Factory nickel finish, Model 442 nolock?

[f2]

Was the Model 442, no internal lock, ever offered in nickel?
<span class="ev_code_WHITE">___</span>

 

[f2]

Was the Model 442, no internal lock, ever offered in nickel?
<span class="ev_code_WHITE">___</span>

 

[panamajack310]

Hey the S&W standard catalog says that the 442 as offered in blue and satin nickel finishthey deleted the nickel finish in 1997..they also sitched to MIM triggers the same year

 

[jackpearl]

Howdy
I have a nickel finish 442 on the way. UPS says it will arrive Monday. If you are interested in some pics, e-mail me in a day or two.
Scott

 

[smith41mag]

I have 2 442 satin nickle revolvers in the box.

I will be selling one in a few days.

 

[ladder13]

Here's one:

 

[f2]

Nice!

Is there much of a weight difference between the satin nickel 442 and the black 442, or satin 642?
<span class="ev_code_WHITE">zzz</span>

 

[ladder13]

Originally posted by f2:
Nice!

Is there much of a weight difference between the satin nickel 442 and the black 442, or satin 642?
<span class="ev_code_WHITE">zzz</span>

Don't think so. My 442 is built on the smaller j frame, not the larger j magnum frame.

 

[f2]

Originally posted by ladder13:
Don't think so. My 442 is built on the smaller j frame, not the larger j magnum frame.

Is it rated for .38 spl +P? I guess what I am asking is were there any no internal lock 442, or 642, or 649 models that were rated +P .38 spl?
<span class="ev_code_WHITE">zzz</span>

 

[f2]

After seeing all of the references to SCSW, and figuring it was a catalog of some kind with serial numbers, I googled it, and have a Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson 3rd edition copy on the way - free shipping from amazon. I figure it will answer most of my questions.
<span class="ev_code_WHITE">zzz</span>

 

[Penquin]

f2 - you will find that the 3rd edition to be a great investment. PEN

 

[DC7]

Originally posted by f2:
...were there any no internal lock 442, or 642, or 649 models that were rated +P .38 spl?

The 442-1 and 642-1 are both pre-lock and built on the J-magnum frame, and both are factory rated for +P. The no-dash 442 and 642 were not officially rated for it, but could probably withstand limited +P shooting without harm. SCSW mentions several prototype 442's made for the Secret Service on the original non-magnum alloy frame with alloy cylinders as well, and they passed a 5000-round test using +P ammo.

The 649 is all stainless steel; later models on the J-magnum frame are actually chambered for .357 Magnum so they'll handle .38 +P just fine. The 649-3 and -4 are the pre-lock magnum-frame versions. SCSW doesn't say anything about +P for the earlier 649's (no-dash, -1, and -2), but around the same time S&W was building +P rated model 60's, and marking model 640's "Tested for +P+", so they must have been confident that small frame, all-stainless revolvers could handle +P ammo.

Here's another no-dash nickel 442:

 

[f2]

Originally posted by DC7:
The 442-1 and 642-1 are both pre-lock and built on the J-magnum frame, and both are factory rated for +P. The no-dash 442 and 642 were not officially rated for it, but could probably withstand limited +P shooting without harm. SCSW mentions several prototype 442's made for the Secret Service on the original non-magnum alloy frame with alloy cylinders as well, and they passed a 5000-round test using +P ammo.

The 649 is all stainless steel; later models on the J-magnum frame are actually chambered for .357 Magnum so they'll handle .38 +P just fine. The 649-3 and -4 are the pre-lock magnum-frame versions. SCSW doesn't say anything about +P for the earlier 649's (no-dash, -1, and -2), but around the same time S&W was building +P rated model 60's, and marking model 640's "Tested for +P+", so they must have been confident that small frame, all-stainless revolvers could handle +P ammo...

DC7, Beautiful 442. I hope the 442 no-dash I have coming looks as good. I wonder if the 442-1 and 642-1 would have any mim parts added, or would the addition of mim parts be pretty much in line with the internal lock addition years?
<span class="ev_code_WHITE">___</span>

 

[DC7]

Originally posted by f2:
I wonder if the 442-1 and 642-1 would have any mim parts added, or would the addition of mim parts be pretty much in line with the internal lock addition years?

The earliest 442-1 and 642-1 revolvers, along with other early J-magnum-frame models like the 640-1, had forged parts. According to SCSW, the change to J-magnum frames occurred in 1996, while the switch to MIM triggers happened in 1997. The internal lock wasn't introduced for several more years after that--around 2001/2002.

 

[JNARIV]

The satin nickel 442's are sue nice looking J frames. I had one a couple of years back that I got off gunbroker. Unfortunately upon inspection after receiving it I found a crack in the frame under the forcing cone. The seller did the right thing and took it back without any problems. I have not been able to find another one since.

Jnariv

 

[f2]

Originally posted by DC7:
The earliest 442-1 and 642-1 revolvers, along with other early J-magnum-frame models like the 640-1, had forged parts. According to SCSW, the change to J-magnum frames occurred in 1996, while the switch to MIM triggers happened in 1997. The internal lock wasn't introduced for several more years after that--around 2001/2002.

Thanks DC7.
<span class="ev_code_WHITE">___</span>

 

[18DAI]

Lawmens Safety Supply in Raleigh NC had a few satin nickel 442's a few months back. $299 IIRC. Regards 18DAI.

 

[DC7]

For what it's worth, a NIB or LNIB nickel no-dash 442 is being sold at this weekend's Rock Island auction. Unfortunately it's part of a 3-gun lot (along with a 37-2 and 2" 63-3) so there's no way to bid on the 442 separately.

 

[jackpearl]

Originally posted by DC7:

Originally posted by f2:
...were there any no internal lock 442, or 642, or 649 models that were rated +P .38 spl?

The 442-1 and 642-1 are both pre-lock and built on the J-magnum frame, and both are factory rated for +P. The no-dash 442 and 642 were not officially rated for it, but could probably withstand limited +P shooting without harm. SCSW mentions several prototype 442's made for the Secret Service on the original non-magnum alloy frame with alloy cylinders as well, and they passed a 5000-round test using +P ammo.

The 649 is all stainless steel; later models on the J-magnum frame are actually chambered for .357 Magnum so they'll handle .38 +P just fine. The 649-3 and -4 are the pre-lock magnum-frame versions. SCSW doesn't say anything about +P for the earlier 649's (no-dash, -1, and -2), but around the same time S&W was building +P rated model 60's, and marking model 640's "Tested for +P+", so they must have been confident that small frame, all-stainless revolvers could handle +P ammo.

Here's another no-dash nickel 442:

My pics are on the way via the e-mail in you profile----They certainly aren't as nice as
DC7's!!

 

[ladder13]

Originally posted by f2:
DC7, Beautiful 442. I hope the 442 no-dash I have coming looks as good. I wonder if the 442-1 and 642-1 would have any mim parts added, or would the addition of mim parts be pretty much in line with the internal lock addition years?
<span class="ev_code_WHITE">___</span>

f2, did you get your 442 no dash yet? Make sure we see some pics.