An early 442.

[GF]

Or what I believe is one. Here is a Mod 442 that I picked up in very good condition. Ser # BPR02XX. All the pictures of other 442's have "Airweight" under the cylinder on the right side.
I don't know much about the alloy frame guns but I believe that this one is like a Mod 042 in markings, weight and overall length. (Do you have a picture of a Mod 042?)
So this one is probably one of the first run Mod 442's (1993).

And RED grips? (They do look like factory stocks!?!)

 

[GF]

Or what I believe is one. Here is a Mod 442 that I picked up in very good condition. Ser # BPR02XX. All the pictures of other 442's have "Airweight" under the cylinder on the right side.
I don't know much about the alloy frame guns but I believe that this one is like a Mod 042 in markings, weight and overall length. (Do you have a picture of a Mod 042?)
So this one is probably one of the first run Mod 442's (1993).

And RED grips? (They do look like factory stocks!?!)

 

[TN RAT]

Very nice. I have never seen the red on a Smith before.

Red and green on Charter's.

 

[demkofour]

GF- nice very nice pistol, good luck with it. The "red" drips are not stock, but offer an interesting contrast. Now all you need is a black Tyler T-Grip...
BTW, here's an informative link to the seldom encountered 042: http://www.thegunzone.com/sw042.html

 

[NCBeagle]

That is a beautiful 442. I am looking for an early model to go with my 2007.

I dig your grips too.

 

[DC7]

GF: There was a short period of time back in the early 1990's when S&W had stopped stamping "Airweight" on the barrel but had not yet begun the practice of etching it on the sideplate. I have a 442 similar to yours built during that same period:

This 442 has a serial number prefix of BPJ and was built in May of 1993, and I have another with a BPN prefix built in July of the same year, so yours was probably built in 1993 as well.

Here's a picture of an 042. You're correct; it's virtually identical to the later Model 442, although some 042's were built with a high-polish blue frame like this one, while others had a matte finish:

 

[69HEMI-R/T]

My satin-nickel 442 with a BPS33xx serial number is marked the same as the OP's 442. My most-carried J frame. Great little revolvers.

 

[semperfi.45]

Originally posted by DC7:
GF: There was a short period of time back in the early 1990's when S&W had stopped stamping "Airweight" on the barrel but had not yet begun the practice of etching it on the sideplate. I have a 442 similar to yours built during that same period:

This 442 has a serial number prefix of BPJ and was built in May of 1993, and I have another with a BPN prefix built in July of the same year, so yours was probably built in 1993 as well.

Did the 442(-1?) become +P rated when the Airweight stamp was applied or are there some that are +P without the Airweight stamp?

 

[GF]

Thanks for the link demkofour, that's exactly what I needed on 042's. And thanks to DC7 for the comparison photo.
The cylinder looks to be alloy same as the frame on my 442. I know the +P thing has been beat to death so I won't even ask. I'll carry Federal HP Nyclads in it and be happy.
Thanks to all that reply to my posts! I always need your help!

 

[GF]

Sorry semperfi.45, I think we posted at the same time. I didn't mean to step on your +P question.
I believe the newer alloy guns are stamped with a +P on the bbl. But be that as it may, most think it's alright to shoot +P's once-in-a-while in an alloy gun.
This is my only airweight gun and I won't shoot them in it. Why? 'cause the Federal HP's that are not +P rated shoot to point of aim.
I think that'll do.

 

[DC7]

Originally posted by GF:
The cylinder looks to be alloy same as the frame on my 442....I'll carry Federal HP Nyclads in it and be happy.

The cylinder on the 442 is actually steel, not a lightweight alloy. There were a handful of 442's built with alloy cylinders around 1994, but they were never sold to the general public. They were made for the Secret Service, tested to 5,000 rounds using +P ammo, and had zero failures.

I figure if those alloy-cylinder test guns held up that well, I'm sure my 442 no-dash with its steel cylinder could handle a few +P's with no problem at all. But fortunately I shouldn't ever have to try that, because I'm doing the same as you--carrying Federal Nyclad hollowpoints. The standard-pressure 125gr Nyclad is my ammo of choice for both the 442 and a similar 642 no-dash.

Originally posted by semperfi.45:
Did the 442(-1?) become +P rated when the Airweight stamp was applied or are there some that are +P without the Airweight stamp?

The 442's without the Airweight marking are all early no-dash models from around 1993. I don't think the 442 was "officially" rated for +P until about 1996, when the -1 model was introduced using the slightly larger J-magnum frame.

 

[Jerry in SC]

I had a 442 in satin nickel finish. I don't recall it being +P rated either. Shot it five times and the nickel finish peeled off the cylinder face....never had that happen before or since.