642 Frustration

[pwhphd]

I recently purchased a 642-2 Airweight [Alloy/Stainless], but I am dissappointed in the finish. It looks very much like clearcoat paint over buffed satin aluminum. Recently I have seen an apparently new version [the 642 "Freedom Protector] which seems to be the same gun, but promotes a .312 target trigger. I don't know if that is the same trigger as the 642-2 or what? I have also seen a 642 ported revolver in matte black finish and advertised as a "Lite." I own a 30 year old Airweight Bodyguard that has a black anadized finish that I prefer to the matte/satin/clearcoat/et.al. finish. Can someone please provide enough information for me to either make a decision to replace my 642-2 or alleviate my frustration from a lack of comparitive information.

 

[Kanewpadle]

I never considered the finish of my 642 or 442 to be of major importance. This gun was built for serious up close work where it excels. S&W sells more of these than any of thier other guns. And for good reason.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate a good finish on a gun. But the 642 just doesn't bother me. It's a tool.

If it really bothers you then get rid of it.

 

[zercool]

Yes, it's clearcoat over the alloy frame. Mine has picked up a bit of a faint orange tint where my holster dye bled a little bit. *shrug* It doesn't need to be pretty - just to go bang when I pull the trigger.

 

[tguil]

Related question and maybe helpful to OP. Is the finish on the 442 more durable than than the finish on the 642?

 

[InTheWoods]

My 642 finish has held up well. I occassionally put a fresh coat of wax on the gun and clean it only with clp. It shows no finish wear and gets carried a lot.

 

[Bart 44]

I never considered the finish of my 642 or 442 to be of major importance. This gun was built for serious up close work where it excels. S&W sells more of these than any of thier other guns. And for good reason.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate a good finish on a gun. But the 642 just doesn't bother me. It's a tool.

If it really bothers you then get rid of it.

Couldn't agree more!

Dennis.

 

[aterry33]

To my knowledge, all of the aluminum revolvers just come with some sort of anodizing. The steel parts are often finished with something a little more durable.

If it really bothers you, send it to these folks: W.E. BIRDSONG INC- PROTECTIVE COATINGS FOR FIREARMS AND METAL

The tough part about getting these revolvers refinished is that most finishes don't do well on aluminum. There's no problem on the steel parts, i.e. cylinder and barrel, but the aluminum frame is the tough part.

I would not worry about it until it got really bad and then you can have it refinished.

Noted handgun expert Ken Hackathorn carried an old Model 42 until it had what he described as an "Army Finish" on it (rust).

 

[Marshal Tom]

642 finish

I posted a couple of days ago about my 337Ti. It developed a problem that needed fixing so I contacted the factory about the repair. I have been pocket carrying that gun for several years and it had developed quite a bit of wear. I asked the factory rep about refinishing it while they had it for the repair. I was told that due to the clear coat finish, they probably would not be able to refinish it. It had been dropped and the edge of the barrel shroud dinged below the front sight. I inquired about replacing the shroud and was told that it was probably not possible either. I am told that they won't do it because it has the crush fit barrel and that S&W has had problems with cracking frames when removing the barrel so they won't do it.

I would think twice about purchaseing another S&W with the clear coat finish although I love the gun. It is a tool to be carried and used and I love the weight for pocket carry.

Tom

 

[Dogguy]

I sorta like the way a gun looks with some wear on it. My 642 is getting a bit of wear around the sharper edges due to constant pocket carry in various holsters.

I have a Nikon F2 camera I bought in 1974 that has most of the black paint worn off of it. I always liked that camera for the "used" look.

 

[Dale53]

An S&W Model 642 is my daily carry. I've only had it in service for a couple of years. I carry in a Mika pocket holster. It is holding up well.

However, I am pretty much like a couple of other posters. This is a carry gun. It gets used, daily. Regardless of what finish most guns have, they WILL wear. Blued guns wear, nickel finish wears and even stainless guns wear (the stainless guns can often be "restored" by the owners). It is just a fact of life.

Frankly, a bit of proper wear (not speaking of abuse) on a using gun just adds character to the piece. I don't buy into purposely aging guns, but honest wear is accepted by me as real life.

FWIW
Dale53

 

[38-44HD45]

It's going to be carried concealed, right? So who cares how it looks, as long as it works?

 

[photoman]

All of the "silver" Airweight guns will have this "problem" that you're talking about. It doesn't bother me but I understand it bothers some.

You might want to consider a 640. You can polish those up to a bright finish and, with a small amount of regular maintenance, it will never tarnish or rust.

 

[Glock 'em down]

I hear ya pwhphd. I too like a nice finish on a revolver. That's why I chose the 442 over the 642. The matte blue/black, IMO, seems to have a more uniformed appearance than it's stainless steel sibling.

However, they say the cylinder, barrel and crane will rust faster on the 442 than on the 642. I tend to agree with that, you know...law of physics, metals and what not.

But like many others have said. It's a tool. A carry gun. A little honest saddle wear is kinda sexy.

I say tote it and don't worry about little nicks and scars here and there. If it bothers you too bad, go to an all stainless Jaybird from the mid 80's. Now THAT'S a nice finish!

 

[pwhphd]

642 Frustration goes beyond the finish!

I appreciate everyone's comments about the clearcoat finish on my 642-2 and I fully understand that function is more important than finish. However; since the gun is new and I may want a different 642 [like the black ported one I mentioned] I merely wanted additional information on the "Freedom Protector" [with the .312 trigger ?] or if the black ported "Lite" is a completely different from the "Airweight." As I said, I have an "Airweight" bodyguard that has an black anadized finish that has worn better over the past 30+ years than some of the current "clearcoat" finishes I have seen that are only a couple of years old.
If you have information about the ported black 642 "Lite" or the "Freedom Protector" and its .312 trigger, I would appreciate learning more. Thanks again.

 

[Leadfoot2]

Ahh remember the old days when S&W discontinued the 642?

There were too many complaints about the two color finish, so Smith in
their infinite wisdom gave us the 442 in nickle plate.

I order one, and then the trouble began.

First revolver, half way thru the first box of factory loads, a chunk
nickel plate the size of a quarter flies off and cuts the back of the
hand of my friend who was shooting. Back to Smith.

Second revolver, second cylinder of the same box of factory loads,
a flake the size of a pea disappeared off the cylinder. Back to Smith.

Third revolver, upon inspection, discovered a crater the size of a 3
pin heads in the rifleing under the front sight, saved my ammo.
Back to Smith.

By this time I'm on first name basis with the lady who was running the repair
department at the time. She calls me up and asked me what I wanted to do.
I said, I really wanted a 642 from the beginning, but the
only option was the nickle 442.

After a short silence she says, we are bringing back the 642, can I send you one?

Yes, yes you may.

Leadfoot

 

[USAF385]

The finish on my 642 is looking awful in spots...

...but I see that as a sign of a gun that got to fulfill its purpose.. a carry gun!

 

[HEADKNOCKER]

My Airweight is almost 20 years old & still looks very fresh..
It has the Anodized Finish!! 642 No Dash