S&W 642-1 no-lock vs 360J Scandium Alloy with IL

[Tony2much]

I am considering purchasing a lightweight .38 J-frame. I already have a couple of nice, original (pinned, no dash) 36's and a pristine model 60 that I occasionally carry, but was really thinking of getting something lighter and easier to replace if damaged or stolen.

I can get a 642-1 (no lock) or a 360J Scandium Alloy (with lock) for about the same price. I realize that they are very different guns as far as metallurgy and one having a concealed hammer vs the other having an exposed one, but I am comfortable with either.

It's the internal lock that really turns me off about the 360J. I know that the likelihood of an unintentional lock-up on the 360J is extremely remote, but I have avoided all but one S&W with a lock (which is not used for self defense).

Is the minor reduction in weight and slightly better durability of the 360J worth having to accept an internal lock (which I despise either rationally or irrationally) or should I just be content with the fact that the 360's purpose as a tool will potentially serve me better?

 

[WC145]

Disable the lock, that's what I did. Or buy the 642 and never worry about it. Or flip a coin.

 

[Hapworth]

...

Is the minor reduction in weight and slightly better durability of the 360J worth having to accept an internal lock (which I despise either rationally or irrationally) or should I just be content with the fact that the 360's purpose as a tool will potentially serve me better?

In a word, to me, no. For carry, the weight difference is negligible; for shooting, the few extra ounces on the 642 make it more manageable in my hand. As for durability, I think the 360 will prove less so -- titanium cylinders don't hold up as well as steel, especially if you plan on using .357 loads (which thump like a mother in an 11 ounce handgun).

I think the only thing the 360 has over the 642 is a more visible front sight, which either 1) you won't be using in close-quarter self-defense or 2) can easily be replaced with an XS dot.

For me, the 360 has far too little over the 642 to justify supporting the lock.

ETA: I'd also pony up the extra $30 for the 642 Pro to have the moon clip option, a definite improvement in its purpose as tool in my experience.

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

..... I know that the likelihood of an unintentional lock-up on the 360J is extremely remote....

The lock has been in production for 15 years. Probably on half a million revolvers by now. Any problems have been worked out. It's 99.999% reliable. (Nothing is ever 100%).

The ILS is as reliable as the trigger pivot stud. Which can snap at any moment. The locking bolt, which is known to break. Or any one of dozens of possible malfunctions and failures, each infinitely remote, that can occur with a S&W revolver.

Nobody says, "I won't carry a J-frame Airweight because the trigger stud could break." Yet, I hear about WAAAAAAAY more trigger stud failures than lock failures.

Bottom line. Don't worry about it.

 

[kaaskop49]

Another matter to consider is your mode of carry. If you're into pocket carry, the internal-hammer 642 would be preferable. There are certain belt holsters with a strap over the hammer. For these rigs, the 360 would get the nod.

Some folks say pocket carry with an exposed hammer gun can be done by placing the thumb over the hammer spur when drawing. Maybe THEY can do it. I can't draw an exposed hammer gun from a laundry bag without it snagging!

And BTW, don't sell the 3 previous J frames you already own. I get much more use from my Js than my larger frame guns, excellent though they are. In your case, I would go with the 642; you already have 3 exposed-hammer J-frames for belt use.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[petepeterson]

I would choose the 642 for the slightly additional weight and the concealed hammer. The IL would not factor into my decision for a carry gun, only collectability.

 

[Tony2much]

Thanks for the comments.

I will most likely go with the 642-1 w/o lock. It is what I was originally set on buying, but got distracted by an ad for the 360 Scandium (and its significant reduction from original price) and started second guessing myself.

Aesthetically, I think the 642-1 fits in better with my other non-internal lock j-frames.

It will mostly be carried on very warm days or while wearing shorts, so the concealed hammer of the 642 could also prove to be more beneficial than a couple ounces saved with the 360J.

 

[SFArmory]

I have a 642 that I was able to eventually throw a set of crimson trace grips on. This lil gun is so awesome, I simply love it. It shoots well with open sights, but now that the laser is on, its stupid accurate and fast. I call it my gentlemans gun, and I wear it with a nice brown leather holster when I'm trying to be cleaned up lol.

 

[gnystrom]

Scandium model if it were hammerless.
Alloy model offers more carry options because it is hammerless.
I would say the same regardless of which of your choices had the lock.

 

[Fchewy]

I have both plus a 442 and the 642 gets pocket duty, I guess my 360J could be a belt gun but found out that i can't get it out of my pocket as quick as the 642 but I DO like the 360J may send it off for some custom work like others have.

 

[WC145]

In a word, to me, no. For carry, the weight difference is negligible; for shooting, the few extra ounces on the 642 make it more manageable in my hand. As for durability, I think the 360 will prove less so -- titanium cylinders don't hold up as well as steel, especially if you plan on using .357 loads (which thump like a mother in an 11 ounce handgun).

I think the only thing the 360 has over the 642 is a more visible front sight, which either 1) you won't be using in close-quarter self-defense or 2) can easily be replaced with an XS dot.

For me, the 360 has far too little over the 642 to justify supporting the lock.

ETA: I'd also pony up the extra $30 for the 642 Pro to have the moon clip option, a definite improvement in its purpose as tool in my experience.

Just an FYI. You're mistaking the 360J for the 360PD or M&P. The 360J is a .38sp only gun, current production 360Js have a coated stainless steel cylinder and the front sight is a plain black blade. Similar, but not matching.

 

[kaaskop49]

Whole bunch of new J-hounds in this thread! Welcome to the pack! Gotta get on the club secretary's cats to see where we are with membership cards; guess we're still behind. My fault for entrusting cats to provide a service to "hounds."

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103
J-hound extraordinaire

 

[WC145]

Of course, you can always bob the hammer on the 360J like I did, best of both worlds.

 

[Hapworth]

Just an FYI. You're mistaking the 360J for the 360PD or M&P. The 360J is a .38sp only gun, current production 360Js have a coated stainless steel cylinder and the front sight is a plain black blade. Similar, but not matching.

Yowza -- you're right! I went to S&W's website and saw only one 360 listed -- the 360PD -- and thought that's what OP was asking about. Thanks for the catch.

Now let's all go buy a 642 Pro...

 

[Cal44]

I would suggest going with the 642.

It's low cost, no IL, and readily available.

You already have three exposed hammer J frames as kaaskop49 says.

Although logic tells me the IL is unlikely to be an issue, I just don't have the same level of confidence in a gun with an IL as those without.

And confidence and having one less thing on my mind is valuable.

Also, I question your assertion about the "slightly better durability of the 360J". I've never heard that.

If the Scandium gun you are considering would shoot 357 magnum, I might come to a different conclusion -- just to have the flexibility. But I believe the 360J is 38+P just like the 642.