spirit4earth
Member
I'm looking for a revolver to supplement my 9mm. What has the best balance between power (.38+p), light weight, concealability, and manageable (fun to shoot) recoil? Oh yeah, let's add "inexpensive" to the list.
642, 442, or ???
- Thread starter spirit4earth
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
bootsdeal
Member
I've had a 642 for about 3 years and very happy with it. The more I shoot it the smoother the trigger gets, therefore no need for extra trigger work. Never a problem, and carry it as primary with +P's.
Water-Man
US Veteran
Ruger LCR.
Dale53
Member
My daily carry is a 642 with the FBI load (158 gr lead SWC hollow point +P).
Perfectly satisfactory. I added #305 Crimson Trace grips and can also highly recommend them.
Dale53
Perfectly satisfactory. I added #305 Crimson Trace grips and can also highly recommend them.
Dale53
Tyrod
Member
I have both the 642NL and 442prelock. I prefer the 442 cause i worry less about scratching it. That silver paint/clearcoat is rather delicate. I also use the crimson trace LG-305.
jrs70
US Veteran
I carry a NL 642 and also an LCP. Most of the time both. I do like the 638. I just keep on finding good deals and never get arround to buy it.
JayBird686
Member
Here is a good price on a 642: SMITH AND WESSON 642 38 SPECIAL NO INTERNAL LOCK @ Sportsmans Outdoor Superstore:
I personally choose the 442, for cosmetic reasons, if a 642 was drastically cheaper, I would have bought.
I personally choose the 442, for cosmetic reasons, if a 642 was drastically cheaper, I would have bought.
I got a no-lock 442 thinking it would be less "conspicuous" if I ever had a wardrobe malfunction with my cover garment, and also for its easier (for me) to see all-black sights. It does satisfy those criteria, and is very easy to carry, but I've found that after a day in an IWB holster there is moisture on the crane that will start rust if I don't wipe it off every day. If I were doing it over I'd get the 642, which supposedly has a stainless crane and cylinder (to the 442's carbon steel parts) to minimize the risk of rust. I'd put up with the known flimsy finish, and would just paint the sights for better visibility.
That said, I recently acquired a 649 (all stainless 5 shot in 357 Magnum, which has a "bull" barrel of ~ 2 1/8" length and an ejector shroud.) This is now my favorite both to carry and to shoot. It seems to be immune to rust, and with its all steel construction and slightly heavier barrel it's easy for me to shoot several hundred 158g rounds at a session without pain. I mostly shoot cowboy level loads (under 700fps), but several dozen of the +P loads I use for daily carry are quite tolerable too. They're too expensive to shoot many more than that at a session. (I have fired exactly one (1) 357 magnum round from it, to say I did it, and plan not to do it again - even with a big cushy Pachmayr grip I did not find it to be pleasant.) The shrouded hammer lets me cock it for single action shooting when I take on steel plates at 25 yards or more
It IS heavier than an airweight, and is not what I would choose to carry regularly in a jacket or pants pocket, but I do carry it daily in a belt (IWB) holster and pretty much forget it's there. For my purposes, it is a true all around gun.
That said, I recently acquired a 649 (all stainless 5 shot in 357 Magnum, which has a "bull" barrel of ~ 2 1/8" length and an ejector shroud.) This is now my favorite both to carry and to shoot. It seems to be immune to rust, and with its all steel construction and slightly heavier barrel it's easy for me to shoot several hundred 158g rounds at a session without pain. I mostly shoot cowboy level loads (under 700fps), but several dozen of the +P loads I use for daily carry are quite tolerable too. They're too expensive to shoot many more than that at a session. (I have fired exactly one (1) 357 magnum round from it, to say I did it, and plan not to do it again - even with a big cushy Pachmayr grip I did not find it to be pleasant.) The shrouded hammer lets me cock it for single action shooting when I take on steel plates at 25 yards or more
It IS heavier than an airweight, and is not what I would choose to carry regularly in a jacket or pants pocket, but I do carry it daily in a belt (IWB) holster and pretty much forget it's there. For my purposes, it is a true all around gun.
JayBird686
Member
Yeah I think my thinking was that if I wanted a stainless look, I wanted the whole thing stainless. I would really like a a 649. I have not had any rust. I pocket carry in a holster, so the amount of moisture is limited.
photoman
Member
Airweight Centennial in .38 Special.
I have both the 442 and 642 Airweights. Prefer the 642 because of the moisture issue. I had a 642 that was some 14 years old, it never had any sort of finish issues, and if it did, it's a carry gun and worn finishes are to be expected. You want a perfect finish on your guns, then keep them in the safe.
OP
spirit4earth
Member
Thank you for all your replies! These guns really aren't that expensive. I love my M&P 9c, but I've found that it's a little big for me carry. But, being a poor worker, it'll be a while till I can spring for the .38. I don't have my CCL yet anyway.....still waiting...sigh....
Similar threads
