After reading a lot of forums on both the 642 and 442, the question of the finish peeling off the 642 is of concern to me. Is it that bad or just over reaction of the folks who have the 642 and are using the wrong cleaning solvents. What type of finish problems have been experienced with the 442. I will be buying either one or the other in the next week or so and as of now I am more inclined to go with the 442.
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
SW 642 Finish Peeling
- Thread starter navyman
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
batmann
Member
My wife carries an older 442 in the satin finish and it does have a couple of spots that is flaking, but the weight out ways it.
Great little pistola.
Great little pistola.
Welcome to the forum. IMO, the 642 is a better choice between the two for a pocket gun.
The frames on the 442 and 642 are aluminum alloy which can't rust, even if the finish wears. The barrel and cylinder on the 642 are stainless steel, instead of the finished carbon steel of the 442. The stainless is easier to clean and it's rust resistant which is nice in a carry gun.
The clear coat on the 642 frame isn't real durable, but it's just cosmetic. My 342 looks a little rough after 6 years of living in my pocket, but it still works just fine.
The frames on the 442 and 642 are aluminum alloy which can't rust, even if the finish wears. The barrel and cylinder on the 642 are stainless steel, instead of the finished carbon steel of the 442. The stainless is easier to clean and it's rust resistant which is nice in a carry gun.
The clear coat on the 642 frame isn't real durable, but it's just cosmetic. My 342 looks a little rough after 6 years of living in my pocket, but it still works just fine.
460v LAC du FLAMBEAU
Member
I have owned my 642 w/CT grips for 2 years. Not one problem with any finish or features.
HEADKNOCKER
Member
My Choice Would Be the 642..
The Current 642-2 has a stainless crane/yolk cylinder & barrel, these parts are carbon steel on the 442-2, The Stainless has the advantage of being rust resistant, nothing is Rust Proof.
The finish that the 642-2 has is a sprayed on clearcoat finish that seems fragile, My 342Ti has the same type of finish..
My Early 642 No dash has a different finish than the current ones has, I Hear that Smith had trouble matching the frames color to the stainless, I've seen other 642s that match almost perfectly.. Note Mine Doesn't match..
Here's a Pic of my Three Centennials
Gary/Hk
AirLite 342Ti - AirWeight 642 - Model940
The Current 642-2 has a stainless crane/yolk cylinder & barrel, these parts are carbon steel on the 442-2, The Stainless has the advantage of being rust resistant, nothing is Rust Proof.
The finish that the 642-2 has is a sprayed on clearcoat finish that seems fragile, My 342Ti has the same type of finish..
My Early 642 No dash has a different finish than the current ones has, I Hear that Smith had trouble matching the frames color to the stainless, I've seen other 642s that match almost perfectly.. Note Mine Doesn't match..
Here's a Pic of my Three Centennials
Gary/Hk
AirLite 342Ti - AirWeight 642 - Model940
I have a 642-1 that I bought used. I bought it from the original owner with the box and papers. I don't know what he had cleaned it with but it really messed up the finish. The backstrap, inside the frame, the front of the barrel, etc. I paid $200 for it. It is so ugly that I hide it in a DeSantis Nemesis holster in my front pant pocket everyday. That way no one will see it
The finish will finally come off, but I believe Smith will redo it for free. This gun has been carried a whole lot often in a fanny pack while I was running so it was soaked in sweat and bouncing around getting abraded by the leather pouch. It still shoots just fine. I think if you carried one in a good pocket holster it would fare better.
yugolovr
Member
That gun is a thing of beauty.Originally posted by TNDave:
The finish will finally come off, but I believe Smith will redo it for free. This gun has been carried a whole lot often in a fanny pack while I was running so it was soaked in sweat and bouncing around getting abraded by the leather pouch. It still shoots just fine. I think if you carried one in a good pocket holster it would fare better.
rdrancher
Member
I'm a contractor specializing in concrete crack repair, epoxy, etc. A day spent stitching up cracks in an empty swimming pool in the Texas summer heat usually means two or three soaked shirts and my shorts soaked down below the pockets. That's pretty tough on a gun.
This 642 has spent the last year serving time holstered in my right front pocket. Yes, it's getting a little worn, but I don't mind a bit.
rd
This 642 has spent the last year serving time holstered in my right front pocket. Yes, it's getting a little worn, but I don't mind a bit.
rd
My wife's 317 Kit Gun has been back to Springfield twice for refinishing. The first time only the cylinder needed work, the second the frame needed to be done as well. Both times were done for free, with free shipping as well.
The new finish isn't as shiny, but at least it's not peeling.
The new finish isn't as shiny, but at least it's not peeling.
bhk
Member
I don't worry a lot about it, but do take the time to put a coat of paste wax on the clearcoated frame (especially the high points)now and then. I carry mine often and have zero wear so far. I don't see waxing the gun any different than oiling a carbon gun. Normal, routine care.
NFrameFred
Member
This thread has given me hope ! I was beginning to think I was the only one whose carry guns looked like that. Most of the pics I see posted here seem to look like catalog porn even when the owner maintains he carries it . . . .
