638 vs. Model 38

Mexistrat

Mexistrat

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
137
Reaction score
87
Location
Cincinnati, Ohtucky
Are there any major differences that cause you to prefer one over the other? I haven an affinity for older revolvers, but the 638 (sans lock) seems to be pretty close to the original.

I am considering one or the other as a CC that can be dropped in a pocket when called for.
 
Register to hide this ad
Mine is the flat latch Model 38 (no dash) that I got second hand in the '70s as a back up to my service Model 15. Still shoots great and although showing some "character" is one of my favorites.
 
I prefer the M38. I've carried one for decades.
The 638 is built on a heavier, larger frame that I find clunky in comparison to the M38.
 
Last edited:
There is not much difference between a later (unpinned) nickel model 38 and the 638. The latter was only made for a brief period of time around 1998 without the lock, and neither is officially + P rated. The later (J Magnum) + P rated version was introduced a few years later with the lock.
 
It's light, affordable, easy to carry, and safely fires .38 +P...638s are great guns. The locks remove easily...

144f032b3addfcabeb87af8c301c57ae.jpg
 
My EDC used to consist of a Model 642, a folding knife on my belt, and an 8 round speed strip. After I had an unfriendly incident with a pair of Boxers (dogs), and once I had pulled my head out of my backside, I changed my EDC to a Model 38-0 and a Model 638-1 aka the New York Reload. These two revolvers were as close as I had to a matched pair in my collection. Both are loaded with the same, standard velocity ammo, and both are equipped with Crimson Trace LG-405 laser grips. Of the two, I much prefer the Model 638 as the front sight is wider than the narrower front sight of the Model 38. Additionally, the stainless steel Model 638 is preferable to me over the blued steel of the Model 38. By the way, I still carry a folding knife, and a loaded speed strip, as well as a small flashlight to complete my EDC. I will occasionally downsize to the Model 638, but only when I'm hunting in the field, where I have a long gun at hand.

Regards,

Dave

PS - here is a link to a previous post with photos of my EDC:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/138838918-post15.html

Regards,

Dave
 
Last edited:
I prefer the 638. My Airweight Smiths ride in a pocket much of the time. In the sauna that is the summer where I live, I prefer to have stainless steel vs the carbon steel of the model 38. I also prefer the aesthetics of stainless. YMMV.

The modern 638's are factory rated for +P. While I'm sure the older guns are fine with occasional use, having the blessings of the manufacturer, is another plus.
 
While I am accustomed to shooting .357 snub revolvers, for some reason, I find the early Smith lightweights (Models 37, 38, 42) painful to shoot. This includes the standard velocity/pressure LRN service ammo and target wadcutters for which they were designed.

I much prefer the later generation lightweights (637, 638, 642) and my 638 has been THE choice for casino visits. I have no problem shooting 158gr LHP +P ammo in any of these later guns.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103
 
kaaskop49 said:
While I am accustomed to shooting .357 snub revolvers, for some reason, I find the early Smith lightweights (Models 37, 38, 42) painful to shoot. This includes the standard velocity/pressure LRN service ammo and target wadcutters for which they were designed.

I much prefer the later generation lightweights (637, 638, 642) and my 638 has been THE choice for casino visits. I have no problem shooting 158gr LHP +P ammo in any of these later guns.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103
Click to expand...

Interesting. For some reason I assumed the older model would be heavier and shoot a little easier, and the new model would be lighter due to improvements in alloys and so on. I'm hearing in this thread that the opposite may be true.
 
murphydog said:
....The later (J Magnum) + P rated version was introduced a few years later with the lock.
Click to expand...
The M638-2 was made on the new J-Magnum frame from about 1996 to 2001. It did not have a lock. The -3 was introduced sometime after. The -3 has the lock, and today is still the current M638 dash number.

So, for about six years M638-2 were made, built on the new J-Magnum frame, that had no lock.
 
Kernel Crittenden said:
The M638-2 was made on the new J-Magnum frame from about 1996 to 2001. It did not have a lock. The -3 was introduced sometime after. The -3 has the lock, and today is still the current M638 dash number.

So, for about six years M638-2 were made, built on the new J-Magnum frame, that had no lock.
Click to expand...

Good info, thanks. So if I decide the lock is a deal breaker for me, I either need to search for a 638-2, or go with a M38. I don't think I've ever seen a 638 for sale that didn't have a lock.
 
I have both, a model 38 from the 70's and a new 638. I like the new one better. Out of the box the trigger was smoother and the 638 shoots point of aim. I also have a flat latch model 36, a new 442 and a 60-15. On days I don't plan on getting in a shooting, my most everyday carry is the 638. Since retiring from LE, the days I think I might get in a shooting, I stay home.
 
Photoman44 said:
The later guns have a 1/8" longer (more or less, I don't remember the exact amount) frame and cylinder making them a bit heavier.
Click to expand...

The Model 638-1 were made for a short while - or so I have been told. They are built on the same sized frame (non-magnum) as the Model 38.

Regards,

Dave
 
Is there any mechanical reason to stay away from a revolver that has a lock built in, or is it just a collectibility issue? I just don't use the lock.
 
