Should I get the 442 Pro Series, Standard 442, or 642?

[guitarzNgunz]

I'm looking to get my first revolver for a back up gun. This will be my first revolver purchase ever. I plan to carry it in a pocket holster. I've been reading about the difference between the 642/442 as I'm considering both but I like the black matte finish better. I like the idea of the Stainless cylinder on the 642 but as I stated I really like the black but the 442 is a Carbon Steel cylinder. I found that the Pro Series model 442 Moon Clip is a SS cylinder and is of course the black finish that I desire. It also comes machined for moon clips which is an added bonus even though I probably wouldn't put the moon clip thing to use considering it'll be a BUG.

So my question is: Is the Carbon Steel cylinder on the standard 442 prone to rust as some have stated? Or would it be fine with proper care? Or is the Pro Series 442 a better option and worth the extra cash? Or will the 642 hold up best out of all as far as finish is concerned?

Thanks for the help!

 

[marinevet]

I think you have the answer to your own question....."with proper care".....the 442, or the 642 are both a good choice....moon clips, or speed loader is a personal thing....I prefer the finish on the 442, and have no issues with pocket carry, proper care is the key for any firearm.....both for the finish, and the function.

Semper Fi!

 

[Dale53]

I picked the 642 as most of the 442's I have seen have worn looking finishes in a very short time. In fact, I have seen new guns in the gunshop with "handling marks".

As far as function, they ought to be equal. I have carried the 642 in a Mika pocket holster for three or four years almost daily and my particular gun shows no finish damage.

YMMV, of course. Neither is a wrong choice. You pays your money and makes your choice.

Dale53

 

[snubbyfan]

I carry my 442 everyday either in my pocket or on my belt. When I get home, I unload it and wipe it down. I've no finish problems whatsoever. Yeah it shows holster wear but I always believed that there's nothing wrong with some honest holster wear.

 

[Electraclyde]

My 442 shows no signs of rust anywhere and I carried it as a BUG in an ankle holster for over 2 years. I cleaned it about once a month in that time period.

 

[PHATSPEED7x]

I loved my 442 for the month that I owned it. I just prefered the smoother trigger of my lcr. Found a lady friend who was in need of a smaller gun for purse carry and give her a deal on my 442. She now rocks it with a pink hogue grip. Looks pretty badass for a woman.

 

[bishopm14]

I bought a no lock 642 several years ago after they were re- introduced. Not knowing that lock less 442's would also be along.

If I were to do it now, the 442 Pro with moon clips would be my pick. Even if you don't use a moon clip for the reload, I think ejection would be more consistent with the initial cylinder full being clipped. Getting the little sub 2" guns to consistently eject all the empties takes proper technique and practice.

I often pack the 642 in the front pocket of baggy cut off BDU shorts. From certain angles I am pretty sure the silver gun in my pocket could be noticeable. I really don't worry about that, but the black finish of a 442 would probably help stay incognito.

I've actually considered getting my 642 coated with a dark finish, or getting a 442 Pro for these reasons.

 

[JonF]

Blued alloy frame
Blued carbon steel cylinder

My wifes 342PD has the black finish and the tiniest scratch shows forever.
Unless you try a temp fix with caseys black or perma blue

That's kinda why the 2 642's I carry don't show so much.
However that clearcoat on the frames will eventually wear off also.

That is why we both are more concerned with
putting 5 in a playing card sized area at 10 yds or so........

 

[Alnamvet68]

No lock 642 is the way to go. I don't care for the current 442 due to its painted on logos. The pro series has the moon clips....I don't care for moon clips.

 

[kaaskop49]

J-frames are like cats in a shelter. You don't pick your J-frame, the J-frame picks you. My 637PC 'Wyatt Deep Cover' model spoke to me from the showcase in my LGS and it came home with me. A few weeks later, a second 'Wyatt' appeared in that showcase, and that one came home. It is difficult to find a J-frame that will not 'fit your pistol.'

Each 'J' has its own strong- and weak-points, but as an above-poster said, he's much more concerned with putting 5 rounds into a playing card. Mine shoot MOPP (Minute-of-Pie-Plate) but the idea is the same.

If you get them all, you won't suffer the agony of deciding which!

