ditto1958
Member
Those of you who have both the Smith 442 or 642 and the Ruger LCR, what do you like/dislike about each?
Or, if you only have one, which did you choose, and why?
Or, if you only have one, which did you choose, and why?
442/642 or Ruger LCR?
- Thread starter ditto1958
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Cal44
Member
I have a 642 and an LCR 357.
Like them both.
Frankly, I'm still not proficient with either.
The LCR has a nicer trigger. I like the looks of the 642 a little better.
The LCR 357 is 2 oz heavier, but the LCR 38 is the same.
I like having 357 mag capability, but don't use it so I suppose it doesn't matter.
I think the LCR 357 in particular will probably last longer due to having a stainless steel frame around the cylinder.
More choices for grips on the 642.
I don't worry about the finish on the LCR. It's a typical Ruger durable product.
Dave
Like them both.
Frankly, I'm still not proficient with either.
The LCR has a nicer trigger. I like the looks of the 642 a little better.
The LCR 357 is 2 oz heavier, but the LCR 38 is the same.
I like having 357 mag capability, but don't use it so I suppose it doesn't matter.
I think the LCR 357 in particular will probably last longer due to having a stainless steel frame around the cylinder.
More choices for grips on the 642.
I don't worry about the finish on the LCR. It's a typical Ruger durable product.
Dave
357-RevolverGuy
Member
A few years ago I had narrowed down to the same two guns. I chose the S&W 642 for several reasons. It's an all aluminum alloy frame with steel barrel/cylinder. It feels solid. The LCR is a polymer frame and it felt like it to me. Also I do not like the finger grooved rubber grips that are on the LCR. At the time when I was searching there were also few options for LCR grips and holsters (maybe today that's changed.)
Tough choice since they are both good revolvers. The LCRs usually have better triggers but are slightly bigger. I own both and like both of them as a matter of fact I just bought a new LCRX with the exposed hammer and really like it. You can't go wrong with either, and both companies have great CS if you ever need it. The LCRs are less expensive and are easier to find especially in the rimfire calibres.
Kilibreaux
Member
This is a perfect case to chime in about what makes a Smith & Wesson worth the money!
Of the choices mentioned - frankly of ANY choice of polymer frame snubbie revolver versus ANY S&W J frame, I'd take the Smith everyday and twice on Sunday! Why? Because it LOOKS BETTER! Polymer frames for semiautos integrate well with the overall system, but polymer frames for revolvers look clunky, bulky, awkward, and downright "UGH!" ACTUALLY, Smith has produced a few steel reinforced polymer J-frames that while they don't look as clean as a steel or aluminum alloy, DO look better than those goofy-looking clunk-monsters from Ruger!
Also, what's the REASON to go polymer? Weight and the ability to create better ergos due to shape molding...but in polymer revolver frames I've not seen ANY lessening of weight! So THAT's out as a reason to choose one.
By now the reader can tell I'm strongly in favor of the S&W over the LCR because they cost about the same, the LCR looks horrificable*, cheap, and offers NOTHING in terms of fit, finish, function, or duability over the 642/442.
I guess one valid reason to buy the LCR would be that when you pull it on a robber, she'll take one look at your crappy looking gun and say, "Dude, looks like you need your money more than I do - to buy a better looking gun!" and walk away!
I suppose one reason to choose an LCR might be like those people who choose the ugliest dog on earth...
Of the choices mentioned - frankly of ANY choice of polymer frame snubbie revolver versus ANY S&W J frame, I'd take the Smith everyday and twice on Sunday! Why? Because it LOOKS BETTER! Polymer frames for semiautos integrate well with the overall system, but polymer frames for revolvers look clunky, bulky, awkward, and downright "UGH!" ACTUALLY, Smith has produced a few steel reinforced polymer J-frames that while they don't look as clean as a steel or aluminum alloy, DO look better than those goofy-looking clunk-monsters from Ruger!
