642 a good first J-frame choice?

[Kho]

Right now my "lightweight" carry revolver is an SP101 (I also carry a CCO 1911 some of the time) but I've been thinking about getting a lighter one for a while. I had been leaning towards an LCR but am now thinking about a 642 for a couple of reasons. First, I think I should have at least on J-frame to go with my other Smiths and, second, my LGS is going to be have a sale next weekend and is offering 642's for $310. I guess S&W is getting aggressive as gun sales have slowed. I can't think of any good reason not to get one at that price, but wanted to ping the experts for your thoughts.

BTW, I shoot .44 mag and 10mm so recoil isn't an issue for me.

 

[armorer951]

The only problem with the 642 is that the current models have finish integrity issues with respect to the coating on the alloy frames. Because of this, I personally like the all stainless models, or the 442 better. The 442 is not perfect, but a better choice in terms of finish integrity at the moment.
If you decide on the 642 keep a close eye on the finish, particularly under the grip panels....and keep in mind the finish is guaranteed for one year. Be sure to contact S&W promptly if there are any problems with the finish.

 

[Breakaway500]

I think the 642 is a great revolver and at the $300-350 price range,a screaming deal. They are available with or without the Lock..so be careful. I like them so much..I bought more than one. The finish is aluminum and stainless,so I'm not sure what people are experiencing. Here is one with out the grips and has about 300 rounds through it. I really like these, right out of the box!

 

[Kho]

The only problem with the 642 is that the current models have finish integrity issues. Because of this, I personally like the all stainless models, or the 442 better.
If you decide on the 642 keep a close eye on the finish, particularly under the grip panels....and keep in mind the finish is guaranteed for one year. Be sure to contact S&W promptly if there are any problems with the finish.

Good to know, thanks. I looked at the fine print on the ad and they are selling the SKU 103810 (some SS) and 150544 (black) versions at least - no internal lock.

 

[haywood]

NO LOCK 442, my favorite !! I like the black finish. I think it holds up better.

 

[UNCLE PAULY]

My 2012 642 is a silver paint finished aluminum frame gun. Very light and easy to pocket carry. I think its a good choice especially for $300.

There have been reports of the silver finish flaking off on some guns especially those exposed to sweat or sweaty holsters as in IWB carry. Mine has spent its life in the safe so I can not give a 1st hand account.

Out of my five J frames the model 649 is my favorite, but biggest and most heavy (22 oz).
XS big dot front sight and Uncle Mikes rubber boot grips added, lock removed.

 

[ContinentalOp]

I think at that price either a 442-1 or 642-1 (no internal lock) is a good deal. At that price, if I could afford it I'd buy 2. I think I paid around $400 OTD for mine.

I prefer the 642 for the stainless steel components. I like the lower maintenance requirements. I don't really care about the finish issues. My first 642-1's finish started coming off pretty badly within a few months. My current 642-1 has only started showing finish issues on the backstrap after a year or so. Finish problems seem to be hit or miss. The finish issue doesn't affect function, so it doesn't bother me.

From what I've heard, the 442-1's finish holds up better, but you have to stay on top of preventive maintenance to keep the carbon steel components from rusting. While some people say the 442 uses blackened stainless steel, I've never seen anybody get a definitive answer; it seems to change based on who you ask at S&W CS.

FWIW, I prefer the S&W J-frame to the LCR because the J-frame has a stronger trigger reset, which I like for fast DA shooting.

There are lots of threads for advice on the airweight Centennials. Do a search and you'll find plenty of posts on recommended ammo, holsters, sight painting, trigger improvements, and other gear.

 

[ContinentalOp]

The finish is aluminum and stainless,so I'm not sure what people are experiencing..there is no paint like other models.

All the airweight models have had finishes. The no-dash models had hard anodizing, which holds up much better than the clear-coat finish on the silver aluminum frames of the current dash airweights. All you have to do is search the forums and you'll find plenty of threads with pictures showing the finish issues.

Here's an example. This was my first 642-1. I can't remember how long after I bought it I took the picture, but probably a year or less.

 

[George28]

The 642 provides pretty snappy recoil because it's 15 ounces or so. I have a Chief's Special from the 50's which is smaller but heavier than the 642 (20 oz). Recoil isn't as snappy. She's a safe queen. I have had a couple of 642's, but now carry a Charter Arms Police Undercover... 6 rounds and 23 ounces. The added weight and extra round are, for me, big advantages over the 642. And yes, the Charter performs flawlessly.

 

[Kho]

Thanks to everyone for their responses. I'm going to head down to my LGS in a couple of days and look at them. Will post pics if I pick one up.

 

[Jingles]

J frames have a magic way of multiplying in your safe. I've got 6 of them including a 642. All J frames are good IMHO, but the 642 is really the only one you need, the others that follow will just be gravy. It is small enough to pocket, accurate enough for a snub, and very reliable. At $310 you really can't go wrong.

