How about a new model 40 AIRWEIGHT? AKA Model 42.
- Thread starter allglock
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
38-44HD45
Absent Comrade
Yes.
jframe
Member
I agree. I have a brand new 40 in nickel, and would love to see that same gun and finish in an aluminum frame.
animalmother
Member
Like this idea too.
jframe
Member
Keep this thread towards the top; maybe someone at Smith & Wesson is reading and listening........
NFrameFred
Member
They might read it, but they don't seem to be listening much these days . . . .
jframe
Member
Come on, S&W! If you want some more of my money, let's get that Airweight Model 40 in production! They could use the existing grip safety frame, just change the material to aluminum. They have studied the metallurgy enough over the years that this shouldn't be a problem. It would be a brand new Classic Model 42.
animalmother
Member
+ 1 from me.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,005
- Reaction score
- 7,073
Uh, they have had this already. It is called a 442. It has been available for years, and now there is a no-lock version available.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,005
- Reaction score
- 7,073
Originally posted by allglock:
Uh... a model 42 is NOT a 442..... Also look at my original post date. It was before any talk of NO LOCK Smiths being reintroduced...
I suppose you are right in the sense of name only, but in the sense of a 442 being a modern version of the 42, you are just plain wrong. As far as when "talk of no lock Smiths began," I would venture to say that there has been talk of that ever since the internal lock first appeared.
Thus, let us agree that a 442 is a modernized 42 using the new numbering system (the first 4 is for alloy).
Originally posted by shawn mccarver:
Originally posted by allglock:
Uh... a model 42 is NOT a 442..... Also look at my original post date. It was before any talk of NO LOCK Smiths being reintroduced...
I suppose you are right in the sense of name only, but in the sense of a 442 being a modern version of the 42, you are just plain wrong. As far as when "talk of no lock Smiths began," I would venture to say that there has been talk of that ever since the internal lock first appeared.
Thus, let us agree that a 442 is a modernized 42 using the new numbering system (the first 4 is for alloy).
A model 42 is an airweight lemon squeezer... No real relation to a 442.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,005
- Reaction score
- 7,073
Originally posted by allglock:
Originally posted by shawn mccarver:
Originally posted by allglock:
Uh... a model 42 is NOT a 442..... Also look at my original post date. It was before any talk of NO LOCK Smiths being reintroduced...
I suppose you are right in the sense of name only, but in the sense of a 442 being a modern version of the 42, you are just plain wrong. As far as when "talk of no lock Smiths began," I would venture to say that there has been talk of that ever since the internal lock first appeared.
Thus, let us agree that a 442 is a modernized 42 using the new numbering system (the first 4 is for alloy).
A model 42 is an airweight lemon squeezer... No real relation to a 442.
You are in that sense correct, however, since we all used to pin the grip safeties shut on ours and hoped for the day when that questionable feature was eliminated, I and my associates all regard the 442 as a product improved 42.
However, if you want the grip safety (they are not reliably squeezed shut in my hands or the hands of most folks I know that actually use them), then certainly the 42 is the solution. I am sorry - I made the fatal mistake of believing that most people who carried them would not want the grip safety. My bad.
jframe
Member
Ask and ye shall receive! The Model 42 with grip safety and lightweight frame is again going to be available new from S & W. There is a link on a post in modern revolvers that takes you there and gives a sku number.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,005
- Reaction score
- 7,073
Well, you got your wish. The Model 42 was officially reintroduced at the SHOT Show.
Similar threads
- Locked
