jgrazjgraz
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
what does everyine think about the 642 as a ccw? and whats the difference with the 442
Last edited:
Model 642 Revolver
- Thread starter jgrazjgraz
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
GatorFarmer
Member
Stainless parts and an anodized finish to match on the allow frame versus carbon steel and blued parts/matching finish = the difference.
Popular choice, esp given the recent lock free models. The finish on the frame will tend to wear, but eh.
Lots of people carry them, or similar size alloy J frames.
If you're new to guns, the J frames are easier guns to carry, a bit harder to learn to use effectively.
OP
jgrazjgraz
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
Im looking at the 340 442 642 638 all with concealed hammer..they are pretty similar,with very subtile differences..
what would you use as a guideline to make a choice?
what would you use as a guideline to make a choice?
Crazy K38
Member
the 642 doesn't allow you to make a single action shot, the 638 does, and I personally like that choice and since it isn't like a chief's special with the exposed hammer it won't snag on the draw, the 442 642 and 638 as well as all S&W's snubs are great guns, you really can't go wrong
OP
jgrazjgraz
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
so the 638 is a shrouded hammer not fully concealed?
and how about the M&P 340,only difference is the material and couple of ounces lighter
GatorFarmer
Member
I have a 637 with a bobbed hammer and a 638, both with the IL deactivated. I traded away my 442 but perhaps shouldn't have. I don't have, nor have I owned, a 340. I don't have much use for an alloy frame revolver that light firing .357 mag cartridges since the 337 that I used to have bordered on unpleasant (but was manageable) with +P ammo. The 340s are also quite a bit more expensive than your other choices, roughly double the MSRP. I don't know what the street price on them is, but certainly a good bit higher than a 442/642, perhaps to the point that you could have two for the cost of one 340.
I like the option, albeit that it would be rare to use it, of SA aimed fire. Others do not consider this important and prefer the higher grip one can obtain on a Centennial type (ie 442/642) revolver owing to it being DAO (double action only). They also like the simple manual of arms, and some are of the opinion that a DAO weapon might be more court friendly in certain circumstances.
I use J frames mainly as back up guns. I tend to put one in my pocket and have for years. I sometimes carry a second one attached to the panel carrier of my armor.
If you do get a 638, and pocket carry it, be prepared to possibly have to remove the side plate to clean out any accumulated gunk. Some people have carried these (called the Bodyguard style) revolvers for years and claim not to have had to do this. In my experience... be prepared to do this. If you remove the sideplate, it helps to be experienced enough to not be intimidated by all the small parts that you'll see.
The use of single action aimed fire would be admittedly rare if used for self defense, but rare and impossible are two different thingss.
Some people also like to put a thumb over the hammer when first holstering as an added safety step (I have no opinion of this practice), which can't be done with a DAO. There are also certain rare malfunctions where one might be able to get a gun working again by reverting to SA fire.
How experienced are you with firearms in general? Is this a first gun? Will it be primary carry or a BUG? Do you sweat a lot? Where/how do you plan to carry it? These might all play a factor. (Disclaimer - I use my J frames as back up to a Sig P229R so my opinions are related to use in this context and may vary from those who use them as a primary carry weapon, particularly my dislike of .357 magnum J frames.)
Since you're looking at alloy J frames, I'm going to assume that you want something light weight and easy to carry. The 638 or 642 will work well and the choice really depends on if you want the option of SA(single action, cocking the hammer manually) operation. The 442 will sometimes be a bit cheaper and for a while, some felt they were more accurate and better fit than the 642. The one 442 that I had was an early model, and was indeed quite well fit and a generally handy little gun. However, be prepared to wipe one down more frequently than would be the case with a stainless gun, esp if carried close to the body and sweated on. Carbon steel/blued guns are more prone to rust, but stainless is rust resistant and not rust proof.
If there is a rental range near you, or you have friends with these revolvers, by all means try before you purchase. If you're set on a .357 magnum, I'd suggest looking at a heavier all steel gun or even moving up to a Ruger Sp101 or even a .357 Sig autopistol instead of an alloy J frame. Particularly if you are a new shooter, the .357 mag in a small/light gun is going to be unpleasant.
I like the option, albeit that it would be rare to use it, of SA aimed fire. Others do not consider this important and prefer the higher grip one can obtain on a Centennial type (ie 442/642) revolver owing to it being DAO (double action only). They also like the simple manual of arms, and some are of the opinion that a DAO weapon might be more court friendly in certain circumstances.
I use J frames mainly as back up guns. I tend to put one in my pocket and have for years. I sometimes carry a second one attached to the panel carrier of my armor.
