Does anyone know if the UC rear sight can be purchased separately? The UC line appears have the same rear sight cut as the 640 pro. I would like to replace my 640 pro tritium rear with a blacked out one from the UC's. Any know anything? Or have another alternative? Thanks!
442/642 UC rear sight
- Thread starter Ggunb
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Alk8944
US Veteran
Call S&W Customer Service and ask! 800-331-0852
The 442/642 is not a long range or target gun. Putting a better than gutter sight on it is a solution for a problem that in reality doesn't exist. The design is for a easy to draw concealed SHTF emergency life saving weapon. Nothing more, nothing less.
Pretty much everyone on this forum knows this. It's UC version is only a money maker for S&W, so they went along with this collaboration. If you want to spend an extra $200. to fill a slot in your J frame collection or add a .32 Magnum that's cool.
But considering all of the QC issues that seem to be popping up it doesn't seem to fit a SD reliability standard that sould be an expected requirement. Personally I would much rather see S&W charge that extra $200 and put it toward the QC standards of years gone by.
Taking an otherwise reliable J frame and spending the money required to buy the UC sight and the gunsmithing services for mounting is an exercise in a "hey look at this" one upping of the S&W brethren. That's OK, I see it on the range all the time. Mostly by those who think basketball groups are sufficient.
I know I've just offended those who say "don't tell me how to spend my money". Yes, that's a very valid point. But then again, so is mine.
Pretty much everyone on this forum knows this. It's UC version is only a money maker for S&W, so they went along with this collaboration. If you want to spend an extra $200. to fill a slot in your J frame collection or add a .32 Magnum that's cool.
But considering all of the QC issues that seem to be popping up it doesn't seem to fit a SD reliability standard that sould be an expected requirement. Personally I would much rather see S&W charge that extra $200 and put it toward the QC standards of years gone by.
Taking an otherwise reliable J frame and spending the money required to buy the UC sight and the gunsmithing services for mounting is an exercise in a "hey look at this" one upping of the S&W brethren. That's OK, I see it on the range all the time. Mostly by those who think basketball groups are sufficient.
I know I've just offended those who say "don't tell me how to spend my money". Yes, that's a very valid point. But then again, so is mine.
The original poster wants to replace an existing rear tritium sight with the blacked out UC sight.
I own a Ruger LCR with an XS front sight, and a 642UC. The 642UC is easier to shoot at 10+ yards with. Others who've shot it have felt the same. Now, is a concealed carrier likely to have a gunfight at that distance? Looking at CCL instructor Tom Givens' data on 67 former student shootings, there's a 4% chance that the shooting occurs at 15-25 yards. That's not likely, but it's not 0 either.
Even though I like the rear sight for range work, the biggest selling point in the UC for me was a pinned front sight that had better visibility in low light than a ramp sight. I was leaning towards picking up an M&P 340 before the UC snubs were announced, as having a gunsmith install a pinned or dovetailed front to a 642 would likely put me in new M&P 340 price territory.
I, too, would prefer if S&W's QC was better. I suspect that they simply weren't to to the task of the large Lipsey's order. Some of the things we've seen in multiple UC guns are likely going under-reported in more plebian J-frames. FWIU, the yoke in the UC guns isn't a unique part, but S&W have quite possibly put out some bad ones in other J-frames. Mine got replaced, and my father's 632UC also is going to get it replaced.
I find it curious that you mock people for thinking that "basketball groups are sufficient" while previously deriding a rear sight.
