Why are the 642/442s favored over the 638/438s?

A

AC_32

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
39
Reaction score
1
I apologize for bringing up a topic that has probably been posted before. Just out curiosity, why do the 42 models seem favored over the 38 models. In many posts I've read, many people seem to carry a 642/442 more often than the 638/438 models.

I'm interested in hearing everyone's opinions, as I know both are superb weapons.
 
Register to hide this ad
For me, having a shrouded hammer on a concealed carry gun just made no sense. In all likelihood, I wouldn't be shooting in single action in a self defense scenario, so I didn't want or need that option. I don't need to train in SA if I'll be using it DA. Also, the 642 is a tad smaller which is an added benefit. I'd also feel more comfortable shooting the 642 from a jacket pocket than I would a 638, even though it's shrouded. Even with the shroud, the hammer is still exposed a bit which creates the added chance of snagging.

Oh... and I like the look of the enclosed hammer better than the shrouded.
 
I can only speak for myself. I bought a 442 because I wanted the simplest and most effective gun to carry. To me the small chance I would have time to pull back a semi enclosed hammer in a emergency is far out weighed by the reliability of the enclosed hammer.

Also, accurate shot placement with these things is challenging. Aginst better judgment, I probably would be tempted to practice single action for the warm fuzzies of a tight Target grouping.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
 
I own a Model 642 and a Model 38-0 and carry both. The 642 was my EDC, and I'm very satisfied with it. I was never really interested in the Model 38/49 type until I started walking my dogs on a regular basis and realized there could be occasions where a precise, single shot at close range, such as against a dog(s) attacking us, could present itself. I also have a Model 60, but I prefer to pocket carry, and I prefer the "airweights" for pocket use.

Regards,

Dave
 
No exposed hammer and with pocket carry EZ in - EZ out.

For citizens, the 442/642 model is primarily for up close defensive use, not designed for precision 25yd bull's eye shooting, so no need for SA. I carry one as a BUG, when I practice defending myself against paper zombies at 3-7 yds it is a simple draw and shoot - from my back, knees, one knee, behind cover, etc. With that enclosed hammer there is little worry about catching on clothing, so that is one less thing to worry about. I can concentrate on figuring out how to hit the durn targets... ;)
 
The primary role of the Airweight is self defense between zero and five yards. I think the reason most chose the Centennial over the Bodyguard is they don't envision the need for a single action shot at those ranges.

Some points to consider...

I can get a higher grip on the Bodyguard which helps with recoil control.

It may be my imagination but the Centennial has a bit better action (no hammer block).

The Centennial is a bit smaller and comes out of the pocket just a bit easier.

I've got both and carry both depending on the situation.
 
I don't need a hammer to make a precise shot. I have practiced shooting DAO for years. I can stage the trigger or just take a smooth slow trigger pull and make a good hit on a paper plate at 50 feet. I also think the 442 looks good.
 
I actually perfer the ugly humpback models b/c I can get a higher grip, but own/carry the 442 b/c I can get it without the lock. If S&W ever changes that I'll get the ugly humpback (they're hard to find on the used market & command a price too high for me).
 
And 442 sounds way cooler than 438...like a little Hemi gun.

oldsmobile-442-1a.jpg
 
Cocking the small hammer on the 638 is very slow and taking aim like a pistol match will get you killed. Fast accurate D/A combat shooting is whats needed to get that shot there fast accurate in the center of chest kill zone. A slipping thumb cocking single action can lead to miss,s and law suits as will a cocked pistol that go,s off by accident. Save the hammer cocking for Single action wheel guns of the old west cowboy.
 
Last edited:
Smoother, better looking, less places to fill with pocket lint, and in my experience, the 640/642 can be found more readily and at a better price than a 638.
 
Options are always a good thing to have and my old wheelgun habits die hard. I like the SA option - I can fire more quickly and I can fire more accurately in SA.
 
Although I never shoot my snubbies in SA mode, I really like the shrouded hammers better than the concealed hammer. If I carried my snubbie in the pocket then I would opt for my 642, but I carry on the belt so I carry an all steel shrouded hammer snubbie (the 649). Frankly, I just like the way it looks better. I have heard that the concealed hammer guns are harder to do a trigger job on but I wonder if anyone else had heard that as well. I was also warned against dry firing concealed hammer revolvers, but then again I wonder if anyone has heard that warning as well.
 