Also, what's the REASON to go polymer? Weight and the ability to create better ergos due to shape molding...but in polymer revolver frames I've not seen ANY lessening of weight! So THAT's out as a reason to choose one.
By now the reader can tell I'm strongly in favor of the S&W over the LCR because they cost about the same, the LCR looks horrificable*, cheap, and offers NOTHING in terms of fit, finish, function, or duability over the 642/442.
I guess one valid reason to buy the LCR would be that when you pull it on a robber, she'll take one look at your crappy looking gun and say, "Dude, looks like you need your money more than I do - to buy a better looking gun!" and walk away!
I suppose one reason to choose an LCR might be like those people who choose the ugliest dog on earth...
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 7,100
I prefer the 642 because I think it is a more elegant weapon. It has not been proven to me that the LCR is more durable than a 442/642. Grip choices, holsters and accessories are more readily available for the J frame S&W. Plus, the 642 just looks better to me. I am not really a fan of the LCR trigger, having no issues with the standard out-of-the-box J frame trigger for the 40+ years I have been shooting. I have not found the finish on either the 442 or the 642 to be any disadvantage. I have seen some 642s on this forum on which the clearcoat seems to have flaked or peeled, but I have never had that happen. On the other hand, I really have not pocket carried any revolver for years now, preferring semi-autos. That said, if all I had were a 442/642, I would not feel in any sense disadvantaged.
I am not exactly sure why my wife and I both shot my 642 better than our friend's LCR the day we visited the range with both. It is not that the LCR was unpleasant. I just had a hard time keeping my shots on the paper with the LCR. My wife did a little better with the LCR than I did and our friend likes (and shoots) her LCR just fine . . . go figure.
I believe the "standard advice" is usually to try both before making your purchase, and our mixed experience may be the reason why this advice is so often offered.
Best of luck in your quest!
oneminute
Member
They are both fine guns. I have both but carry an LCR 357 on duty as my BUG.
My reasons being that it fits my hand better and has sights that I can actually use.
I don't know that I would call one trigger better than the other but they are different.
A 442 will carry in the pocket or most anyplace else slightyly easier than an LCR. But only marginally so.
Just to clarify also, the LCR does not have a polymer frame.
http://www.ruger.com/products/lcr/features.html#
Durability has not been an issue with either the LCR 38 or 357 over the course of 2k rounds through the 38. The 357 does not have as many rounds through it but I see no reason why it would be any different.
If cosmetics are important to you the LCR has a way more durable finish.
So, a j frame is marginally easier to conceal, has poorer sights and has a less durable finish but does it's job with more panache.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
My reasons being that it fits my hand better and has sights that I can actually use.
I don't know that I would call one trigger better than the other but they are different.
A 442 will carry in the pocket or most anyplace else slightyly easier than an LCR. But only marginally so.
Just to clarify also, the LCR does not have a polymer frame.
http://www.ruger.com/products/lcr/features.html#
Durability has not been an issue with either the LCR 38 or 357 over the course of 2k rounds through the 38. The 357 does not have as many rounds through it but I see no reason why it would be any different.
If cosmetics are important to you the LCR has a way more durable finish.
So, a j frame is marginally easier to conceal, has poorer sights and has a less durable finish but does it's job with more panache.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Florida J Frame
US Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,051
- Reaction score
- 816
Both are good weapons built by good American companies. Both have great customer support. Strictly a personal choice. One really isn't better then the other. My choice was a no-lock 642 and I am very happy with it.
Cal44
Member
They are both fine guns. I have both but carry an LCR 357 on duty as my BUG.
My reasons being that it fits my hand better and has sights that I can actually use.
I don't know that I would call one trigger better than the other but they are different.
A 442 will carry in the pocket or most anyplace else slightyly easier than an LCR. But only marginally so.
Just to clarify also, the LCR does not have a polymer frame.
Ruger® LCR® Double-Action Revolver Features
Durability has not been an issue with either the LCR 38 or 357 over the course of 2k rounds through the 38. The 357 does not have as many rounds through it but I see no reason why it would be any different.
