I’m new to this forum and I have a new S&W442 that I picked up last month. What I just do not understand is when ever I read about someone’s 442 in the same breath they mention if it has an IL. Even if the subject matter has nothing to do with +P loads and heavy recoil. I have a new 442, (I’m not going to say if I have a IL), and in the past month I’ve put 350 rounds through it. Both standard and +P. The gun shoots great and is dead on at 7 yards (21 feet) which I figure is about the max for this light weight weapon. Let us not forget that the 442 is a back up, arm length, get off me gun. My fell time carry is my Glock 23 which is a 40 caliber. I have no problem loading my 442 with 158 grain HP, putting it in my pocket on one of the hot summer nights we get in South Carolina and going out for a walk or to the store. That’s just my +2 and please let’s not get into a verbal war about the IL. I understand all the issues with it but I also like this little gun and understand it’s limitations.
Thank you , S&W is a great forum with a lot of great information. I also want to thank all the people who have given me a warm welcome to this site.

__________________
Frank
G23,G27,SP101,S&W442

Frank welcome to the forum. The issue with the IL is a political thing. All of us hard core S&W lovers do not like the fact that S&W gave into the pressure of the politics. We all understand why they did it but we do not have to like it.

__________________
M.J.Hanna

Thank you for the explanation.

__________________
Frank
G23,G27,SP101,S&W442

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but it was business; not political. The company that makes the lock purchased S&W. They now have a way to market their product. It's no different than Ford or Chevy putting in seatbelts long before anyone wanted them. Both are safety features. They both come with the package; use them or don't use them. I too tire of seeing the letters "IL" in every thread.

Funny thing...I figure it was legal. CYA and all that.

Whatever the reason, it doesn't really matter as the darn things are there and they're not going away anytime soon.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

Welcome to you, sir, and congratulations on a fine carry revolver! I have a number of J frame models but carry my mid-90's factory nickeled 442 far more than any of them. The perfect pocket gun! Mine usually has 158gr. LSWC's in it for up close and personal work and it shoots them very well. More often than not, it is in a pocket holster as a backup but, it does do primary duty in the summer.

Enjoy this forum and the great information here.

I disagree with that assessment right there. My 642s are accurate to shoot out to at least 25 yards, in my experience. You have to be able to do your part. It does take concentration to do so with the short site radius. I do not consider myself undergunned at all while carrying any small J, neither have those who assaulted me.

Great looking Gun. Thank you for your responce.

__________________
Frank
G23,G27,SP101,S&W442

I just ordered a couple of M442's today, without the IL(#150544). One is for a concealed carry class client and the other for me. While not necessarily replacing my early M360, it will be getting the M360's #405 Lasergrips and be much better suited to the aforementioned pocket carry. My M360 was mated to a Galco AnkleGlove holster. My client is also getting a set of #405 LaserGrips for his M442. I just coudn't pass up an opportunity to get a M442 without the IL. I've sold a score or more M642s to my other clients with no complaints(most with LaserGrips added then or later). Bob!!!

I agree. Although I am currently carrying a compact .45 off duty, I carried J-frames for years- a 640-1 in .357, and most recently a 442. The 442 had an IL. I never had it malfunction, although had I been given a choice I would have gotten a revolver without it- simply because I see no rational need for me to have it. While my off-duty gun is primarily for self-defense, or unfortunate situations where I might walk in on a robbery or something, I've always had to shoot the same qualifications course with my J-frame as with my duty gun(s). I shoot comparable scores, sometimes even higher with the snub-nose, all the way out to 50 ft. It's never going to be a 25 yard head-shot gun, but it's certainly not limited to arms length or no more than 21 feet.

__________________
LEO since 1981.

You guys are better than I am. I’ll stick to my 21 feet with my 442. Now as I mention in my post my full time carry is my 40 caliber Glock 23, now that is a different story. Thank you for your comments and your service. Stay safe.

__________________
Frank
G23,G27,SP101,S&W442

The 442 is an excellent choice with a good self-defense round such as the Winchester 38 Special +P 158 grain lead hollow point or the Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel in 38 Special.

