metterlurgy of 642 VS 442?

[andy_760901]

Hi all.

I see that the only difference between the 642 VS the 442 besides the colour of the weapon is that the 642 has a stainless Cylinder versus the 442 with a carbon cylinder.

Please can any of you tell me the difference and which is better, which is harder, less likely to rust, and which would have a longer service life with +P ammo?

What would you guys go for, i like the black finish of the 442 but the 642's grey/ silver also appeals, and both are the same price, please comment?

 

[andy_760901]

Hi all.

I see that the only difference between the 642 VS the 442 besides the colour of the weapon is that the 642 has a stainless Cylinder versus the 442 with a carbon cylinder.

Please can any of you tell me the difference and which is better, which is harder, less likely to rust, and which would have a longer service life with +P ammo?

What would you guys go for, i like the black finish of the 442 but the 642's grey/ silver also appeals, and both are the same price, please comment?

 

[bmcgilvray]

I can't help you on the material differences of each of these models. I have a Model 642 and really think the Model 442 is the better looking of the two. I suppose the Model 642 is less prone to rust but a few seconds with a RIG impregnated rag at day's end fends off any rust so that wouldn't be a consideration for me. I only originally chose the stainless version over the blue version so I could say I had a stainless gun in the collection. I think blue is more attractive.

 

[Dale53]

I chose the 642. I believe that the 642 will wear better (the slightest nick in the blackened aluminum shows up across the room). I have looked at some blackened aluminum frames in a gun shop that were nicked up before they were even sold.

Service life should be pretty much the same in either.

Dale53

 

[retops]

Have to agree with Dale53. As I posted in another thread, I am carrying a new 442 that I like a lot, but it is showing the nicks after only a few weeks of carry and the cylinder turn ring is postively shiny and bright.

Still a great piece, but not if you worry about having your carry gun look like new.

 

[Spotteddog]

If your serious about carrying it over any length of time no matter what finish it has, it will show the mileage. The "natural" aluminum may look better a while longer than the black. The black will stay lurking in the shadows of your clothing a bit better. In broad daylight, the sights may be easier to use on the black. In near darkness it'll be a wash as to which sights will become invisible first. I'm one of those that likes the look of a gun that actually looks like it's been somewhere. But then I like the looks of old leather jackets and gloves too!

 

[DC7]

I own and carry both models, and consider them about equal. The stainless 642 is more rust-resistant, of course, but with proper care I've never had any rust on the 442 either.

I agree with Spotteddog: The carry gun is a serious, life-saving tool, not a museum piece, and it WILL pick up nicks, dings, and other honest wear over the years. I don't worry about that one bit, and neither should anyone else who is serious about concealed carry. Check out the pics of old cop guns that are often posted here on the forum--they have a special kind of beauty and "character" that a pampered safe queen will never have.

I also agree that the black finish is less noticeable should someone catch a momentary glimpse of a concealed weapon. For that reason, dark guns are always my first choice. But if I was in a high-humidity area and started to have rust problems, I'd switch to a stainless gun without any hesitation whatsoever.

 

[bmcgilvray]

the sights may be easier to use on the black.

This is a great point to bring out.