Is a new S&W 442 worth $100 more than a new 642?


October 7, 2005, 12:11 PM
When I decided to get a 642 I called my dealer and he gave me a very good price on a new in box 642 ($30 over wholesale). So I asked him what the price was on a NIB 442 and he told me the same price. So I went to see him today to order the 442 and he told me that he had made a mistake and that the 442 would run me $100 more than the 642. This guy is super honest and I know that he just made an honest mistake. So is the 442 really worth the extra $100? They are the same exact gun except for the finish. I have heard of some issues with the finish on the 642, but I am unsure if spending another $100 is worth it. Any input is greatly appreciated!

If you enjoyed reading about "Is a new S&W 442 worth $100 more than a new 642?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
October 7, 2005, 02:39 PM
Don't know if it is worth $100 more. My experience, NIB 442s do cost more than NIB 642s. My 442 cost more than my 642 by about $100. I guess the blueing cost more than the clear coat. Some smart folks will chime in here soon to give you a better answer why. The 442 is more subdued thus supposedly making it a better hideout/belly nocturnal ccw gun. The 642 is everything the 442 is - just not as clandestine. Some folks will tell you that the 642 clear coat deals better with body sweat/oils and what-not that it is subject to during daily concealed carry.

October 7, 2005, 02:45 PM
I owned a 642 before, and I did not have any issues with the gun's finish but I know there have been more than just a handful of people here who have posted having problems with it. I believe people usually say its the clear coat finish that tends to flake/rub off. I did have that happen to me on 340 though.

I personally think the 442 looks better to the eye, and yes its black so it doesn't stand out so much and is thus a little better for concealed carry. As far as how long/well the finish will hold up I don't know, but I do know that I can't remember seeing a post where somebody complained their 442 was having finish problems. And of course one has to expect any finish to wear somewhat over time in the areas where rubbing contact is made (holster,etc).

So...I say if you don't mind spending the money get the 442.

October 7, 2005, 02:57 PM
I wouldn't trade my used nickeled 442 for a new 642.

October 7, 2005, 03:37 PM
Seems strange the SS model is selling for less. For this type gun and since it is cheaper, I'd definately get the 642. For some reaosn though,I have noticed that new 637's sell kind of cheaply in my area.

October 7, 2005, 08:54 PM
In a word, "No."

Ala Dan
October 8, 2005, 07:12 AM
I wouldn't trade my 98%+ gem mint 2nd series (1947-1972) nickel
Colt Detective Special for either one. However, I do own a
S&W 642.

Ala Dan
October 9, 2005, 09:11 AM
Follow Up Posts:

FWIW, guys (and or gals) I don't understand the $100 price difference
between the 442 and 642 either. In our shop, we sell both the 442 and
the 642 for the same price of $349.88; our every day low price. But, I
have a lot more 642's than 442's in stock~! :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Is a new S&W 442 worth $100 more than a new 642?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!