Why did the full 2 inch snubbies fade?

[mike56]

I bought a 642 wih a full 2 inch barrel a few years back. I noticed they are no longer offered and see very few of them for re-sale.

I like the little extra sight radius and it is no more difficult to conceal. Not sure how much velocity increase there might be.

Why were they not popular?

 

[Maximumbob54]

I have no idea. I used to want the 637 version and never could find one.

 

[shawn mccarver]

I bought a 642 wih a full 2 inch barrel a few years back. I noticed they are no longer offered and see very few of them for re-sale.

I like the little extra sight radius and it is no more difficult to conceal. Not sure how much velocity increase there might be.

Why were they not popular?

The one pictured is a 2 1/2 inch. Many years ago, they also made 3 inch ones with the exposed, rather than shrouded, ejector rod.

 

[finesse_r]

Times and Preferences are Changing Some....

I bought a 642 wih a full 2 inch barrel a few years back. I noticed they are no longer offered and see very few of them for re-sale.

I like the little extra sight radius and it is no more difficult to conceal. Not sure how much velocity increase there might be.

Why were they not popular?

I think a lot of revolvers in this size are being replaced by the much more popular three inch versions. The three inch is just about as easy to conceal and it just feels and shoots so much better than a 2 inch.

Add to the above the increasing number of especially younger shooters that are opting for the compact semi-autos, and I expect the demand for the 2" revolver has just dropped to the point it is not worth it to make many of them.

 

[shouldazagged]

A "full two-inch barrel" would only be an eighth of an inch more than the 1.875-inch barrel of my 640, built in 1990--am I missing something here?

 

[TNDave]

I have never seen a gun with that barrel length. Wow

 

[murphydog]

Also, perhaps them not fitting a standard holster for a 2" barrel J frame.

 

[357-RevolverGuy]

As with most changes we've seen from S&W it may very well have been a cost saving method to reduce the amount of steel they go through. Who knows if ten years from now the J frames go to 1" inch barrels.

 

[gman51]

Since lighter high volume semi autos came out most all of revolver lines have been thought of as not enough gun as well as to much gun weight and size considered. I have just recently chosen to go with a revolver for CC. It only has 5 shots .38 or .357. I figure in most cases if 5 isn't enough then I am probably dead anyway. I do carry an hks speed loader. I actually feel safer with a revolver than a semi auto.
I think we are now seeing more interest coming back for revolvers.

 

[RonLee]

I just saw on the smith website a 640 "pro series" with 2.125" for $809

 

[shouldazagged]

I'm still not getting it. If you mean shortening the J-frame barrels from an even two inches to 1.875 was a cost-cutting measure, it occurred at least 23 years ago (mine was manufactured in 1990 with the 1.875 barrel), and I think the latter length was used for a long time before they lengthened them to over two inches in recent production.

David Wilson, can you help me here?

And even if they did reduce the length from an even two inches by one eighth of an inch, what possilble effect could so small a change have on sight radius and balance? A few feet per second of velocity, maybe, but better sighting?

Forgive me if I'm just too damn dense to see it, but it isn't registering for me.

 

[Texas Star]

It isn't registering for anyone here. The bbl. length being discussed is 2 and an eighth inch. That came with the full lug snub barrels.

I imagine that S & W felt this was the best length for balance , exractor rod length and looks. Most of their J-frames went to .357 chambering then, too.

 

[revolvergeek]

I believe that the 642 shown is one of the short lived batch from 2010 that was made with a 2.5" barrel and a longer ejector rod. There is an article about them with lots of pictures in the May/June 2010 American Handgunner. Bud's still shows them on their website here S&W M642 38 2.5 DAO FS MSLVR $476.00 SHIPS FREE

 

[DCWilson]

I'm not sure I have anything to offer other than impressions and suppositions, but I never thought the J snubbies had two- inch barrels. They were either 1-7/8 inch for the basic J-frame, or 2-1/8" on the J-magnum frame.

I have it in mind that the I-frame snubbies (.32 HEs, .38 Terriers) had barrels that were exactly two inches long, but I could be wrong about that.

 

[OLDSTER]

I don't know why S&W changed. The Ruger SP101 comes in a 2 1/4" barrel, which is perfect. But the Ruger is a slighty larger and heavier gun then the S&W snubbies.

 

[shouldazagged]

I'm not sure I have anything to offer other than impressions and suppositions, but I never thought the J snubbies had two- inch barrels. They were either 1-7/8 inch for the basic J-frame, or 2-1/8" on the J-magnum frame.

I have it in mind that the I-frame snubbies (.32 HEs, .38 Terriers) had barrels that were exactly two inches long, but I could be wrong about that.

Thanks, David, it's good to know I'm not completely losing it.

 

[MP1518]

In my circles , people who actually DO CARRY all the time , use classic 2 inch J frames a lot.

I own a no dash 642 and a no dash 640.They get carried a lot.

As a second gun , back up at work , warm weather gun etc.

The only THREE inch revolvers that I carry are K and L frame.

 

[bdsorcic]

Did they fade ? I think they are getting more popular. I may be wrong but . ... I am Interesting in hearing your options.

 

[BAM-BAM]

OP did you measure from the front of the cylinder or frame.... that looks like a 2.5 inch barrel

IIRC....... a few years back there was a thread that "concluded" that S&W barrel length was within spec. if it was plus or minus 1/8 inch.

 

[jwk]

Someone at S&W has a sense of humor and wants to drive folks like us on this list nuts agonizing over it.

Best answer I can come up with.