442 Vs 642 - With a lot of revolver oriented threads lately, I've seen a lot of people praising their S&W 642s and a few people (myself included) praising their S&W 442s. I have also read in many places that the 642 is more popular than the 442. Various forums and videos support this.
I have a question; Why is 642 more popular than 442? So, I'm asking S&W 442/642 owners what they have and why they like it. And FWIW, I like both but only own the 442. Also, no judgment here, just curious about other owners thought processes/philosophies on this. I'll start One of you should go next. Laugh out loud
442 Vs 642
I prefer the black finish on the carry gun. Blends better with black pockets, shadows, etc. See if a dark object is in a dark pocket, you probably won't see the object. Try it with a bright object in the same pocket, you will see. The same with the hem of the shirt, etc. We tune in to black, but our mind tends to focus on other colors and try to figure out the shape of the object. So as far as carrier guns go, it's a no-brainer for me, regardless of model.
Lg 405 Lasergrips® For Smith & Wesson J Frame Round Butt (compact Grip)
It has also been my experience that when a civilian describes a BG gun to the police, no matter what the gun is, it is often described as a silver revolver if present. So the last thing I want on my person is...a silver revolver, lol.
These are just my thoughts and only apply to me, but that's why I chose 442 over 642. how are you?
I only got the 642 because Cabela's didn't have the 442 unlocked which is weird and they never stock that model and the unlocked 642 sells out very quickly and every time they stock another J before the frame. I agree about the darkness in the pocket that I discovered after I bought it. In fact, I put a strip of Talon Grip Tape on my backstrap for this very reason. I like the blue/black look better, but my outdoor revolvers are stainless only for weathering, which might be why some people choose the 642 for wet or sweaty environments?
I have a 642, my only non tarnishing gun, the choice of 642 was based solely on aluminum not rusting and the resistance of stainless steel to rust vs tarnishing, and I want a 642 :wink:
Review] Smith & Wesson 642 Airweight: Go To Snubbie?
I suspect the popularity of the 642 over the 442 is largely based on misconception; You are somehow comparing a "stainless" gun to a "blue steel" gun. "Back in the day" I strongly preferred stainless steel guns because of the low maintenance required to keep them in good condition. It was a realistic difference back then, and while I like the pretty old blued steel guns, the stainless ones were actually a bit more "practical" because of their resistance to corrosion.
The point is that neither 442 nor 642 is stainless or blued steel! Both are aluminum alloy guns; Identical except for the finish applied to them. I have not yet been able to determine which (if any) finish is more durable, but I suspect the 642 just can't fault it. YMMV!
My advice to anyone trying to decide between the two: look better in what you like! :yes:
My preference and the one I have is the 442. The only reason I think so is because I give it an edge in coolness factor. Just my opinion of course.
Buy Maxx Carry Iwb Leather J Frame Revolver Holster For S&w Models 442 And 642 Airweight, 637, 638, 640 And Other .38 Special Snub Nose Revolvers Online In Tanzania. B07zfs22xm
I chose the 642 for no other reason than I like the look of it better. That's really the only reason to choose one over the other. It just depends on what color you prefer.
My 642 has a through hole but I've never used it and ignore it's existence. That's not a problem.
I don't really care what color, they are basically the same gun. I have the 642 and 638 because they were there when I bought them. If the 442 was available I would probably buy it.
The 642 looks better because it's stainless, to me they look great in a glass case, but I don't own one either, the 442 is a CCW gun.
Sailor Studio Inks: 442, 642, 143, 243, 343, 443, 543, 743, 843, 943 — Fountain Pen Pharmacist
I used to buy stainless steel revolvers. It started with a Blue 37 that I traded my Glock 19 for. After the 37 I added some 442. Then it was a Mint 36 that I bought from a friend. I like blue or black weapons now. I usually shoot and carry a J-Frame.
I own it (only) because it's an unlocked model that I bought in the last hour of a weekend gun show for $250.
I carry it because it slips into my right front pocket in my Remora holster like my car keys slip into my left front pocket.
I bought my 642 because they had it when I decided I wanted a Jframe. I actually like the look of the 442 better, but not enough to knock it off when the 642 seems to be stock almost everywhere. I've had it for about 14 years and I can tell you the 642 is done, my trigger guard and backstrap on the 642 is almost metal. The cool thing about the 642 is that you can't even tell from a distance that the finish is worn because the aluminum underneath is almost the same color. I hope the wear on the 442 is more noticeable.
Light Weight J Frame Pocket Pistols
I prefer black over silver for a carry gun, but the 642 stainless barrel seemed a bit more corrosion resistant than the carbon steel 442 barrel and will likely be carried during the summer months or in a sweaty pocket.
I don't have anything, that's why I didn't choose. However, I often wear the 637 Performance Center. This is truly the gun that reminded me how much I love revolvers and I had to carry them. I bought it because it was like new at a good price and had a great trigger.
Yes, the stainless shows a bit more in the pocket, but usually an unbuttoned shirt covers it and I don't worry too much about it. I like bled guns in general, but I haven't bought stainless lately because of the high price or unusual barrel length.
I would have bought either, but I wanted another J-frame when the 642 was on sale. I would have to spend another $75 to get the 442. Doctor
Smith & Wesson M&p Bodyguard Revolver
I had a 642 but got rid of it because the clear coat on the aluminum frame was cracking and chipping after 2 months...seemed cheap and unacceptable for a new $400 gun. This happened to many of their 637, 642, 638... so I got a 442 and couldn't be happier
CowboyFromHail said: I had a 642 but got rid of it because the clear coat on the aluminum frame peeled and fell apart after 2 months...looked cheap and unacceptable for a brand new $400 gun. This happened to a lot of these 637's, 642's, 638's... so I clicked on the 442 to enlarge... I think there is something about the 642 that a lot of people don't know is . They see a silver gun and assume it's like stainless and doesn't have a finish, but it does and it wears. I've heard the 442 finish is more durable. The finish on my 642 is well worn but has been driven regularly for 14 years.
I have both and slightly prefer the 442, but for no functional reason. I like the dark finish better. I don't see a difference in durability. I think both surpass me.
This is an old thread, you may not get a reply and you may want to revive the old thread. Please consider starting a new thread.
Smith & Wesson Model 642 Vs Taurus 856 2” Size Comparison
642 vs 442, fluidmaster 642, 442, broan 642, 642 holster, canon 642, cazal 642, 642 902, om 642, smith 442 vs 642, yep 642, cloudlab 642
0 Comments