If you do get a 638, and pocket carry it, be prepared to possibly have to remove the side plate to clean out any accumulated gunk. Some people have carried these (called the Bodyguard style) revolvers for years and claim not to have had to do this. In my experience... be prepared to do this. If you remove the sideplate, it helps to be experienced enough to not be intimidated by all the small parts that you'll see.
The use of single action aimed fire would be admittedly rare if used for self defense, but rare and impossible are two different thingss.
Some people also like to put a thumb over the hammer when first holstering as an added safety step (I have no opinion of this practice), which can't be done with a DAO. There are also certain rare malfunctions where one might be able to get a gun working again by reverting to SA fire.
How experienced are you with firearms in general? Is this a first gun? Will it be primary carry or a BUG? Do you sweat a lot? Where/how do you plan to carry it? These might all play a factor. (Disclaimer - I use my J frames as back up to a Sig P229R so my opinions are related to use in this context and may vary from those who use them as a primary carry weapon, particularly my dislike of .357 magnum J frames.)
Since you're looking at alloy J frames, I'm going to assume that you want something light weight and easy to carry. The 638 or 642 will work well and the choice really depends on if you want the option of SA(single action, cocking the hammer manually) operation. The 442 will sometimes be a bit cheaper and for a while, some felt they were more accurate and better fit than the 642. The one 442 that I had was an early model, and was indeed quite well fit and a generally handy little gun. However, be prepared to wipe one down more frequently than would be the case with a stainless gun, esp if carried close to the body and sweated on. Carbon steel/blued guns are more prone to rust, but stainless is rust resistant and not rust proof.
If there is a rental range near you, or you have friends with these revolvers, by all means try before you purchase. If you're set on a .357 magnum, I'd suggest looking at a heavier all steel gun or even moving up to a Ruger Sp101 or even a .357 Sig autopistol instead of an alloy J frame. Particularly if you are a new shooter, the .357 mag in a small/light gun is going to be unpleasant.
Hikertrash98
Member
I prefer the black finished J frames due to their more durable finish. My 642 finish wore away quickly with daily carry. DAO or concealed hammer is a matter of preference. I find the concealed hammer unnecessary for CCW, but that's just my preference.
OP
jgrazjgraz
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
wow,,,thats a lot of info,,,thanks it really helps.
this purchase wont be my first gun, I own a 32 Baretta tomcat.
So I am narrowing my choices.. I prefer a DOA,,,no hammer,.
light as can be without spending a fortune,aka 340 is about 1000.00...too much for my pocket...also I will be carrying in my pocket or with a IW holster..
The one thing Im a little confused about are the materials..which is best...also I wont be using 357 ammo just 38
which combo of metals are the way to go.alum stainless....stainless-stanlesss...alum -carbon
thanks
this purchase wont be my first gun, I own a 32 Baretta tomcat.
So I am narrowing my choices.. I prefer a DOA,,,no hammer,.
light as can be without spending a fortune,aka 340 is about 1000.00...too much for my pocket...also I will be carrying in my pocket or with a IW holster..
The one thing Im a little confused about are the materials..which is best...also I wont be using 357 ammo just 38
which combo of metals are the way to go.alum stainless....stainless-stanlesss...alum -carbon
thanks
Last edited:
GatorFarmer
Member
The 340 is probably out then, since one pays a premium for the Scandium alloy and .357 chambering. If you want to go hammerless, then the 642/442 are fine choices. If you're interested in an all steel revolver, there is the Model 40 or 640. These guns weigh more, but they'll be a bit less snappish in terms of recoil. The 640 is available in .357 mag. They get a bit heavy for some people's taste for pocket carry. If what you're used to is a Tomcat, I'd think that you might want to stay with an alloy frame gun to save weight.
I'd say just get the 642 and accept the finish will get damaged/wear. It'll be a carry gun and not a show piece. The finish wore completely off the backstrap of my 337, but it was still mechanically fine. You wouldn't go wrong with a 442 though.
Try to find one without the internal lock. Recent production versions of both have been made.
You cannot go wrong with a 642. They are quite accurate (if you are) and very concealable. Hot loads are a handful but other loads are manageable.
They also look cooler than bodyguard models, IMHO.
Be safe.
They also look cooler than bodyguard models, IMHO.
Be safe.
aterry33
Member
The 642 is the best pocket gun ever IMHO, but don't take my word for it:
The Smith & Wesson Model 642 Centennial Airweight Revolver
The Smith & Wesson Model 642 Centennial Airweight Revolver
Sistema1927
US Veteran
When you get your 642 make sure to pick up a couple of boxes of Speer Gold Dot 135 +P short barrel ammo.
sipowicz
Member
If you are new to j-frames, don't go lighter than the 642/442...they are hard enough to shoot well at 15 ounces..
+1 on that and also on the Speer Gold Dot ammo.
