642 Vs. 642-1

Person · Jul 12, 2009

I know the 642-1 is rated for +P and the 642 is not but what are the other differences. Also is there any differences between the 642-1 of old and the recent run of them from late last year? The reason I was wondering is that I was looking at my Dad's 642 and comparing it to my 642-1 (Recent run of them) and his 642 is so much nicer! The finish on it looks like a polished aluminum rather than the coating on mine. Also some of the parts look better finished.

Overall it just looks like there was more care put into it where mine it looks like corners were cut.

Later,

Person

SmithNut · Jul 12, 2009

Person said:
I know the 642-1 is rated for +P and the 642 is not but what are the other differences. Also is there any differences between the 642-1 of old and the recent run of them from late last year? The reason I was wondering is that I was looking at my Dad's 642 and comparing it to my 642-1 (Recent run of them) and his 642 is so much nicer! The finish on it looks like a polished aluminum rather than the coating on mine. Also some of the parts look better finished.

Overall it just looks like there was more care put into it where mine it looks like corners were cut.

Later,

Person

Visually they are almost the same gun, with the exception of the integral frame lug on the -1:

The -1 is made on the J-Magnum frame with is slightly larger dimensionally, but you'd probably have to use calipers to gauge the difference.
The original M642's have a better finish, with a distinct two tone sort of look, but believe-it-or-not, this was a problem the factory was trying to fix when they decided to start bead blasting the alloy guns. Oh well, the early M642's have a unique and very appealing look to me.
As for quality, I'd say that would vary gun to gun more than the era since not much changed in the few short years between the two variations. CNC was introduced in the 1989-1990 timeframe so both variations would have benefited from that technology, less human hand fitting as in earlier years.

Person · Jul 12, 2009

Thanks for the info Smithnut. I agree that the two tone look better on the original 642's.

Thanks,

Person

DC7 · Jul 12, 2009

Person said:
...I was looking at my Dad's 642 and comparing it to my 642-1 (Recent run of them) and his 642 is so much nicer! The finish on it looks like a polished aluminum rather than the coating on mine. Also some of the parts look better finished.

Person: Sounds like your Dad has one of the 642 no-dash revolvers built in the early 1990's. In factory letters, Roy Jinks refers to the polished frame finish on those early guns as "natural aluminum"; others have called it a clear anodized frame. The factory was trying to match the frame to the stainless steel cylinder, barrel and yoke, but as SmithNut mentioned they were not successful and often ended up with a distinct two-tone look. They finally gave up after building just 12,260 of them, and didn't offer the 642 again until the introduction of the 642-1 (with the newer matte finish) on the J-magnum frame.

A few other J-frames were also built with the same clear anodized finish, including Models 632, 637, and 638, but like the 642, all were discontinued after relatively short runs. The 637 and 638 were later reintroduced with the matte finish.

I have a few of the early 642's, and can personally vouch for the fact that the finish varied significantly from gun to gun. Here is a 642 that came out pretty close to what S&W intended:

For comparison, here is a 632 with the same natural finish that turned out quite a bit different from the 642. The frame is noticably lighter and doesn't match the stainless nearly as well:

Although they're not officially rated for +P, the original 642 is my favorite version of that model. The finish (when it turned out as S&W intended) is beautiful, and the flash-chromed trigger is a nice finishing touch to the overall "stainless" look.

Person · Jul 12, 2009

DC7,

Great info! My Dad's looks pretty close to the first one except he has the rubber grips on it. It is really a nice gun! Personally I like it more than my 642-1 but either way they are great guns.

Thanks,

Person

DC7 · Jul 13, 2009

Person said:
My Dad's looks pretty close to the first one except he has the rubber grips on it.

The 642 pictured earlier was purchased used, and I'm pretty sure the grips had been replaced. The Standard Catalog of S&W says that early 642's shipped with Uncle Mike's boot grips, but I've actually found most NIB examples to have Uncle Mike's combat grips instead. Either way, rubber grips are actually the correct original grips for that gun.

Person · Jul 13, 2009

My Dad's does have the combat grips and I know they are the original grips for the gun as my dad never changes anything on his guns.

Later,

Person

HEADKNOCKER · Jul 13, 2009

My 642 "No Dash" came with the Uncle Mikes Boot grips
Both my 940s came with the UM Combat Grips.
My 642 looks more like the 2nd example that DC7 shows in his pics, The cylinder, yolk, & barrel don't match the Anodized aluminum frame, also notice there marked Airweight on the barrel & the Nice looking S&W Logo they have on them..
I saw one at a gunshow a few weeks back & the seller was asking $650 & had it marked as Rare Finish Pre Lock 642..
Thanks for the Great Looking Pics Dan/DC7..
And thanks for the last shipment of SW/Federal Nyclads..
Gary/Hk

HEADKNOCKER · Jul 14, 2009

Here's My Avatar Pic Blown up to acceptable Size to see the difference between the Stainless & Anodized Aluminum Parts..
Gary/Hk

Amend2 · Jul 15, 2009

+P?

I, too, have one of the early 642's, and I like the distinctive 2-tone look. I was led to believe the stainless steel cylinder and barrel allowed the use of +P ammo in this model - is that not exactly true?

642 Vs. 642-1

Person

Member

SmithNut

US Veteran

Person

Member

DC7

Member

Person

Member

DC7

Member

Person

Member

HEADKNOCKER

Member

HEADKNOCKER

Member

Amend2

Member

Similar threads

Latest posts