I also put a Crimson Trace grip on it. I am happy with it, it shoots very well with 125 gr. handloads. I like the fact that the action can be clocked just like my K and N frame guns, makes for a very precise trigger break.

__________________
NRA Patron

Looks to Clean

__________________
Chewy

Bottom gun is my 442

Either, as long as no lock.

Old photo. But doesn't show much more wear currently

__________________
John

Ditto!

10.7 oz unloaded w/Laser

When I got my 442 at the Denver gun show it was 15 bucks
less than the 642's. Since then the 642 my buddy bought the
same day had the clear coat peal. I didn't buy the 442 for that
reason but it's as good as any to prefer it.

I've never had a problem with corrosion on it. I prefer the dark
color. It's a lot more discrete. With the Crimson Trace grips it
rides in the Mika holster nicely.

For shooting however, I prefer the 640's I got from Centerfire
Systems a couple years ago. The all steel construction help keep
the recoil down.

__________________
never get out of the boat

Another vote for a steel framed gun. The weight difference isn't that great. Shooting comfort and control for a second shot are significantly greater, especially with +P.

If you like the Centennial enclosed-hammer configuration, you can get a 640. Since your original choices were both no-frills .38 Specials, a no-dash would be fine, but people who have them (I'm one) tend to hold onto them. A -1 .357 Magnum is an excellent gun, but if I had one I'd carry +P .38 Special ammo in it.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

I'd go 642 for the stainless construction. You WILL sweat all over your concealed J-frame! The 642 will hide nicely in a pants pocket, IWB/OWB holster, or ankle holster. Keep metal brushes away from the frame and the clearcoat will remain problem-free. You can't clean a 642 like a 36 Chief's Special! I couldn't help but notice several people cast a "write-in vote" for the 640. I agree! It is a FANTASTIC gun, and you could do qualification courses back-to-back with full-power .357 ammo given choice-of-grip. The Hogue Tamer is superb, and they make a Centennial-specific version that goes HIGH on the backstrap.

__________________
10,13,15,64,66,351,640,681

I have a 642. Like it, but the clear coat pealed. I guess it has “character” now.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

I learned to cease worrying about finish wear on my primary carry weapons. I took me time to develop the mind set, but when you always have a handgun on you, it is going to exhibit at least some signs of wear & tear. As long as it remains fully functional, you ready shouldn't concern yourself about it. If it truly bothers you, just have it factory refinished at some point, or perhaps have it coated with one of the newer type finishes. I've been carrying my 642 L/S now for over 20 years, & yes it does show wear here & there. But, I know where & how it shoots with all my chosen loads, and that's what is important to me. I was fortunate enough to find one of the factory ported 642's when I went to trade in my 640 for it's alloy version, & you just imagine how happy I was to come across it. Now, if I could only find a 3" barrel 642 somewhere ? Of my do get desperate enough for one, I may have to settle for a Ruger LCR-X, which might keep me happy for the interim. Oh, as far as finish goes, always buy Stainless when planning to carry it frequently. Trust me on that ! Good luck.

Best, dpast32

Owning both I can pick up the sights much easier/faster on the 442 especially with the front ramp painted white. So that's my go to J frame.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Ebony...
and Ivory....
live together in perfect...
Harmony....



Too much thinking. Not enough shooting

Pick the one you like best. I have had a 642 since 2010 and carry it a lot around home in a cross draw holster. No matter which one you choose, I would suggest pitching the dinky boot grips that come on it and get a set of Hogue Tamer grips. My hands are not overly large, but the boot grips just do not work. I need some grip purchase for my pinky, especially when shooting +P.

Attached Images

DSC04431 Mod 642a.jpg (54.1 KB, 108 views)

__________________
SWCA 3297 SWHF 583

My wife has a 642 & I have a 442. I added Crimson Trace lasers to both. Same gun, different color. In the words of an insane political figure who once said: "what difference does it make"?

__________________
NRA & TSRA
Texas CHL Holder

I've got the 442. It's more matte black than blued. I've got the CT LaserGrip, which fits my hand better than the S&W rubber that come with. I've heard there were some finish problems with the 642, but I think they've got that corrected. Wouldn't matter to me anyway, because a daily carry pistol is eventually gonna look like a daily carry pistol. Either is an excellent choice . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Which cross draw holster do you use?

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

I hate to pop everyone's balloon, but the 642 does NOT have a stainless steel frame. It is an alloy that has a painted/beaded/anodized finish to "look" like SS BUT that ends up looking like Kr-rapp rather quickly if you actually carry it for SD. See attached...