If cosmetics are important to you the LCR has a way more durable finish.
So, a j frame is marginally easier to conceal, has poorer sights and has a less durable finish but does it's job with more panache.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
That picture is for an LCR 38. For the LCR 357 the frame around the cylinder would be gold color (stainless steel). Not sure about the barrel shroud on the LCR 357.
That's the main difference between the LCR 357 and the LCR 38 and why it weights a little more.
Dave
hdfinder47
Member
So how many decades has the LCR been in service? I'll stick with my 442. (But if I were to decide to take a chance on newer technology, I'd trust Ruger - or the new S&W Bodygard series - with my life.)
When I was researching for a concealed carry gun, I had certain parameters in mind. It had to be dependable, lightweight, small enough for a pocket, in a caliber used at one time by either the military or police and lots of fun to shoot at the range. It came down to either a 442 or a 642. It just happened that someone at work had a used 442 that they shot once, cleaned and put in a drawer.
I bought it from them, did a detail clean and while I had it apart, did a trigger job with a spring change, got some Pachmayr compact grips and a Laserlyte side mounted laser.
I made a few holsters and now it's my constant companion, either in my pocket or riding on my right hip loaded with 110 grain Federal Hydra-shoks, with a couple of loaded quick strips in my left front pocket.
I tried the Ruger LCR on for size and it does have a nice factory trigger. I just couldn't get past the plastic grip frame. Am I a gun snob? Naa, just a dinosaur.
I bought it from them, did a detail clean and while I had it apart, did a trigger job with a spring change, got some Pachmayr compact grips and a Laserlyte side mounted laser.
I made a few holsters and now it's my constant companion, either in my pocket or riding on my right hip loaded with 110 grain Federal Hydra-shoks, with a couple of loaded quick strips in my left front pocket.
I tried the Ruger LCR on for size and it does have a nice factory trigger. I just couldn't get past the plastic grip frame. Am I a gun snob? Naa, just a dinosaur.
Henry O
Member
I have all three. My 442 and 642 are the guns I prefer to carry and shoot. They feel better in my hand and for some reason are more inclined to send the bullet more accurately in the direction that I want it to go. Probably a mind over matter issue, who knows?
The LCR is, with all due respect to a fine revolver, my sacrifice gun. When I make driving trips to that big state on the West Coast that barely tolerates any type of weapon, even those which have been temporarily rendered useless by their state law, I keep in mind the stories I have heard about the condition of returned weapons after being confiscated.
I purchased the LCR precisely for that situation because I want the weapon while I am in the other states along the way where it is allowed to be operational. The LCR shoots well but will not be a heart breaker, except for the investment, if a third party should happen to cause some damage to it.
The LCR is, with all due respect to a fine revolver, my sacrifice gun. When I make driving trips to that big state on the West Coast that barely tolerates any type of weapon, even those which have been temporarily rendered useless by their state law, I keep in mind the stories I have heard about the condition of returned weapons after being confiscated.
I purchased the LCR precisely for that situation because I want the weapon while I am in the other states along the way where it is allowed to be operational. The LCR shoots well but will not be a heart breaker, except for the investment, if a third party should happen to cause some damage to it.
My normal CCW is the LCR in .357. I chose it over several others because it was the one I shot more accurately, consistently than other. Tried several at a local range that lets you 'rent' guns to shoot. I have big hands and it does tend to 'squirm' a little with heavier .357 defense loads. With .38s, it is a nice accurate little snub.
It also was not terribly expensive and has held up well being my primary carry for nearly a year now.
IMHO the best gun for CC is the one you are most comfortable with and shoot the best, regardless of brand.
It also was not terribly expensive and has held up well being my primary carry for nearly a year now.
IMHO the best gun for CC is the one you are most comfortable with and shoot the best, regardless of brand.
