I had a chance to look at a 642 and an LCR 38 side by side today. I am going to buy either one of these 2 or a 442. They are almost identical in size except for the larger trigger guard on the LCR and the larger grip. Both felt the same in my hand. The Smith seems to fit my front pocket a little better. They are both nice and I'm sure both are solid guns, although I kinda like the lack of polymer on the Smith. The only thing that might be a problem on the 642 is the area on the frame between the back of the grip and the shrouded hammer. There would be a lot of force on the web of your hand against the frame there. The grip on the LCR covers this part of the frame. Is there a grip available for the 642/442 that covers this area? One that is about the same size and width?
642 Grip Question
- Thread starter cdt
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Cal44
Member
One of the advantages of the 642 is there are approximately 150,000 different grips available so you can likely find whatever you want.
For LCRs there are only a few alternatives -- mostly by Hogue and Eagle.
For LCRs there are only a few alternatives -- mostly by Hogue and Eagle.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,001
- Reaction score
- 7,059
I agree with -db-, but the wait for the Spegel Boot Grip is hideously long.
+1 on the J frame for grip choices. If you want skinny and pocketable there's also the Crimson Trace LG-405 laser grip, which adds a bit of width and some air cushioning to the top rear of the grip, as well as a laser sight. It gives you an adjustable sight as well as what is probably the best training tool available for these little guns.
FWIW, I have the 442, which I bought for (1) what I thought would be its less visible black finish and (2) easier-to-see black sights. As for (1), I've learned that concealed means concealed, and even if you think you might briefly expose the gun, nobody notices. As for (2), I now paint all my front sights with bright orange nail polish (over a white base/primer), and on stainless fixed sight guns I paint the rear sight notch with flat black model paint, so sights are just as easy to see on stainless as on black guns. But carrying the 442 in an IWB holster, I learned that the carbon steel yoke would accumulate tiny beads of sweat between the yoke and frame over the course of a day, and if I didn't wipe the yoke down every night with a silicone rag I got little rust spots starting. (I expect I'd have had the same experience if I'd carried in a pocket.) That does NOT happen with a 638 which I carried for several years - same materials as a 642.
So - I'd vote for going with a 642 over the LCR. And would recommend NOT carrying a 442 in a pocket if you can get a 642 instead.
FWIW, I have the 442, which I bought for (1) what I thought would be its less visible black finish and (2) easier-to-see black sights. As for (1), I've learned that concealed means concealed, and even if you think you might briefly expose the gun, nobody notices. As for (2), I now paint all my front sights with bright orange nail polish (over a white base/primer), and on stainless fixed sight guns I paint the rear sight notch with flat black model paint, so sights are just as easy to see on stainless as on black guns. But carrying the 442 in an IWB holster, I learned that the carbon steel yoke would accumulate tiny beads of sweat between the yoke and frame over the course of a day, and if I didn't wipe the yoke down every night with a silicone rag I got little rust spots starting. (I expect I'd have had the same experience if I'd carried in a pocket.) That does NOT happen with a 638 which I carried for several years - same materials as a 642.
So - I'd vote for going with a 642 over the LCR. And would recommend NOT carrying a 442 in a pocket if you can get a 642 instead.
eveled
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
- Messages
- 2,612
- Reaction score
- 3,448
It is a .38special, I don't think it sill cause any damage to your hand if that area of the frame goes un covered, but as stated there are lots of options.
My 442 wears Barami hip grips which don't cover the backstrap at all. My 340pd (.357 mag) has Crimson trace grips that have a big cushy pad over the back strap. Be sure to get the Crimson Trace model 305, or the new 405, the 105 has no cushion.
Unlike the previous post, I recommend the 442 over the 642, the black finish for me has proven to be more durable, and would be easier to touch up, even if just with a sharpy.
My 317 has the same finish as the 642 and it looks like **** and is flaking and yellowed.
The LCR is a good gun, but a poor substitution for a j-frame IMHO, Ed.
My 442 wears Barami hip grips which don't cover the backstrap at all. My 340pd (.357 mag) has Crimson trace grips that have a big cushy pad over the back strap. Be sure to get the Crimson Trace model 305, or the new 405, the 105 has no cushion.
Unlike the previous post, I recommend the 442 over the 642, the black finish for me has proven to be more durable, and would be easier to touch up, even if just with a sharpy.
My 317 has the same finish as the 642 and it looks like **** and is flaking and yellowed.
The LCR is a good gun, but a poor substitution for a j-frame IMHO, Ed.
Last edited:
Shorty 45 MK2
Member
I'd suggest shooting both to see which you like better.
The LCR has a better factory trigger and doesn't have a lock. (They did at first but have dropped it.) Also have a pinned front sight that is easy to change if you want a NS or fiber optic.
The 642/442 has more after market support (but the LCR is getting better.) like grips and you can get an Apex duty kit to help with the trigger pull, although for a SD gun I prefer not to change the springs out. They have the lock on most models but some can be had without.
The LCR has a better factory trigger and doesn't have a lock. (They did at first but have dropped it.) Also have a pinned front sight that is easy to change if you want a NS or fiber optic.