I find myself carrying my S&W 442 more and more often leaving the much heavier Glock 23 at home. I was able to buy a box of MAGTECH, 50 rounds of 158 grain +P SJHP for $25.00. The more I shoot and carry my new 442 the more confidence I get in it’s ability, and more important my ability. I have no doughty that God forbid I ever need to protect my life or my wife the S&W 442 loaded with 158 grain HP will be more than adequate to get the job done.

Thank you

__________________
Frank
G23,G27,SP101,S&W442

The lock doesn't bother me on the 442 too much since the gun is dark colored, but I think it is a bit uglier on the stainless steel guns.

To me the biggest issue with the IL is the fact that there is no flag to readily indicate if the lock is on or off. Not that I care for it anyway, but it is more of an issue with this type of revolver.

Cant believe Im the first to ask.. But where abouts can you still "order" these no-lock model 442's?? I thought they were all gone, and just leftover frames??

__________________
Mick

Old Salt,

From the way you are talking I take it your gun has an IL right? because otherwise you would have no reason to make the point that it works just as fine as one w/o the IL I have a 342 with the IL, and one w/o the IL. Here are a few points to think about....

1. as another member stated, with the IL there is no way of knowing if it is locked or not.

2. for those of us who also like guns to be pleasing to the eye, the IL hole is just butt ugly, for a pocket revolver it might not be as big of a deal

3. You'll see a lot of people mention it when talking about what they bought or traded merely for the reason that guns w/o the IL bring a significantly higher price plain and simple.

I have put 5000 rounds of .38 spl through my j-frame with the IL and never had any problems at all. You're going to love your new piece, and it will serve you well.

RightWinger

Thank you for your response . You make all good points except one. I never said, it works just as fine as one w/o the IL. No problem because it has the IL. I am an autoloader guy . I have a Glock 23 for home protection and shooting IDPA and my full time carry is the Glock 27 both are 40 caliber. I bought the S&W 442 because of the feel in my hand and the ease for deep concealment during the hot summer days we get in South Carolina. I have no concern about the 38 special getting the job done, if God forbid I ever need it to protect myself or my wife ,five 158 grain +P HP will put a hurting on someone. I would also like to respond to your points.

(1) Knowing if the gun is locked or not. I never lock it. (2) Pleasing to the eye, the lock is very hard to see next to the cylinder release and with the dark background of the gun. Plus, I do not plan on showing the gun to a lot of people. (3) As for a gun without the IL bringing a higher price. I have no plans on selling it.

My real dilemma is that the more I carry my new S&W 442 the more I like it compared to the thicker heavier Glocks. Now don’t get me wrong, I love my Glocks, but I’m sure getting to like this little 442 and finding myself carrying it more often. One more point if I may? My 442 is the SAF Commemorative model. It is engraved with the D.C. vs. Heller. To acknowledge the original plaintiffs’ that united to challenge the gun ban in Washington D.C.
Sorry for the attachment, but I have no idea how to add a picture of my gun. Hence my username OLD SALT

http://www.bigskyguns.com/Revo...F_Commemorative.html

__________________
Frank
G23,G27,SP101,S&W442

I've been considering making a small mark on the lock mechanism at 12:00. Since the lock only rotates about 90 degrees if the mark was pointing anything other than straight up it would indicate an issue easily. It would be simple to grind a small groove in the rotating portion and I'm honestly surprised it isn't done at the factory.

Old Salt,

If the looks don't bother you, and you have no intentions of selling the gun, and you feel confident it will stay in the "unlocked" position than I can't see any issue with the lock at all. Honestly its not really a big deal with me, yes I prefer them to not have a lock on them but its not a deal breaker by any means. That 442 will take more abuse than you can give it, mine has been through the washing machine a few times, been carried for 7 years, shot a whole bunch, even been in salt water at one point and it still works fine!!!

Good point, thank you

__________________
Frank
G23,G27,SP101,S&W442

"Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but it was business; not political."

Please stand corrected...it was entirely political in a craven submission to the gun-banners in the Clinton administration [sic].

Since the basic design of the hand-ejector has been functioning well for over a century, why would a potential owner of a new revolver be disposed to additional parts and a cosmetic flaw on the frame?

Further, why would a customer be inclined to purchase a revolver with extra parts at extra cost when those parts are inherently unreliable?

__________________
Cert. Armorer: AR-15/10/M16/M4

Old Salt, Good thread. Good Comments on the 442 and the IL topic.

I know your location well. I was born there.

Have a good day