There have been reports of the lock "locking" while the revolver was being fired. Lock vs. no lock is a quick way to start a long argument that never seems to be resolved. For sure, the lock hole provides an access point for crud to get into the works of the firearm. For some, it's just a matter of aesthetics. All of my Smiths are pre-lock, but I would not be afraid to carry a lock version.
 
My mod 38 developed a cracked frame just below the barrel forcing come. Was fortunate to get a replacement 638 from S&W. I purchased the 38 new and fired only standard velocity 38 (very few rounds fired). Saw on the internet that some mod 38 barrels were installed incorrectly which caused the frame to crack. Miss my 38.
 
I prefer the no-lock 642 over the other J-Frames. Got to wondering about weights myself. I weighed a modern 642 no-lock and old pre model 37 . The old pre 37 weighed 13.9 oz. and the modern 642 weighed 15.7 oz. on my digital scale. For some reason I assumed the new 642 would be lighter.
As for any mechanical reason to stay away from the S&W revolvers with the internal lock, some problems have been reported. I've only owned one, a 686 SSR. Mine worked fine during the short time I owned it. I examined the internal lock while I had it. It appeared to me that if there was a failure of the lock mechanism, the mechanism would default to the locked position. It also appeared that when unlocked, the revolver was maintained in the unlocked by a tiny hair wire spring. I would have thought that a lock failure would most appropriately default to the fire position, but that's probably not the way that S&W's attorneys looked at it....ymmv

And yea, Collectors hate the lock, as do a lot of average shooters like me....
 
I have carried my satin nickel model 38-2 .38 Spl. for about 20 years and felt very comfortable knowing it was with me and only weighed 14.3 ounces. A couple of years ago, I purchased a 340PD, 357 Mag. and only 11 ounces. With magnum rounds, it's pretty rough and not allowing for a quick follow up shot, but it will shoot .38s all day long. Now, my wife carries the 38 and I carry the 340PD, she likes the satin nickel finish. Both revolvers are excellent pocket guns. The 638 seems to be a copy of my original 38-2.
 
I prefer the 638 because it is less likely to corrode from perspiration, etc. Although yours does not have the internal lock, I would not let that stop me. Those internal locks are easy to remove, and proper removal (take it ALL out) leaves a really nice "oil application port" for that once every few years drop of oil for the lockwork. :)
 
jaeapla said:
Is there any mechanical reason to stay away from a revolver that has a lock built in, or is it just a collectibility issue? I just don't use the lock.
Click to expand...
With over half a million revolvers made with the lock in the last 15 years the answer is "no". If there ever was a problem, don't you think they would of fixed it in 15 years? Your chances of having a lock failure is right up there with seeing the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny having tea with Big Foot.

Actually, there are a number things that can break and lock-up a revolver. Things that happen with some measurable frequency. Like a hammer stud unexpectedly snapping off. But no one ever sites those as reasons not to carry a S&W revolver. Realistically, the chances of these failures is infinitesimal, and they effect ALL guns.
 
Double-O-Dave said:
My EDC used to consist of a Model 642, a folding knife on my belt, and an 8 round speed strip. After I had an unfriendly incident with a pair of Boxers (dogs), and once I had pulled my head out of my backside, I changed my EDC to a Model 38-0 and a Model 638-1 aka the New York Reload. These two revolvers were as close as I had to a matched pair in my collection. Both are loaded with the same, standard velocity ammo, and both are equipped with Crimson Trace LG-405 laser grips. Of the two, I much prefer the Model 638 as the front sight is wider than the narrower front sight of the Model 38. Additionally, the stainless steel Model 638 is preferable to me over the blued steel of the Model 38. By the way, I still carry a folding knife, and a loaded speed strip, as well as a small flashlight to complete my EDC. I will occasionally downsize to the Model 638, but only when I'm hunting in the field, where I have a long gun at hand.

Regards,

Dave

PS - here is a link to a previous post with photos of my EDC:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/138838918-post15.html

Regards,

Dave
Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing out the differance in the front sights, I never noticed it before. I have a mint model 38 no dash and a 442 that I carry together from time to time same as you. Both have Crimson Trace LG-305 grips and are loaded with 125 grain Nyclads. One I carry in a Don Hume JIT Slide belt holster and the other in a PocketHolster.com slide in holster in the back pocket of my pants. I have never felt at a disadvantage with this set up. Together with a small light and a S&W folding knife and I am good to go. Another thing I noticed after reading this thread is the 442 is heavier than the 38. Thank you all for the information. Oh and I am not a fan of the locks either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dump1567
.38 Special Ammo Velocity Comparisons: Historical vs. Modern
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
38SPL HV
38SPL HV
BoulderTroll
Safe ammo for new Model 10 No Lock
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Eddie Southgate
Eddie Southgate
CKPOMEH
Early M41 Differences
Replies
8
Views
399
Goony
Goony
M
West of the continental divide/public lands vs TN and eastern states
Replies
7
Views
339
Bald1
Bald1
O
Starting from scratch.
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Mercury
Mercury

Latest posts

Back
Top