dlay
Member
A store near me has these on sale over the weekend, the bright finish is 339.99 and the black is 349.99, dont know which one would be the best as far as showing wear. Anyone have any experience or opionion on these.
sw 442/642 no lock
- Thread starter dlay
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
bossduce
Member
I went with the 642 for the stainless cylinder and barrel. Great gun and that's a great price! Very good choice for concealed carry due to the light weight. You'll be happy with either one but I like the 642.
I have a 442 and carry it often in the summer. Difficult to beat those prices
I think I see more compliants with the frame finish on the 642 vs the 442 and it's relatively easier to touch up the black.
However, the steel parts(barrel, cylinder and crane assembly) on the 642 are stainless steel, whereas the 442 are blued carbon steel.
I prefer the 642 for to its rust resistance since I'm more concerned with rust and corrosion of these parts compared to finish wear on the aluminum allow frame.
However, the steel parts(barrel, cylinder and crane assembly) on the 642 are stainless steel, whereas the 442 are blued carbon steel.
I prefer the 642 for to its rust resistance since I'm more concerned with rust and corrosion of these parts compared to finish wear on the aluminum allow frame.
I agree about the rust vs finish wear.
I bought a 442 for its easier-to-see sights without painting 'em. That was the theory. In practice, carrying it IWB and failing to wipe it down nightly with a silicone cloth led to rust specks on the yoke (but, strangely, never on the cylinder.) If I had it to do over, I'd pick the 642.
EricR
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2015
- Messages
- 607
- Reaction score
- 1,607
Great prices. I bought my 442-2 (w/lock) for $386.99 here in N GA last June. I've read comments regarding finish wear supposedly happening on the 642 "quicker" than on the 442 but I certainly can't attest to that. For me, I obsess about my firearms appearance/condition so daily wipedowns are never missed. I've carried the 442 a lot and continue to do so. I LOVE the Airweights and will likely buy a second to keep pristine, if I can slip it by my wife. My 442's finish is holding up extremely well. Just this morning I took the grips off so that I could make sure that the blued grip screw wasn't developing any sweat rust, lol.
scruffy
Member
My 442 no-lock has been my EDC for years. I carry it in an Uncle Mike's #4 holster in pocket or waistband and it still looks like new. I wipe it down with a silicon cloth once in a while and clean it every time I shoot it. I've seen many used 642's where the "clear coat" finish on the alloy frame has worn and peeled.
Some cops prefer 442 for their bug because it doesn't shine
like the 642 might.
like the 642 might.
My personal preference as far as finish durability goes is the 442. I have had no issues with it in years of discreet carry. The 642 has a clear coat finish over the aluminum frame that wears and flakes, giving the frame a mottled look after a short while.
Having said that, I use both. The dark 442 for daytime wear, and the light-color 642 for evening wear. The object is that I want any potential bad guy to see immediately that he is facing a gun - the quicker to change his mind on any nefarious scheme.
Here is my duo -
John
Having said that, I use both. The dark 442 for daytime wear, and the light-color 642 for evening wear. The object is that I want any potential bad guy to see immediately that he is facing a gun - the quicker to change his mind on any nefarious scheme.
Here is my duo -
John
I check mine daily. I keep a rag and can of Ballistol handy. If you keep an eye on it you won't have a problem.
Good point! It's part of preventive maintenance, something we all should be doing with a carry piece. Besides keeping a lid on rust, wiping the gun also holds down the ever-present dust and lint that seem to like our carry guns.
Also, don't forget a patch down the chambers and bore.Kaaskop49
Shield #5103
It's the Model 442-1 for me. 
Just waiting for a decent deal to surface again here in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts. The finish just seems to wear a whole lot better on the 442-1 than whatever they are putting on the 642-1.
Just waiting for a decent deal to surface again here in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts. The finish just seems to wear a whole lot better on the 442-1 than whatever they are putting on the 642-1. have both, like both
Does the store have a web site?
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,572
- Reaction score
- 6,344
It seems the finish on the 642 varies or has over time. Mine has been carried daily in a Galco horsehide pocket holster for about 3 years. There is rub wear on the edge of the frame just ahead of the crane. It is in the same place and to the same degree as my blued revolvers used to wear from being in and out of the holster. No other evidence of age/use.
On the other hand I saw another offered for sale used last week that looked like the before picture in an acne medicine commercial.
I am as pleased as can be with mine.
On the other hand I saw another offered for sale used last week that looked like the before picture in an acne medicine commercial.
I am as pleased as can be with mine.
Absolutely correct. If I'd done this from the start, I wouldn't be writing these cautionary posts about rust on the yoke of 442s.
But I started carrying the 442 after a couple of years with a Glock 26. I would shoot that every month or two in an IDPA match and clean it afterwards, otherwise I ignored maintenance. With nary a trace of rust anywhere. (Carried it IWB, too, so conditions were the same as rusted the 442.) I treated the 442 the same at first, but learned it needs more attention.
I've switched to other J frames for daily carry, stainless and alloy but all with a stainless yoke, and never had a hint of rust on any of 'em. And I DON'T wipe them down every night. So, in my single-sample experience, the 442 is more susceptible to rust than guns with a stainless yoke. It needs regular attention, where the stainless guns don't.
Again, unfortunately, I have to admit my ignorance here! I didn't know about the wear resistance differences between the 6-series and 4-series revolvers. "My" local dealer - with a large stock of revolvers - let me go thru a stack of 637's last week. The first one I examined was tight, with strong carry-up, but it had a noticeable turn-ring for a new revolver.
The second one had an equally tight action but with only a slight ring - so I made a down payment and will pick it up soon. I have been frustrated by the (apparent) poor-fitting of the J-frames I have examined up until last week. I've been especially disappointed in the loose-ish frame to yoke retention on more than a couple of the aluminum framed revolvers I've examined.
I suppose it's just a senile/anal-retentive pet peeve on my part - no one else here has mentioned this sloppiness - and apparently their revolvers run just fine if it's loose. I have a (probably foolish) fear of firing one when the cylinder is mis-aligned with the bore in one of the loose ones...
Added: So, is it safe to say that the 442's are hard-anodized versus the 6-series which are just clear-coated?
The second one had an equally tight action but with only a slight ring - so I made a down payment and will pick it up soon. I have been frustrated by the (apparent) poor-fitting of the J-frames I have examined up until last week. I've been especially disappointed in the loose-ish frame to yoke retention on more than a couple of the aluminum framed revolvers I've examined.
I suppose it's just a senile/anal-retentive pet peeve on my part - no one else here has mentioned this sloppiness - and apparently their revolvers run just fine if it's loose. I have a (probably foolish) fear of firing one when the cylinder is mis-aligned with the bore in one of the loose ones...
Added: So, is it safe to say that the 442's are hard-anodized versus the 6-series which are just clear-coated?
Last edited:
The 442 is one of the best damned carry options out there. I've got several, but my favorite has at least a couple thousand rounds through it. Locks up tight as new. The finish holds up well. Good weight for carry but not too light. Not a spot of corrosion, even after years of IWB carry in hot Charlotte, NC summers. Also, I have a "no lock" 442 fitted with a titanium cylinder. Did a thread about that swap years ago.
Last edited:
Fox4506
Member
I would say you can't go wrong with a J Frame, period. I have two 642's and one 342 (titanium cylinder). I carry one of the 642's pretty much everyday. I love shooting it too. I know some people say that J Frames are to be carried a lot and shot little...but I love shooting mine. The right grips make all the difference in the world.
I did have a problem with my first 642's finish. It started coming off on the edges, mainly the top strap, where it was rubbing in the holster in my pocket. I sent it back to S&W and they charged me to refinish it. If I had it to do over again I'd probably just let it go with the wear on the finish as it doesn't affect function. When mine had the finish problem I did a lot of reading about it. I found out that many people put wax on theirs to keep the finish from wearing...I've done this some and it does seem to help.
Oh, for those that like the dark finish of the 442 and the stainless of the 642, I believe S&W has an option for you. I think they have a 442 with a stainless cylinder. I believe it's a Performance Center gun. But like I said I don't think you can go wrong with ANY J Frame!
Good luck!
Fox
I did have a problem with my first 642's finish. It started coming off on the edges, mainly the top strap, where it was rubbing in the holster in my pocket. I sent it back to S&W and they charged me to refinish it. If I had it to do over again I'd probably just let it go with the wear on the finish as it doesn't affect function. When mine had the finish problem I did a lot of reading about it. I found out that many people put wax on theirs to keep the finish from wearing...I've done this some and it does seem to help.
Oh, for those that like the dark finish of the 442 and the stainless of the 642, I believe S&W has an option for you. I think they have a 442 with a stainless cylinder. I believe it's a Performance Center gun. But like I said I don't think you can go wrong with ANY J Frame!
Good luck!
Fox
Fox4506
Member
Buds Gun Shop has good prices...I bought my second 642 there. And if you're a veteran or law enforcement you'll qualify for their Qualified Professional discount...but even their regular prices are pretty good. They have the 442 with the QP discount for 340 right now...without the internal lock. None of my revolvers have the lock...I don't care for it at all.
Fox
Fox
Check out Grab A Gun, that's where I just ordered my 442 no lock from. I usually order from Buds but it was almost $30 cheaper at Grab a Gun shipped. Even with Buds price match request.
Grabagun.com
Grabagun.com
spirit4earth
Member
The 442 is one of the best damned carry options out there. I've got several, but my favorite has at least a couple thousand rounds through it. Locks up tight as new. The finish holds up well. Good weight for carry but not too light. Not a spot of corrosion, even after years of IWB carry in hot Charlotte, NC summers. Also, I have a "no lock" 442 fitted with a titanium cylinder. Did a thread about that swap years ago.
What kind of grip is that?
spirit4earth
Member
Are these revolvers really painful to shoot? I don't have very strong hands, but if can shoot a 9mm compact easily. I've been thinking about getting a revolver, but I'm afraid I won't want to practice with it. I can't afford to do anything other than keep it stock, so I wouldn't be able to change out the grips.
First few pictures are Barami Hip Grip paired with a Tyler T Grip and Hogue Handall.
Fifth picture is just old school wood and a Tyler T.
Last one is a Hogue Bantam grip. It's by favorite rubber boot grip. Also, it's very light and that was my goal with the titanium.
Actually, carrying the Barami / Tyler set up now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Similar threads
