Smith & Wesson 642

[KeeFus]

Finally decided to get a 642 as my old 442 was not rated for +P ammo so I traded it on this. My old 442 surprised the guy at the counter as it was not black and more of a bronze/silver finish. I bought it used and it had seen its better days after riding in my pocket or on my ankle over the past 14 years.

Bought a box of Gold Dot 135 grain +P to go along with it. Shown in a Wild Bills Concealment pocket holster I picked up at a gun show in Raleigh.

http://i.imgur.com/99h1tEZl.jpg

[JonInWA]

I had one of those when the first came out; then they came with Uncle Mike Boot Grips as OEM. It was a neat gun/concept, but pretty vicious to shoot full house 125 gr .357 magnums through. I had Greg Kramer make an ankle holster for me, carried it for a summer or so, and then sold with no lingering regrets. Not a bad gun, juts not ultimately my cuppo tea.

Best, Jon

[KeeFus]

My j-frames thus far have served a pocket pistol role as well as a BUG when working. My old 442 was in good shape but it was time to move to something that would allow me to shoot +P's. My ankle glove probably needs replacing as it is also 14 years old but it still holds the pistol well and the leather isnt breaking down.

[theJanitor]

I just bought a no-lock 642 a couple weeks ago. I'm enjoying the weightlessness thoroughly

[Jeep]

I had one of those when the first came out; then they came with Uncle Mike Boot Grips as OEM. It was a neat gun/concept, but pretty vicious to shoot full house 125 gr .357 magnums through. I had Greg Kramer make an ankle holster for me, carried it for a summer or so, and then sold with no lingering regrets. Not a bad gun, juts not ultimately my cuppo tea.

Best, Jon

I don't like J frames in .357 magnum. To me they are .38 Special guns only, because you get very little (other than potential nerve damage) out of a .357 from such a short barrel.

[camsdaddy]

Do you have any pics of your 442

[KeeFus]

Do you have any pics of your 442

I thought I did but no. I will keep looking as Im sure I posted a pic on this forum some time ago. Looks like this one...image is from armslist. Mine was not marked with "Airweight" anywhere on the side of the pistol...even though when I held them side-by-side I could not tell a big difference.

I believe the correct name for the finish on that 442 is satin nickel.

http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2012/03/13/335532_01_smith_wesson_442_airweight_38s_640.jpg

[KeeFus]

I don't like J frames in .357 magnum. To me they are .38 Special guns only, because you get very little (other than potential nerve damage) out of a .357 from such a short barrel.

I agree. I watched one of our Lt's try to qualify a few years ago with some full power loads. By the end of the day qualification he was complaining about his hand.

[LSP552]

I don't like J frames in .357 magnum. To me they are .38 Special guns only, because you get very little (other than potential nerve damage) out of a .357 from such a short barrel.

I'd rather you just whack my hand with a baseball bat.

[LtDave]

A lot quieter doing it that way.

[RevolverRob]

The 642 is my J-Frame of choice. It's not my favorite gun to shoot, but damnit, if I were going to pick "one gun" for the rest of my life a 642 would be it. Light enough, concealable, powerful enough, shootable especially with wadcutters or light target loads.

But I did have a thought the other day, that a 640 fitted with a titanium cylinder out of something like a 360 might make an interesting piece. The cylinder should knock several ounces off the gun, moving a 640 from about 22 ounces to about 18 ounces. That's borderline pocketable with boot grips, but still shootable with mild .357 or +P 38s. The bonus the lighter cylinder should improve the trigger too.

-Rob

[Hambo]

I'd rather you just whack my hand with a baseball bat.

Yep. I've fired thousands of rounds of .44 magnum in everything from 3" M629s on up, but the 642 with magnum loads is one of the two most painful handguns I ever fired.

[Irelander]

I would like to pick up a 642 one of these days. I keep reading about them here and the time is coming when I won't be able to resist.

[Chuck Haggard]

Ummm, the 642 is .38 special only unless something has changed very recently................


I've carried a brace of 642s for several years now, good little guns, durable, far more reliable than other pocket gun or BUG options I have tried. Ironically I recently pretty much quit shooting +P rounds through my guns.

[shootist26]

misread nvm

[KeeFus]

Ummm, the 642 is .38 special only unless something has changed very recently..............

Must have changed. My understanding is that the 642-1 is the no lock version (mine is no lock) and the 642-2 is with the lock.

http://i.imgur.com/GEozJV3.jpg?1

[Hambo]

OK, so I can't remember model numbers, but I can't forget the pain.

[KeeFus]

Lol. I think i misread Chucks post as being only 38 standard psi only. :o

In my defense I have been in a room with lawyers all damn day...

[KeeFus]

Thoughts? Has anyone tried this modification on a j-frame?

http://www.dlsports.com/dl_jframe_sw_sights.html

[LSP972]

I see two issues with this.

First; if a J frame is the ONLY gun you can carry for defensive purposes, for whatever reasons, then this modification makes all kinds of sense. Otherwise... lipstick on a pig. And that big, blocky rear sight WILL increase the odds of a snag on a pocket draw.

Second, and more important IMO; those alloy (both "regular" aluminum- AirWeight- and scandium- AirLite) frames are clear-coated to prevent oxidation over time. If that clear coat is breached- as in, machining pieces/parts away- bad things will follow if the revolver is carried extensively. Some years back, S&W had a batch of 642s get out of the plant with improperly-applied or improperly-formulated clear coats, and those frames began eating themselves. They replaced a lot of guns over it. The ad copy does not address this. I dunno, maybe they have some method for sealing the machined edges, etc.

But I would damn sure pin them down on this before sending my J in.

FWIW, this same issue is a real biggee with the titanium cylinders, and is why you never put anything more abrasive than a nylon bristled brush on/in one. Breach that clear coat, and its Trouble in River City

.

[Chuck Haggard]

To clarify, I meant 642s did not chamber/shoot .357mag ammo, not that they weren't .38 +P compatible.

[LSP972]

Well, the early 642s were NOT rated for +P ammunition. That changed when the "magnum" J frame was adopted for all models, post-1995.

Since we're picking nits, here...;)

.

[KeeFus]

I see two issues with this.

First; if a J frame is the ONLY gun you can carry for defensive purposes, for whatever reasons, then this modification makes all kinds of sense. Otherwise... lipstick on a pig. And that big, blocky rear sight WILL increase the odds of a snag on a pocket draw.

Second, and more important IMO; those alloy (both "regular" aluminum- AirWeight- and scandium- AirLite) frames are clear-coated to prevent oxidation over time. If that clear coat is breached- as in, machining pieces/parts away- bad things will follow if the revolver is carried extensively. Some years back, S&W had a batch of 642s get out of the plant with improperly-applied or improperly-formulated clear coats, and those frames began eating themselves. They replaced a lot of guns over it. The ad copy does not address this. I dunno, maybe they have some method for sealing the machined edges, etc.



No, just a back-up at work and a pocket pistol when I cant carry otherwise.

It was a passing thought but your comments have persuaded me to keep it like it is. Thanks!