GatorFarmer
Member
The older 442s and 642s aren't officially rated for +P ammunition. You can still use it of course, and most people do, but there were changes to the guns made later on. The lock free production runs that showed up recently somewhat eliminated the need to remove the IL. While this is easily done *if* one is used to opening up the side plate of a revolver, a first time revolver buyer will often find staring at all the internals a bit daunting. If in any doubt about modifying a revolver yourself, don't do it. Seek competent instruction or the services of a professional.
There are anecdotal reports of the factory being unhappy to do warranty work on a gun with the IL pulled out by the user. There are also anecdotal reports of new production J frames that need to go back for warranty work right away, so if you get an IL gun, and want the lock gone, try it out and make sure it works before modifying it.
Long story short about the lock, it's an additional point of potential failure, and if you don't need it, or want it, either get one without it or remove/disable it. Though failures are rare, they are not unknown.
The reason that some people prefer the single action option is that while a J frame is usually a close range and quick proposition, we lack crystal balls and the need for a more precise shot isn't impossible. That's the niche for the 638s. Fairly snag free and close to what a Centennial type revolver offers, but preserving the option for SA fire. Obviously the utility of such doesn't appeal to all, which is why both revolvers are in the catalog. The DAOs likely far outsell the 638.
I'll defer to FlopShank in that one can indeed learn to use something like a 340 using magnum loads, but the learning process might be unpleasant and one is going to have to be dedicated. My opinion, which is worth what you pay for it I suppose, is that if you want .357 mag performance from a relatively small gun, you're better served with a .357 Sig auto - Sig P239 or G33 come to mind. Or just use hot 9mm ammo from a compact 9. Once you get into the .357 mag, guns that are easy to carry are noticably less so to fire.
There are anecdotal reports of the factory being unhappy to do warranty work on a gun with the IL pulled out by the user. There are also anecdotal reports of new production J frames that need to go back for warranty work right away, so if you get an IL gun, and want the lock gone, try it out and make sure it works before modifying it.
Long story short about the lock, it's an additional point of potential failure, and if you don't need it, or want it, either get one without it or remove/disable it. Though failures are rare, they are not unknown.
The reason that some people prefer the single action option is that while a J frame is usually a close range and quick proposition, we lack crystal balls and the need for a more precise shot isn't impossible. That's the niche for the 638s. Fairly snag free and close to what a Centennial type revolver offers, but preserving the option for SA fire. Obviously the utility of such doesn't appeal to all, which is why both revolvers are in the catalog. The DAOs likely far outsell the 638.
I'll defer to FlopShank in that one can indeed learn to use something like a 340 using magnum loads, but the learning process might be unpleasant and one is going to have to be dedicated. My opinion, which is worth what you pay for it I suppose, is that if you want .357 mag performance from a relatively small gun, you're better served with a .357 Sig auto - Sig P239 or G33 come to mind. Or just use hot 9mm ammo from a compact 9. Once you get into the .357 mag, guns that are easy to carry are noticably less so to fire.
It proves it's a working carry gun, not some safe queen. I'm starting to notice some wear on my 642 and to me it's like a badge of honor.
