I went to the range yesterday and fired about 40 rounds through my new 642-1. I also took my 67-5, for comparison purposes, and fired about 60 rounds through it. This is the first time I had fired a J-Frame, so it was certainly a new experience for me. I used a few different types of ammunition as well. The ammunition consisted of Remington 130 grain FMJ and Remington 158 grain LRN as the standard pressure rounds, while I used Winchester 125 grain JHP and Federal 158 grain LSWCHP for the +P rounds. While I didn't fire even numbers of each type through my guns, I did fire each type of round through each gun at some point during my range time. My completely subjective and unscientific observations are as follows:
In terms of recoil, the recoil with the 642 was certainly more potent than the 67. I expected the recoil to possibly be akin to a .45 semi-auto pistol, but felt that the recoil of the 642 was less than what I thought it would be. The recoil did make it a challenge to adjust and reacquire my sights on the target, but I am not concerned about that as I should improve with practice and training. I also felt very little difference in recoil between the standard pressure and +P rounds. The only difference I could discern was a slight stinging sensation against the palm of my shooting hand (as if my palm had been slapped) upon firing a +P round.
As many have noted with the fixed sights, I did notice it took a little more focus to line up the sights on my 642. I am used to the orange tip of the front sight on my 67, so I think it will help me to take some paint to the front sight of my 642. I expected I may need to do this when I purchased the 642, so I find this to be no trouble at all. The fixed sights are certainly different than the adjustable sights of my 67, but I know that adjustable sights on the 642 would defeat the purpose of the snag-free design of the 642 (which attracted me to the 642 in comparison to other J-Frames).
The smaller design of the J-Frame certainly has a different feel from the K-Frame. I realized I do not need to extend my trigger finger as far when using the 642 as I do when using my 67. I did make this realization before going to the range, but actually shooting the revolvers together made this difference quite apparent. Due to the shorter distances with the 642, I found my trigger finger would impact the thumb of the same hand when pulling the trigger completely to the rear. I also noticed the heat from the gasses escaping between the cylinder and forcing cone more when using the 642 than the 67, and I figured this was due to the smaller frame size. Next time I shoot my 642 I plan to focus more on my grip and trigger pull to figure out what feels best for me, and to prevent my fingers from getting in the way of each other.
Overall, I am very happy with my purchase of my 642! I think it works well, is simple in its operation, and is a joy to shoot despite the recoil. The 642 is a fun gun to shoot at the range! I think the issues that I presented are pretty minor, and will be resolved with training, discipline, and practice, so I have no qualms about my 642 being my carry weapon when I get my carry permit.