The 642/442 has more after market support (but the LCR is getting better.) like grips and you can get an Apex duty kit to help with the trigger pull, although for a SD gun I prefer not to change the springs out. They have the lock on most models but some can be had without.
357-RevolverGuy
Member
Did you get to dry fire them? They have completely different trigger pulls. Also the 642 J frame will have a ton of grip options compared to the LCR. Most people don't usually stay with factory grips the longer they own the gun.
I didn't get to dry fire them. I couldn't even open the cylinders. They had them locked. One of their employees was killed showing a gun a while back and I guess they have really tightened up their policies. I have fired a LCR 38 about a year ago. Like any snub, the recoil was snappy, but the trigger was nice and I really liked it. The main reason I am looking at them is for front pocket carry so the way it fits is one of the most important points for me. It has to be light, which both are. I don't really care if the trigger pull is a little heavier. I might like heavier a little better since it might make it just a little safer. I really liked the 642. It reminds me a little of my model 36, just lighter. I am still looking at the 442 for finish duribility, but I could put some wax on the 642 as others have said they do.
I have a 438, similar gun gripwise. Have held and dry fired an LCR, and well, yuck, did not like. I have fired my 438 a bit and although "snappy", it doesn't hurt. It's not a range gun anyway. That said, I've fired as many as 100 rounds (reloads, not +P) at a range session and walked away from it no problem. I've fired 25 +P rounds at a session and although it wasn't pleasant, it wasn't that bad.
Have seen a few threads here on the finish of the 642 going bad. While I'm sure that's a small sample, it would be enough for me to consider the 442 instead (I happen to like black/blue guns better anyway).
Have seen a few threads here on the finish of the 642 going bad. While I'm sure that's a small sample, it would be enough for me to consider the 442 instead (I happen to like black/blue guns better anyway).
Kframerbluvr
Member
I bought a 442 and carry it regularly. No mechanical issues of any sort, but the cylinder finish is starting to become a little mottled from carry. It also has the lock. No issues after about 500 rounds of mostly 158 cast SWC reloads at between standard and +P in strength. I am pleased with it and am considering upgrading to a 340 model that has the enhanced front sight for my old eyes...the 442 will go to my bride or one of my kids....
wesnellans
Member
FWIW, the Uncle Mike's copy of the Spegel boot grips are still available from Smith and Wesson's online store under the closeout section. I just picked up 2 pair which took about 5 days to get here. At $15 a set plus shipping it was a no brainer.
Big difference from the stock J frame grips slapped on these days.
Big difference from the stock J frame grips slapped on these days.
Last edited:
K-framer
Member
Another interesting grip choice are the rubber (nylon really) boot grips from the Taurus model 85. The grip frames on the Taurus and the Smith j-frame are identical in dimensions and shape, so the grips fit perfectly. The only difference is that the locating pin is in a different place on the grip frame, necessitating the drilling of new holes in model 85 grip halves. Easily done.
The Taurus grips are very well made, no bulkier than the original S&W grips, BUT the back strap of the revolver is covered. That is to say, the 85 grips wrap all around the grip frame. Helps lots with recoil, but handling and concealment are unaffected.
And besides that, the Taurus grips sell for $8.00, plus postage, on the Taurus website.
The photo shows the grips to which I am referring......
The Taurus grips are very well made, no bulkier than the original S&W grips, BUT the back strap of the revolver is covered. That is to say, the 85 grips wrap all around the grip frame. Helps lots with recoil, but handling and concealment are unaffected.
And besides that, the Taurus grips sell for $8.00, plus postage, on the Taurus website.
The photo shows the grips to which I am referring......
Attachments
Last edited:
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
Pachmayr Compac grips give a high, solid hold, cover the backstrap completely, and absorb recoil extremely well.
They are longer than the boot-style grips but really not difficult to conceal. I've pocket-carried a J-frame with them for a good many years. If anyone has noticed the gun nothing has been said and I haven't seen anyone staring meaningfully at my right front pocket.
They are longer than the boot-style grips but really not difficult to conceal. I've pocket-carried a J-frame with them for a good many years. If anyone has noticed the gun nothing has been said and I haven't seen anyone staring meaningfully at my right front pocket.
I got a chance to shoot a friend's LCR 38 today. I have to admit that I really liked it. We traded guns for a few days so I will try it more throughout the week. I have been carrying it in my pocket to see if the wider grip would bother me. So far I don't really notice it being there. The trigger is really smooth and light, but seems heavy enough to be safe. I just wish I had a chance to try a 442 or 642 for comparison. I seem to handle his Ruger well. I ran 30 rounds of Winchester 130 grain fmj though it and recoil really seemed to next to nothing. He has a green hi viz sight on it and it really helped me stay on target. I still like the looks and feel of the airweight Smiths, but I am giving the Ruger some more thought.
I'm with 'Zagged on the Pachmayr Compacts. My 442 wears them and it goes with me wherever I go either in my pocket or on my belt.
AZretired
Member
Gotta say, go with the 442/642. Many more grip options and you will find something you like. With a high hold on the grip recoil is not bad. You won't regret going with an S&W.
Similar threads