 

[LeftHand-Fu]

One more thing OP, very important: the LCR trigger has a longer pull than a Smith J-frame. Being used to Smiths, I always start out shooting a little low with an LCR, and also sometimes fail to let the LCR trigger out far enough to reset. I don't know how this relates to an SP101, but lots of people including Ruger fans have complained about the LCR trigger reset, though if the comparison holds then you may find yourself shooting high with a Smith. Having said that, some find any of this it easy to get used to with practice practice practice.

Also possibly important: you shoot some mighty big guns, but those are all steel and you may still be surprised at the kick out of these little fellas. The polymer/aluminum .38 LCR transmits so much recoil, many decide to go up a few ounces to a steel-framed LCR-357 or LCR 9mm. Those are more versatile anyway. The equivalent in Smiths is to go up several ounces, from an aluminum 642 (or other aluminum model) to an all-steel Model 36 (the Classic currently in production, or a used Model 36), though that one has a hammer.

And I have to say, there is a BIG difference in quality between new pocket revos like the LCR or the latest 642, and a used classic 642 (or 37 Airweight, or a 36, etc). Maybe the Scandium 340/640 line is better, not sure because I haven't tried them, but at the risk of sounding like an Old Guy, it seems to me they don't make 'em like they used to.

 

[lefty_jake]

I like the 642, but the small gray sights are hard to see in some light conditions. Even on a J-frame, I like my sights to be visible enough that I at least have the option of seeing them.

With a 642 I use Testor's model paint to paint the bottom half of the front sight flat black and the top part gloss orange. So basically, I create a sight picture similar to a blued gun with an orange insert. I use a sharpie marker to blacken the rear sight. Overall, this creates an acceptable sight picture.

With a black gun like a 442, I just paint part of the front sight orange. I also think the 442 looks better. But as mentioned earlier, there is a question whether the 442 is more vulnerable to rust in the long term. So overall, between the 642 and the 442, I like them both. You really can't go wrong with either one.

 

[Mister X]

I second the problems with the trigger reset on the LCR. I took a look at them and they were a total no-go for me as it was relatively easy to short-stroke it in rapid fire.

I own two 642's and a 442 that I use as a training gun. Both are good choices, but I would probably recommend the 642 due to it being stainless steel and more rust resistant. I've had a few spots of rust on the barrel and cylinder of the 442. The 642's silver finish on the aluminum frame is probably a little less durable compared to the black on the 442, but it's really only a cosmetic issue. If the finish on mine gets too bad, I'll probably just get them refinished in black. Too bad S&W doesn't make black 642's.

 

[kaaskop49]

With the exception of my 342, I have never had any problem with finish on my other new-era lightweight J-frames, and I have more than a few. I'm also lucky in casinos, so maybe there is a connection...?

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[m4user]

I don't think you can go wrong with a 642 however older is better than new as others have pointed out. The 442 is a great choice as well.

 

[Cal44]

The 642 is a great choice.

But don't expect to pick one up at the gun store and go out and shoot it like a marksman.

Small J frames are hard to shoot well. Harder than most semi autos. It takes lots of practice to master a 642.

The heavier all steel J frames like the M60, M640, and M649 are easier to shoot.

Easier, but still not easy.

If you have the money, perhaps get a 640 and learn it first and then move to the lighter 642.

 

[Bill In Texas]

The 642 is good choice IMO! Go for it, that's a great price!

 

[Breakaway500]

I've been shooting my recently acquired 642 and the double action is very predictable and with practice, keeping the rounds on target at close range is no problem. No..not a target gun,however it was not intended or designed for that purpose. As a close range self defense weapon,that can be carried concealed with ease,it is just about ideal for my needs. I have others that could do the job..but not any better.
Every gun has it's intended role. For ease of use in personal defense and with minimal care,the hammerless revolver is a great simple choice.If I'm going hunting or punching holes in targets I would still take my 642..but it would ride in my vest,and a better suited gun would be in my holster. One gun cannot fill all needs perfectly any more than an all season tire is good in deep snow or on a race track. Jack of all trades and master of none.
I'm thinking of melting one of my 642's...

 

[blues7]

I like the 642, but the small gray sights are hard to see in some light conditions. Even on a J-frame, I like my sights to be visible enough that I at least have the option of seeing them.

With a 642 I use Testor's model paint to paint the bottom half of the front sight flat black and the top part gloss orange. So basically, I create a sight picture similar to a blued gun with an orange insert. I use a sharpie marker to blacken the rear sight. Overall, this creates an acceptable sight picture.

Pretty much the same...but I used Birchwood Casey sight paint. Like you, used a black "fine" Sharpie on the rear.