Why do some prefer the 442 over the 642?

[dixiedawg119]

I've noticed that some of the 442's that are carried in the pocket are more prone to rust due to the carbon steel cylinder. When I finally get a little money rollin' in (which seems be slow in coming), I plan on getting a 642 and putting an aftermarket black coating on it, like Wilson Combat's ARMOR TUFF. I figure that will give the best of both worlds as far a corrosion resistance.

 

[alank2]

Hi,

I've had a 442 for awhile and I've had zero rust issues with it. I don't baby it either, I carry it on rainy days, high humidity days, etc. It rides in a pocket with a cheap uncle mikes holster or a smartcarry. Every few months, I give it a coat of oil, but that is it.

For me, the one big advantage of the 442 is the sights were consideraly easier for me to aim and see with. I also like the black finish.

The finish has however picked up the surface look from the inside of the uncle mike's holster which is sort of a pattern.

Some 642's really turned me off because the stainless and allow looked completely different, but I've seen some recent photos of a 642 that shows the finish on the aluminum much closer to the stainless which look much better.

The sights would be my most important reason to go with the 442, but if I was in a serious water environment like on a coast near a beach, I'd go the 642 for the added corrosion protection.

Good luck,

Alan

 

[Litlman]

442 in an Uncle Mike's since 1993. A wedding present to myself.