BigMike76
Member
Thinking of getting a 642 to use as my daily carry. Id like to hear pros and cons from people who have or currently carry them. Obviously a big con is only holding 5 rounds.
Thanks,
Mike
Thanks,
Mike
Anyone CCW a 642 on a daily basis?
- Thread starter BigMike76
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Mulebuk Sam
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2016
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 174
I did for a long time, shotgun front pocket carries like a dream.
Under 3 second draw and safely. (and from a pocket holster at that)
Under 3 second draw and safely. (and from a pocket holster at that)
Last edited:
Sampson only had 5 pebbles for his slingshot when he faced Goliath
and he only needed one. Average shots fired in SD by civilians is
2.7. Five should be enough, but carry a speed strip in your pocket
with 5 more.
and he only needed one. Average shots fired in SD by civilians is
2.7. Five should be enough, but carry a speed strip in your pocket
with 5 more.
so whats the carry holster which hides the cylinder the best. Am talking re inside belt
theres one which mentioned that the clip is positioned such that the grip hugs the waist so as to hide the cylinder
or am I dreaming
so far been carrying 642pro in pocket
theres one which mentioned that the clip is positioned such that the grip hugs the waist so as to hide the cylinder
or am I dreaming
so far been carrying 642pro in pocket
Mulebuk Sam
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2016
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 174
Double-O-Dave
US Veteran
"Sampson"? I'm a bit rusty on my Biblical knowledge, but shouldn't that be "David"?
Regards,
Dave
Mike in Reedley
Member
If my Sunday School lessons serves me well, I believe it was David who slew Goliath.
I carry a 442 or a 638 daily, but also have a full size handgun in my vehicle and home. Since retiring, J frames work well for me as EDC. I did just buy a Kahr CW 9 though.
Last edited:
I have two. The 642 hits a sweet spot of quality and affordability. An enclosed hammer snub is one of the very best personal defense weapons available IMO.
I can understand the concern with having only 5 rounds, but available stats show that is enough for the vast majority(something like high 90's percentages) of defense scenarios a civilian encounters. And they almost always take place at very close distances. I think a lot of folks get preoccupied with extremely rare events like terrorist attacks or engaging active shooters whereas the focus should really be on what is most probable and making gun choices based on what the most effective weapon is for those most likely circumstances.
The hammerless snub is easy to carry, quick to bring into action and offers tremendous advantages in reactive close-quarter scenarios since it can make muzzle contact shots, has no exposed hammer to be entangled or blocked plus no other weapon matches it's weapon retention capability. And it has all the other pros that all revolvers have such simplicity, extreme reliability, no concerns with ammo sensitivity, limp-wristing(you may not have a firm two handed firing grip during an actual dynamic defense encounter), a FTF is generally remedied with another pull of the trigger.
I can understand the concern with having only 5 rounds, but available stats show that is enough for the vast majority(something like high 90's percentages) of defense scenarios a civilian encounters. And they almost always take place at very close distances. I think a lot of folks get preoccupied with extremely rare events like terrorist attacks or engaging active shooters whereas the focus should really be on what is most probable and making gun choices based on what the most effective weapon is for those most likely circumstances.
The hammerless snub is easy to carry, quick to bring into action and offers tremendous advantages in reactive close-quarter scenarios since it can make muzzle contact shots, has no exposed hammer to be entangled or blocked plus no other weapon matches it's weapon retention capability. And it has all the other pros that all revolvers have such simplicity, extreme reliability, no concerns with ammo sensitivity, limp-wristing(you may not have a firm two handed firing grip during an actual dynamic defense encounter), a FTF is generally remedied with another pull of the trigger.
Your right Double O Dave. I can type faster than I can think.
David was the guy with the slingshot. Sampson probably wouldn't
have needed one.
David was the guy with the slingshot. Sampson probably wouldn't
have needed one.
Your right also Mike in Reedley. Your Sunday School Lesson did serve
you well. My old brain didn't serve me very well though.
you well. My old brain didn't serve me very well though.
Mike in Reedley
Member
You'll be happy with the 642.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 1,672
- Reaction score
- 3,219
I have for several years, in a pocket holster, and would recommend it.
Have other options and have used other options but I seem to come back to the 442/642 in the end.
Have other options and have used other options but I seem to come back to the 442/642 in the end.
I carry a 642 and I love it... I put a Technaclip on it and carry in my right front pocket, extremely comfortable. I also have an OWB holster for it as well. I also carry extra ammo using speed strips in my left front pocket. The Technaclip is great when the weather is hot and you just want to wear a T-shirt or light clothing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rpg
Member
I've never had a 642, but I do have a M42.
I like it very much although I prefer the M38, primarily because it allows me to 'choke up' more than the 42.
If you think you need more than 5 rounds in a civilian SD situation, you're planning on missing a lot.
These are pocket guns: no need for a holster of any sort.
After having experimented with pocket holsters, I've concluded that they are more trouble than they're worth. Carrying one in a belt holster ignores the value of these revolvers.
I like it very much although I prefer the M38, primarily because it allows me to 'choke up' more than the 42.
If you think you need more than 5 rounds in a civilian SD situation, you're planning on missing a lot.
These are pocket guns: no need for a holster of any sort.
After having experimented with pocket holsters, I've concluded that they are more trouble than they're worth. Carrying one in a belt holster ignores the value of these revolvers.
MichiganScott
Member
I carry mine daily in a Mika pocket holster. Carrying one without a holster allows the gun to rotate around in your pocket and not have the grip where you need it when you need it. If you absent mindedly drop keys in the same pocket, they are much less likely to end up inside the trigger guard if the trigger guard is protected by a holster.
On the con side, drawing from a pocket holster while sitting is next to impossible.
On the con side, drawing from a pocket holster while sitting is next to impossible.
ContinentalOp
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2009
- Messages
- 6,315
- Reaction score
- 12,812
I carry a 642-1. I pretty much agree with Mister X on it's positive attributes.
I use a Side Guard Holsters Quick Clip IWB holster. Basically, the clip is positioned behind the cylinder, over the trigger guard. This reduces the profile and when the belt is snugged up it also pulls the grip into the body.
I use a Side Guard Holsters Quick Clip IWB holster. Basically, the clip is positioned behind the cylinder, over the trigger guard. This reduces the profile and when the belt is snugged up it also pulls the grip into the body.
Mike in Reedley
Member
Pocket carry without a pocket carry holster not only allows the gun to rotate, it causes it to print, shreds the pocket lining and accelerates the pocket lint collection factor. I tried a variety of pocket holsters and settled on a Desantis Nemesis, which I am very pleased with.
Similar threads