Kaaskop49
J-hound extraordinaire

 

[eveled]

I went with the 442, the black finish hides better in a pocket or IWB. I have hip grips on mine and sometimes hook it to my pocket. I am not worried about scratches, and none have happened yet. Ed

 

[wrangler5]

I started with a 442 after carrying a Glock 26 for several years - both carried daily, IWB. The Glock I basically ignored unless I went to the range - put it on, took it off, put it on again tomorrow. I shot monthly IDPA and USPSA matches with it, plus some training sessions, and cleaned it occasionally.

I treated the 442 the same except I didn't shoot matches with it. Happened to check it out after a couple of weeks of carry and found rust on the yoke. Cleaned that up, and thereafter checked it every night and wiped it down with a silicone cloth. Rust never came back, and I never had any on the cylinder, but I would see drops of moisture on the yoke and the matching frame surface almost every night before I wiped it down.

I know the original 442 rust spots were due to my neglect of regular maintenance. But I have since switched to a 638 (always liked the humpbacks) and find I can treat it like a Glock - check it out occasionally and blow the lint out as needed, but it has always remained rust free WITHOUT the need for nightly maintenance. If I had known then what I know now, I would have bought a 642 instead of the 442 to begin with.

 

[Rob1109]

642 Preferred

Bought the 642 and the LCR. LCR shoots easier, the 642 wears a CT Laser. Heard rumors about the finish on the alloy frame so I polished with RENAISSANCE WAX. No problems. Carried right front pocket in a DeSantis Nemisis.

Best.

 

[sac-gunslinger]

I have been carrying concealed since 1976 (on and off). I spent a lot of time carrying in desert states where perspiration is an everyday fact of life. Surface corrosion will start very quickly because perspiration carries a lot of salts. For that reason I have chosen the 642 for my concealed carry gun.

Now for a suggestion. If you are not experienced in double-action revolver shooting you should also purchase a medium frame revolver for learning new shooting techniques. Starting out learning on a snubbie will develop some poor shooting habits. A plain ol' Model 10 is a good place to start and gives you an excellent revolver for your battery. The M10 is a good size to learn proper control and then translate those new skills to your snubbie.

 

[kaaskop49]

attn Wrangler5

So you like the 638 too? My first J-love. Hear you on the 442's rust spot issue. Here in the desert, rust spots evaporate in the heat before we can wipe them off. But a daily wipe-down with an oily rag never hurts. Good shooting, 638-er!

 

[Cal44]

I paid for (but haven't received yet) a 642.

I had the choice of that or a 442 as both were in stock.

I figured stainless was less prone to rust and corrosion and therefore better.

Also, they happened to have a new 642 with no lock -- and all the others had ILs.

I think there is still a SKU on the S&W site for 442 (as well as 642's) without locks, BTW.

Dave

 

[shawn mccarver]

I vote for the standard 642, without question. The Pro Series has a bunch of stuff you do not need and the 442 will not do as well with perspiration, etc., due to the fact that its steel components are carbon, as opposed to stainless.

Also, if you can get a "no-lock" version, that is better.

One final thought. Some, who photograph their guns more than they use them, will complain bitterly that the "clearcoat" on the aluminum frame of the 642 will wear off with use. So will blue, and at least the barrel and cylinder are less likely to rust with minimal care if made of stainless.

Stainless requires care, to be sure, but it is more forgiving of a lack of care than traditional blued components.

 

[wrangler5]

The principal reason I picked a 442 to begin with was that I had found it hard to see the stainless sights on a 22 revolver I've had for years. So I thought the black sights of the 442 would make for more accurate shots. And they do. But at the risk of rust.

The solution I found, though, was to get the stainless gun for rust resistance and paint the sights for visibility. Orange nail polish on the front for visibility (degrease well with alcohol first, and then do a white base coat - makes the orange top coat much brighter) and flat black model paint on the rear notch and the frame cutout behind it. It only took one drop of black, applied and spread around with a toothpick. Now I have a rust resistant lightweight pocket gun with easy to see sights.

 

[Old Unc']

I have both the 442 and 642. I much prefer the new wave of black guns.

 

[J. W.]

442 for me. Part of the deciding factor for me was the finish. I've heard and read story after story about finish issues on the 642, especially when exposed to harsh solvents. I didn't want to deal with that. Beyond that, I just like black/blue guns over stainless/nickel, etc guns.

I will say this about the finish on my 442. I've had the gun for about 4 years and carried it had been carried and shot regularly. It is also carried 12+ hours a day as a back up to my duty gun. Been exposed to plenty of sweat and solvents and even soaked on the rain multiple times. The finish has held up extremely well and only shows signs of minor wear.


Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk