Tougher finish 442 or 642?

[tseehorn]

Correct me if i am wrong but the only difference in the 442 and 642 is the finish, and cylinder composition. I am probably going to be picking up one or the other for pocket carry and my question is which finish holds up better over time?

I love stainless guns but do like the looks of the 442. I have been reading a lot on the forums but am still new, so if there is something I missed please let me know.

Thanks

 

[MichiganScott]

Stainless cylinder vs. blued steel cylinder carried in a hot, humid climate possibly with salt added?

Buy the 642. Eight years later, mine still looks almost new.

 

[tseehorn]

a vote for each....... well i guess i will just have to do the responsible thing and get both

 

[photoman]

The older 442's have a carbon steel cylinder and barrel whereas the newer production 442's have a stainless steel cylinder and barrel.

The 642 finish will tend to chip and the 442 finish will tend to scratch. Take your pick...

 

[504forlife]

For concealed carry a cop once suggested to me to get the stainless finish so when you pull it out at night your attacker can make it out clearly and installs a bit of fear in him. Just my two cents.

 

[everReady Rob]

The 642 has stainless steel cylinder - the 442 a carbon steel cylinder. That and the color, matte silver finish vs. matte black finish, are the only differences I know.

 

[InTheWoods]

The OP might bet mighty confused when reading the responses to his question. The 442 cylinder is carbon steel, the 442 cylinder is stainless, the 442 cylinder is carbon steel, etc. Sometimes I think we read the orginal post and post our answer without reading the prior responses.

From what I have read, the 442 USED to have carbon steel cylinders and barrels, but these have been changed to stainless in recent production guns. This makes sense as it would streamline the 442/642 manufacturing process, with the finish being the only difference between the two.

I probably only added to the confusion.

As to the OP's question, I have not had any finish troubles on my 642. I wax it occassionally and it shows hardly any wear after years of use. Others have not been so lucky. The 642s finish can be harmed by using harsh cleaning chemicals. Solution is simple: don't use harsh cleaning chemicals.

 

[ibewbull]

Pocket gun

Mika's Pocket Holsters - Custom Made Pocket Holsters, Waistband Holsters, Vest Holsters, Tactical Pocket Mirrors And Much More.

First I suggest a good pocket holster.
Link Above.
I carry mine in the left front pocket as a BUG.
The right pocket with a pocket holster and Bianchi speed strip.
It won't roll around that way.
From what I have read and herd the finish on both has improved a lot.
I read some sent theirs back to Smith at no charge. That was a while ago.
Do a google search on the finish ,wear and durability. It will most likely send you back here to a different thread.
Check the Bianchi R9 on evil Bay. Out of production but one of my favorites. There are some great boot grips out there, I prefer Grasshorn stags. If you carry on a belt or in an R9 search for Rogers or Safariland J frame grips.Then pick up some snap caps, the trigger will improve after cycling it a while.
Good luck and don't forget Buffalo bore non +P is your friend.

 

[DonDee]

The older 442's have a carbon steel cylinder and barrel whereas the newer production 442's have a stainless steel cylinder and barrel.

The 642 finish will tend to chip and the 442 finish will tend to scratch. Take your pick...

Please understand that I'm not disputing this information; I continue to hear this in several places. And while it wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer's customer service people were wrong (they also assured me that no-lock J frames were not currently being produced) only last week S&W told me this was not true, i.e., 442 cylinders have always been carbon steel and still are.

I'd like to get a clarification from S&W. Can anyone enlighten me as to where they saw information about the 442 now having a stainless cylinder?

 

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

S&W 442 Finish

+1 on current 442 having stainless barrel and cylinder. In addition, the finish on these is not blued, but is a process called something like "ion bond" or "diamond coat." This is what I was told by a S&W rep a while back. This is the same process as used on the M&P revolvers, and is quite tough in my experience. I have used a 442 in a front pocket Galco holster for some years and there is no actual wear to the finish, just a couple places where there are small "dings" due to operator error. Hope this helps.

 

[gr7070]

FWIW their site continues to state carbon steel cylinder???

I bought the 642 strictly for the SS. Though I'd prefer black for the very slightly improved concealabilty.

 

[InTheWoods]

FWIW their site continues to state carbon steel cylinder???

I bought the 642 strictly for the SS. Though I'd prefer black for the very slightly improved concealabilty.

Yep, just checked this myself and was getting ready to correct my prior post. You beat me to it.

 

[Broadside]

Please understand that I'm not disputing this information; I continue to hear this in several places. And while it wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer's customer service people were wrong (they also assured me that no-lock J frames were not currently being produced) only last week S&W told me this was not true, i.e., 442 cylinders have always been carbon steel and still are.

They seem to flip flop. For a period of time (maybe a year to two?), Smith & Wesson's Web site showed the Model 442 as having a stainless steel cylinder and a carbon steel barrel.

Several months ago their Web site changed and showed the Model 442 as having a carbon steel cylinder and barrel.

My $0.02, if you live in a region with high humidity and heat like the Gulf Coast of the U.S. or just about anywhere in the Southeast U.S., then opt for the Model 642. If you don't and prefer black sights over the silver, then opt for the Model 442. If neither apply to you, just pick whichever color you prefer.

 

[Maximumbob54]

The older 442's have a carbon steel cylinder and barrel whereas the newer production 442's have a stainless steel cylinder and barrel.

The 642 finish will tend to chip and the 442 finish will tend to scratch. Take your pick...

I agree with this ^^^^^

I had an aging 637 that the clear finish was coming off all over it and it looked really bad in some spots. And that stainless will rust if left next to hot salty sweaty skin, or at least mine did. I would rather have a 442 with the black finish over another clear chippy finish. I think a wipe down with Eezox would protect the blued steel. But I keep hearing about blackened stainless barrels with blued steel cylinders and don't want a mix master. I'm fine with blackened steel barrel and cylinder or blued steel both, but I don't want half and half. The only local no ILS 442 I have seen was a mixer.

 

[DonDee]

I agree with this ^^^^^

I had an aging 637 that the clear finish was coming off all over it and it looked really bad in some spots. And that stainless will rust if left next to hot salty sweaty skin, or at least mine did. I would rather have a 442 with the black finish over another clear chippy finish. I think a wipe down with Eezox would protect the blued steel. But I keep hearing about blackened stainless barrels with blued steel cylinders and don't want a mix master. I'm fine with blackened steel barrel and cylinder or blued steel both, but I don't want half and half. The only local no ILS 442 I have seen was a mixer.

I've been carrying my 442 for about a week and I just discovered today that it scratches pretty easily. Just part of the deal I guess, but I sure do miss the finishes of the "old" days, i.e., bluing and nickel, etc.

As far as no internal lock Smiths, they are out there all over-you just have to look a little. I traded both my 642s with locks last week for a 442 and a 642, both with no lock. One had a proof date in Jan. of this year and the other was Nov. 2011. I just picked up a no lock 340PD today with a proof date of Oct. 13, 2011. In the case of the 642 and the 340PD, both S&W customer service and many dealers told me they weren't a current item. Customer service told me they had never made a 340PD without a lock.

Well, OK...

 

[Jazman]

Another vote for the 642 no lock, I am very happy with mine, especially after I had Marc Morganti tune and port it. I also am really happy with my Mika holster, best I have found for the purpose.

 

[Robert B]

442 no lock and Superfly

I love my 442 nl, and I have devised a way to stop pocket sweat rust. All you need to do is to buy a DeSantis Superfly pocket holster. Then, reverse the flap so that it acts like a sweat shield instead of a printing blocker. I live in Arizona, and some summer days I can feel the sweat running down my leg. Never gets to the gun though. Perfect set up. YMMV.

 

[Rivers2k]

I love the finish on my 442, it has held up really well.

 

[Packard]

I agree with this ^^^^^

I had an aging 637 that the clear finish was coming off all over it and it looked really bad in some spots. And that stainless will rust if left next to hot salty sweaty skin, or at least mine did. I would rather have a 442 with the black finish over another clear chippy finish. I think a wipe down with Eezox would protect the blued steel. But I keep hearing about blackened stainless barrels with blued steel cylinders and don't want a mix master. I'm fine with blackened steel barrel and cylinder or blued steel both, but I don't want half and half. The only local no ILS 442 I have seen was a mixer.

The S & W site does not specify, I will assume that the frames and barrels and cylinders are made from a 400 Series stainless steel. This steel has a higher carbon content and will stick lightly to a magnet. It is not as corrosion resistant as 300 series SS but can be heat treated to various hardnesses.

It will get specs of rust (like inexpensive flatware will get). On the flatware the rust disappears when you run it through the dishwasher. With the gun a simple wiping down will eliminate the tiny specs of rust. The gun will not rust out.

You can treat those specs of rust as blemishes that disappear with a light rubbing of an lightly oiled rag.

Blued carbon steel is only slightly corrosion resistant, and if left un-oiled in a harsh environment it will rust fairly quickly.

Stainless steel can be hard-chrome plated and this will eliminate any rust spots and will provide a file-hard surface with better lubricity. But the interiors of the chambers and the barrel will likely not recieve much plating as the plating does not "throw" well into these types of areas.

 

[gr7070]

I looked at multiple versions of the 442 on S&W's site.

The no-IL 442 is supposedly carbon steel.

Ditto the IL 442.

The Pro 442 says stainless.

The 438 is stianless, as well.

Who knows???