442 or 642?

[djm]

Yes, yes, another J-frame comparison question.

Why did you choose one over the other?

Thanks a lot.

 

[Dump1567]

I just figured the finish would hold-up better on the 642, or at least show less wear than the darker finish of the 442.

 

[A10]

One was that I found a no lock 442 in a local shop, and they are hard to come by in my neck of the woods. Given the choice between the two, though, I'd still have taken the 442. It's black and hides in my pocket quite nicely. I prefer a non-reflective handgun for personal defense.

 

[gbelleh]

I got a 442, just because I prefer the look of the black finish.

 

[stuch77]

neither a 637. need a hammer on a revolver or it just doesn't look right. not only that i like being able to shoot single action.

 

[Old cop]

Either would work fine and the decision should be centered on the cost to you (should be very close) and the climate you live in. I'm told the 642 stainless holds up to hot humid climates better, but both are quality guns. Personally I prefer the dark finish for tactical reasons. Let us know what you decide and post pics.

 

[Beancounter81]

I went with the 442 when I had to replace my 642 - wife took the 642 when she got her CCW. No significant difference besides color. (okay - I think the cylinder is stainless in the 642 and carbon steel in 442).

 

[picasso]

I practice with both, keep my 6 in the nightstand, but I carry the
4, much lighter, smaller profile.
Picasso

 

[cjcutter1]

642 in my pocket all day every day thats my choice both are fine guns.

 

[DUNTOV]

642/442

I have both (no-locks) and prefer the 642, as it has a stainless steel cyl. & barrel, the 442 is carbon steel

 

[67 GTO]

I like the looks of both, but would not be happy with the wear the 442 may show after a while. As far as concealability, it's in my black holster and the grips are black. If I have to remove it for self defense, I don't care how shiny it is.

 

[leejack]

Either way works for me.

But if I had to vote, I'd cast it for the 442.

 

[hdfinder47]

My 642 finish looks horrible after several years of daily carry IWB. Does not matter to me that the finish is peeled and has dark spots cuz it's just a tool. However, my son's 442 shows only some honest holster wear - finish not peeling or discoloring at all. From these particular examples, I'd have to conclude that the 442 has the more durable finish with hard, daily usage. I AM changing next week to a 442 no lock but the reason is that the 642 has a lock. JMO, FWIW.

 

[C Islander]

I really like my 442 even though I prefer stainless guns.

 

[rebelray84]

My 642 finish looks horrible after several years of daily carry IWB. Does not matter to me that the finish is peeled and has dark spots cuz it's just a tool. However, my son's 442 shows only some honest holster wear - finish not peeling or discoloring at all. From these particular examples, I'd have to conclude that the 442 has the more durable finish with hard, daily usage. I AM changing next week to a 442 no lock but the reason is that the 642 has a lock. JMO, FWIW.

Great...............and I chose the 642 because I thought it would hold up better than the 442!

 

[greener]

I opted for the 442. You are never out of style in basic black. Pearls optional.

 

[gsxunv04]

642, stainless all the way.

 

[sipowicz]

I like the looks of the 442 much better...and once it wears, you can hard chrome it...

 

[Bill Hughes]

I have both, No lock guns. I swap about on which one I carry. BIll Hughes

 

[1911bphil]

Sir, You cant go wrong with either one. Are your other handguns stainless or parkerized? Get which ever one you like and can find. Just my two cents worth.

 

[photoman]

The dark 442 does have the advantage when it comes to concealment unless you wear light clothing (white t shirts, etc). Either gun is a real winner. The 642 has a slight advantage regarding rust resistance due to the stainless steel cylinder and barrel.

Even though I don't own any 442's right now, I think they look better than the 642.

 

[ARMinSC]

I had a 642 w/ lock. Traded it away and got a 442 w/o lock. I like the black much better.

 

[DocBrown]

The black definitely hides well in the pocket.

 

[JT]

442 ... stealthy black, non-reflective ... matches black socks on ankle holster ... no issues with finish after several years.

 

[djm]

So, I suppose the 442 Pro Series (sku# 178041) would be the best of both worlds. You get the black finish with the stainless cylinder. As well the option of moon clips.

 

[jframe]

I got a 642-1 with FORGED internals and no lock, rated for +P. Hard to pass up when it comes your way from a good friend who carried it for fifteen years, and decided to go another route.

 

[Dogguy]

I have both. I prefer the looks of the 442. I prefer to carry a 642 due to it being stainless. I pocket carry daily and it's hot and humid here.

I don't know how the 442 finish would hold up but the 642 finish has worn completely away at all the edges after carrying in a Galco horsehide holster. It's no big deal to me.