I have two 642's. I like the black finish of the 442 but the cylinder is carbon steel rather than stainless. I like to keep the cylinder front clean so I can scrub all I want on the stainless. I live in Fl and sweat all the time, never a problem with the finish. I keep a light coating of Breakfree CLP on the gun and use a Desantis Nemesis pocket holster or a Mika, neither of them are leather. Leather looks great but holds moisture.
Either one is a great gun. IMO you do not need a alloy gun chambered in 357 as a 1-7/8" barrel is just not long enough to get a 357 moving to it's potential. Plus they are brutal to shoot. 38+P ammo is plenty.
Crazy K38
Member
I still believe the 638 to be the best ever, and to your question no the hammer isn't fully enclosed it has a little part of the hammer that rides a channel on the top and is easy to pull back, it may not look as pretty as a 642 but having the option of single action is a great thing to me here is a pic of mine so you can see the shroud I was talking about, if you look close you can see part of the thumb rest for the hammer
flop-shank
US Veteran
A .357 will come out of a 1 7/8" barrel much faster than a +P. I use Speer SB .357 in my 360. I get more velocity than +P, but much less recoil than a wild 125 gr. .357. I do agree that any .357 out of a scandium J is pretty rough on the hands.
My guess is that the OP could go a couple routes and be completely satisfied.
The first would be to look for a used 340 and save the wallet the big hit. That was what I intended to do, but I'm sort of a gun vulture. I saw my 360 PD lightly used for 500 bucks, so I bought it and just disabled the lock and bobbed the hammer myself. A person with a scandium gun can just shoot +Ps and still enjoy the advantage of the ultra light weight. The .357 option is always there.
The second choice would be to do as many others have suggested and find a 642, or 442 new or used.
OP
jgrazjgraz
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
I would have thought that the black finish would wear off faster than that on the 642..why is that? also what is the story on the internal lock on these guns..I am new to S&W so please bear with me..
so im pretty much down to 642 and 442, however there is also the M&P 340. a little cheaper than the reg 340 but aa little more that the 442 and 642..any thoughts on the M&P?
so im pretty much down to 642 and 442, however there is also the M&P 340. a little cheaper than the reg 340 but aa little more that the 442 and 642..any thoughts on the M&P?
USAF385
US Veteran
The 642 or 442 are great, as many have said.
I carry a 642 everyday. In the summer, it's usually JUST my 642 with a speedloader.
I prefer the Centennial (642) over Bodyguard (638) because of the smoother back where the hammer is (or ins't, rather). The shroud on the bodyguard makes it just a tad bigger, and the hammer has just enough exposed surface area to add a small snag potential (maybe more friction that snag). The hump on bodyguards is also unsightly to some. Besides, you're not going to be taking the time to do SA shooting in a defense situation. If so, the bad guy is too far away and you should be getting away instead of opening fire.
I handled a 60, 637, 638, 642 (stopped everyday for three days to examine them) before deciding to go with the 642. One of my best purchases without a doubt.
I carry a 642 everyday. In the summer, it's usually JUST my 642 with a speedloader.
I prefer the Centennial (642) over Bodyguard (638) because of the smoother back where the hammer is (or ins't, rather). The shroud on the bodyguard makes it just a tad bigger, and the hammer has just enough exposed surface area to add a small snag potential (maybe more friction that snag). The hump on bodyguards is also unsightly to some. Besides, you're not going to be taking the time to do SA shooting in a defense situation. If so, the bad guy is too far away and you should be getting away instead of opening fire.
I handled a 60, 637, 638, 642 (stopped everyday for three days to examine them) before deciding to go with the 642. One of my best purchases without a doubt.
USAF385
US Veteran
The IL has had some reported failures. It has engaged while the gun is in use, blocking the hammer and rendering the gun useless. In most cases (that I've heard of at least) it was while using powerful loads.
The lock IS removable (I took the lock out of my father's 642 in less than 10 minutes) should you get one with a lock, but not knowing you or your abilities, I'm not necessarily suggesting you do. However, it was rather simple and I think anyone with basic "fixin' skills" would have no trouble while watching this video:
YouTube - S&W Internal Lock Removal
I used this to remove my father's lock.
I carried a 642 (with the lock) for about a year. The "duracoat" finish started chipping and peeling off, but no big deal for a working gun. Then I saw a 442 at my local firearms emporium - look ma, NO LOCK! Bought it on the spot. The finish has held up well, even though I expect it will wear with use. Again, no big deal. I took it to Nelson Ford for an action job, and it's quite smooth now. I can even "stage" the trigger for near-single-action letoff. I like it. Both the 642 and 442 are now available (I use that term advisedly because they are in demand) without the lock. Either would be a good option. Here's my 442:
Similar threads
- Locked