Rick_A
Member
Before I bought my 442 I shot both back to back at the range. Despite the lighter trigger and higher profile sights on the Ruger, I shot them both the same. The 442 won due to being less bulky, more metal, and preferring the S&W cylinder release.
They're both great guns but I definitely favor Smiths.
They're both great guns but I definitely favor Smiths.
BobR1
Member
MY 2 Cents
First the 642 OR 442 Question? 442
I am not impressed with the clear coat finish on the Brite Aluminum J Frames. My 442 Pro finish has so far had no issues at all.
LCR 38 or LCR 357? The extra weight is noticeable on the LCR 357 when carrying it. The extra weight also seems to reduce recoil somewhat.
LCR 357 or 442? I like them both.
With that said the Polymer Frame, Hogue Grip, and Extra Weight of the LCR 357 makes it a lot more pleasant to shoot.
Sights: The LCR has a pinned on front sight, while the 442/642 does not. I put an XS 24/7 Tritium front sight on my LCR357.
I have Green Sight Brite sight paint on the front sight of my 442 Pro. Only useful under lighted conditions.
This is one area S&W could stand to make an improvement. You can change the front sight on any LCR. You have to get into about a $700 J frame to get a pinned on front sight.
Standard 442 OR LCR 357 with a 24/7 Tritium Front Sight: RUGER
442 Pro Moon Clip OR LCR 357 with 24/7 Tritium Front Sight: Flip A Coin, I am not out after dark much any more.
IF I Conceal Carried anywhere I was out after Dark a great deal it would be easy: RUGER
Bob
First the 642 OR 442 Question? 442
I am not impressed with the clear coat finish on the Brite Aluminum J Frames. My 442 Pro finish has so far had no issues at all.
LCR 38 or LCR 357? The extra weight is noticeable on the LCR 357 when carrying it. The extra weight also seems to reduce recoil somewhat.
LCR 357 or 442? I like them both.
With that said the Polymer Frame, Hogue Grip, and Extra Weight of the LCR 357 makes it a lot more pleasant to shoot.
Sights: The LCR has a pinned on front sight, while the 442/642 does not. I put an XS 24/7 Tritium front sight on my LCR357.
I have Green Sight Brite sight paint on the front sight of my 442 Pro. Only useful under lighted conditions.
This is one area S&W could stand to make an improvement. You can change the front sight on any LCR. You have to get into about a $700 J frame to get a pinned on front sight.
Standard 442 OR LCR 357 with a 24/7 Tritium Front Sight: RUGER
442 Pro Moon Clip OR LCR 357 with 24/7 Tritium Front Sight: Flip A Coin, I am not out after dark much any more.
IF I Conceal Carried anywhere I was out after Dark a great deal it would be easy: RUGER
Bob
Edmo
US Veteran
I picked the 642... Twice...
I just like the classic look, feel, and proven reliability of a S&W J frame... Or two.
Edmo
I just like the classic look, feel, and proven reliability of a S&W J frame... Or two.
Edmo
Last edited:
If you're in the market and undecided, do what Rick A did - find a way to shoot both, preferably at the same range session(s), and pick the one YOU like best. That's what I did, and I ended up with a 442 - not because of looks or finish or brand name, but because I shot the Smith better than the Ruger. Once that fact was known, the wider choices of grips and holsters for an old Smith design than for a new Ruger made the decision easier, but if I'd shot the Ruger better I would have gotten it and just dealt with the holster issue. (I probably would have stuck with the stock Ruger grip, as it was pretty good.)
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
Man if they came in that color-I'd but one in a heartbeat
I chose a 642 a long time ago - I am not sure if the LCRs were even available at the time. But I almost always choose S&W revolvers, anyway, so I don't really think about it much. I have several Rugers, they're great guns, but I'm usually packin' a S&W.....
But this is ever so funny:
Thanks for that!!!!
***GRJ***
But this is ever so funny:
Thanks for that!!!!
***GRJ***
Similar threads