The 642 works well since it is so lightweight, but a beauty contest winner it is not.

I have a new Kimber K6S arriving sometime today, as my chosen replacement. It has an ACTUAL SS frame and cylinder. I learned my lesson as far as alloy SS look-a-like gun finishes.

Attached Images

	20180626_122609.jpg (152.2 KB, 208 views)
	20180626_122522.jpg (95.1 KB, 238 views)

Any self-respecting handgun should be blue or black. More discreet, sights easier to use, esp. if white or orange is applied, and the finish isn't that fragile. Spend 30 seconds wiping it down every day or two and no concern for rust. Also builds much more familiarity. I cannot abide the stainless look of a firearm, although a Model 64-5 is my favorite D/A revolver......

I have a 442 that ive ccw’d for two summers (I carry a Glock 19 from Oct-May) that has some visible wear. Cosmetic, nothing impacting function- I’ve just never been a fan of stainless guns, polished or matte.

__________________
Some Might Say.

Yes, the only thing stainless on the 642 is the cylinder. Bought one, and after shooting it, in the safe it went. Not pleasant to shoot. I have 940, 640, and a Kimber K6s, along with other some other J, K, and L frames for EDC. The Kimber has been a good shooter, and it's nice having the recessed cylinder. I'm sure you will enjoy your K6s.

This has been an enlightening thread about the Silver Smithies.

I thought I had made a mistake picking black.

But if I had a Silver peeling gun, I would be seriously ticked off...

or you can find a performance center model like this one and split the difference. These have a great trigger and unique grips.



Personally, I think the black frame (and grips) attract less attention should the gun show.

__________________
Dave

My Kimber K6S came late yesterday, so I waited until this morning to do a side-by-side with my 642.

I am "getting" better with my 642, but have never liked the trigger pull (too heavy). I ordered and have the APEX Spring Kit, but had not installed it as of late. I think the K6S is going to change my mind about installing this spring kit... The bottom line on my 642 is that the trigger pull is hard and UN-predictable in trying to stage a shot. IMO, it takes way too much practice to perfect the 642's trigger pull.

I fired about 2-dozen 38 rounds through each (158g lead target rounds). My first round of 6, I had a hard time determining just "where" the K6S was hitting the target. IMO, it appears to be hitting a bit low-to-aim, but it may just be my learning curve. Anywayzzzz... by my 4th speed-load, things got much, much better!
I had read about the trigger being much easier to stage, but wow! My impression is that the length of the trigger pull, is miles LONGER than that on the 642. That said, I will eventually try to measure both triggers to quantify this. Back on task, I am able to pull about 85-90% of the trigger distance AND PAUSE, without any undo strain on my trigger finger. Thus I am actually able to "stage" my actual shot rather well. Very cool!

However, it was easy to get overly enthusiastic and pull off another round in rapid sequence (but even THAT one was on target!). Truth be told, the K6S trigger is both "lighter" AND has a longer pull than the 642. That made shooting the K6S a very enjoyable experience to shoot.

Results:

• I will go ahead and install the APEX J-Frame trigger spring fix on my 642. While I don't expect it to be a 100% improvement, I am sure it will help.
  
• My new K6S will be my new carry weapon, as soon as my new Galco paddle holster arrives in a day or two (just like the one for my 642).
  
• I will be exploring as much info as possible on the Kimber's trigger mechanism, to see why it works so well. I LIKE that, I really do!

As far as a "full" review of the K6S, I am hesitant because this is a S&W Forum. What I can say, is that the "Matt" finish on the K6S SS appears to be done while-in-hand and not by machinery. Some may find that offensive, I don't. I may end up polishing all of this as I see fit, and maybe on a regular basis to keep the "finish" looking sharp.

It is a SS frame on the K6S, and that is my bottom line since my 642 "alloy" frame discolored/wore-away, as noted earlier. My last two (2) S&W purchases came in with QC flaws that required I DIY to fix. Not a deal breaker those two times... BUT IMO, if S&W doesn't get their QC under control, they will lose market share. I bought my first S&W in 1986, and supported them ever since. We'll see what the future brings. Your opinion might differ...

Attached Images

	20180626_155915.jpg (110.3 KB, 93 views)
	20180626_160032.jpg (85.2 KB, 94 views)
	20180626_160140.jpg (104.3 KB, 94 views)

I've had a 442 for 9 years and it has held up well. I've used a pocket holster and it easily fits in a pair of jeans. I'll carry it at times my 1911 is too large.

442, 'cause black is way more mall ninja tacticool operationally operator high speed low drag coolness... but i have a 638 too.

__________________
why? why not?