Could someone post pictures depicting the size difference between a 42 & 38?
 
I prefer the M638 because, while I may not use the single action option, I like having it there just in case a SA shot is the best one for that situation. This might be a throw back to the fact that when I was a kid I did a lot of shooting with single action only guns so I guess it's in my blood at this point.

Here's a side by side comparison of the M638 & M642.
When held side by side there really isn't that much difference.

401018971.jpg


I found the lint angle interesting and to keep this down between cleanings, on all my carry guns, I keep one of those cans of air used to clean electronics where I take off my guns at the end of the day. Every couple of days I use the air to blow off any debris they may have picked up making sure that I aim the air to blow stuff, off of the gun and not into it.
 
CowboyKen said:
Two words.


NO LOCK!!!


Ken
Click to expand...

+1 on this.

I've gone to a significant expense lately to go from two lock-equipped 642s to a no-lock 442 and a no-lock 642.

I'm writing it off to mental health. It was cheaper than a shrink and now any potential issue, real or not, is off my mind.

YMMV, everybody's different...
 
I always liked the original Bodyguards with the shrouded hammer. That was way back before Wiley Clapp was instrumental in gettting the Centenial brought back.
We had an old Chief who served for a year or so while the department looked for a new Chief from the 'outside",who carried an original Centenial everyday.
I believe having the enclosed hammer strengthens the frame somewhat as opposed to the Bodyguards with the concealed shrouded hammer. There's also the possibility with pocket carry that something can lodge in the opening of the older bodyguard shrouds and cause a problem, so I consider the internal hammer the better design,although I still love the Bodyguards.
 
OLDFED said:
Design primarily and the fact that more lint can get into the open top of the semi-exposed hammer slot.
Click to expand...

That's my take on it. if you pocket carry or carry in an open top hip holster with a shirt over the gun lint and stuff can collect behind the hammer in the slot. No such problem with the enclosed hammer on the 442/642. Also, in a life and death situation you'll probably be shooting DA not SA so may as well just enclose the hammer so it'll not snag and make it more pocketable.
 
I've been carrying one of these humpbacks everyday since 1975. I got the blued 49 in 75 and carried it everyday as my 2nd until 1995 when I got the 649 which I've carried everyday since then.
I've carried these on about every place on my body you can imagine and maybe some place you couldn't imagine. Let's just say it was held in place with duct tape and it wasn't comfortable sitting down but I was pretty sure if search the bad guy wasn't going to find it.
I've carried them in all kinds of weather and in all kinds of conditions. I never had a problem with lint. I treated my 2nd gun the same as I do my primary and all my other equipment. When I got off duty I checked all my gear to make sure it was ready to go for the next time I needed it. That goes for guns, handcufs, flashlights, and everything else. Never made any sense to head out the door not knowing if something as simple as an ink pen was ready to write. If I made sure an ink pen was fully functional then why not check something you depend on to save your life. If a person has a problem with lint building up then they're not checking their equipment to make sure they're truly prepared.

49-649L.jpg
 
I love them humpbacks. I understand they're mainly a defensive weapon and I do practice with the double action.

I cut my teeth on the single action guns and still enjoy my big bore SA. I find myself shooting more 38 spl than ever before and enjoy being able to shoot them in the single action mode. I own many more Smith's than any other revolvers and shoot most of them single action.

I guess it's about thumbing that hammer back. I really like the four click single actions, music to my ears except when hunting.
 
My carry guns

I have carried a Bodyguard since 1972, as a BUG/OD/EDC. I never shoot any revolver single action. Weekly maintenance runs the little dust bunnies away.
M649M638.jpg

For comparison
DSCN1013.jpg
 
In the the few years I've carried my 638 primarily on my ankle due to work dress. I hope to begin utilizing pocket/belt carry. So far (with ankle carry) I've not encountered significant lint collection.

My reason for the post, is if pocket carry winds up being my primary method of carry, would I be better of trading in my 638 for a 442. I love my 638, but unfortunately can't have both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GF
J frames from then 'til now...
Replies
10
Views
2K
ColtEd
C
E
model 42 classic or 442?
Replies
9
Views
5K
photoman
photoman
C
body guard vs centennial j frame
Replies
14
Views
4K
surfdog76
S
M
Which has better recoil...?
Replies
21
Views
4K
russp1
russp1
W
What model do I want?
Replies
17
Views
2K
snubbiefan
S

Latest posts

Back
Top