[308win]

Taurus 850SS or S&W642 (fully enclosed hammer model). Pros and cons please. I know the S&W is 6oz lighter but how does this affect handling, performance, concealability (if there is such a word). How do they point? Any ergonomic differences worth noting? Quality comparable? Thanks

[ChristopherG]

6 ounces is a lot in a pocket.

If you can afford the Smith (and there are great deals on them to be had), then go ahead and get the gun the Taurus wishes it was.

[TOADMAN]

Now is a good time to become a member of the 642 club. I'll bet a nickle that most folks here will steer you towards the 642.

[Fun2Shoot]

The S&W 642 is a classic and great choice for CCW. I finally broke down and bought one w/Crimson Trace laser grips this year.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=14794&langId=-1&isFirearm=Y

MSRP is $695, but a common price in my area is $529. The j-frame Smiths are very "pointible" and have excellent ergonomics, IMO and to many others. With the alloy frame and being rated for continous +P use, It is a win-win choice.

I have not owned any Taurus revolvers, but it's almost a sure bet that the S&W will be a better quality gun from what I have read over the years. Taurus is always improving, but for a few bucks more you can just have a Smith and be done with it. The Smith will have higher resale prices too.

All in all, a small, light .38 +P is about the bare minimum for CCW, but a respectible choice, none the less.

[Majic]

The M642 is lighter, but you are comparing it against a stainless steel Taurus. There is another M85 model that weighs only an ounce or so more than the M642. Handling, ergonomics, performance, and concealbility is about the same for both models. I know a lot of people will recommend the S&W, but IMO the Taurus has the better trigger (J-frames have never been known for their triggers).
Go handle both to see what you prefer as they both are great little revolvers.

[Sistema1927]

(J-frames have never been known for their triggers).
.

Huh?

My 642 has a velvet smooth DAO pull, and my 1980 vintage 37 has the same DA pull, coupled with a light crisp SA let-off. I had a Taurus 85CH, and the difference was very noticeable. Note that I say that I "had" the Taurus.

Not to knock Taurus, I just bought a .45 Colt Gaucho, and it has a wonderful trigger.

[Dollar An Hour]

Apples & Oranges comparison. Should be looking at the Ultralight Taurus snubbies.

Agree the new Smiths I've handled seem to have worse triggers than the new Taurus snubs. And you don't hear about Taurus internal lock malfunctioning either. :scrutiny:

Do you Airweight/Ultralight owners practice with +P ammo or standard .38's?

And isn't recoil pretty bad with +P out of a 15-16 oz snubby?

Just for better shootability, I'm considering the same size (but steel frame) 20 ounce S&W M36LS. May put larger grips on it and bob the hammer, but I understand the LS models get lighter factory springs and a smoother trigger. Sounds like a winner.

[ChristopherG]

That'd be the 60LS. The 65 LS is a 3" k-frame six-shooter, more like 32 oz I should think.

[fiVe]

The Smith & Wesson 642 is IMHO one of the best carry pieces available today.

[MICHAEL T]

A American made pistol or ........ Gee :rolleyes: I wonder which one I should get. I give you a hint S&W---

[MillCreek]

Do you Airweight/Ultralight owners practice with +P ammo or standard .38's?

I have a Taurus 651 in titanium, which may qualify as an airweight. It scales out as 19.3 ounces fully loaded with my typical carry load: Speer Gold Dot .38+p 136 grain JHP short barrel. I will typically practice with WWB .38+p, and finish off with a cylinder of the Gold Dot. I try to avoid shooting .357 in it, since a cylinder of that is quite enough.

[ChristopherG]

My .38 weighs 12.5 oz, and moonlights as a .357.

I shoot mostly .38 +P for practice, and a little .357. There are funner guns to shoot, for sure, and thankfully I have several of them. If I only had one handgun, though, this one would probably be it.

[Dollar An Hour]

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/images/firearms/161490_large.jpg

That'd be the 60LS. The 65 LS is a 3" k-frame six-shooter, more like 32 oz I should think.

Correct. I meant M36LS pictured above... J-frame steel snubby. Nice compromise between shooting comfort and pocket-friendly size.

[tomkatz]

642-1

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/4139/img50494vd.jpg

[Majic]

With all the glowing recommendations for the M642 it's funny that when it first came on the market S&W couldn't give them away so they dropped it. Then S&W took their small revolver and made it bigger by placing it on the J-magnum frame, sprayed it with a clearcoat (that wasn't very durable) and it somehow became the darling of the snub revolvers.

[BluesBear]

it's funny that when it first came on the market S&W couldn't give them away so they dropped it.I wouldn't exactly consider a gun produced for 22 years that sold 40,000 units as a dismal failure. (Centennial Models 40 & 42 from 1952-1974)
The Stainless Centennials in one form or another have now been in continuous production since 1990.

The biggest flaw of the original Model 40 and Model 42 (Airweight) revolvers was its grip safety.
Even with light .38 loads that grip safety beat the hell out of your hand.

Just imagine laying your hand on a table, palm up, while a friend hits the web area between your index finger and thumb with the ball end of a ball peen hammer.
:what:

[jlh26oo]

Speaking of pocket revolvers, I think BluesBear needs a a few more lines on his signature; at least two more font colors and styles. It just seems kind of thin to me as it is. And larger font should be offered. I feel he is limited by the current choices.

[BluesBear]

I used to but while I was locked away they placed a limitation as to how many characters we opinionated curmudgeons could use for signatures.


But feel free to critique me anytime. Your opinion means so much.
Another lame name goes on the twit list.
And who knows, perhaps you just might be able add something beneficial to the discussion next time.
But I doubt it.

[jlh26oo]

Just imagine laying your hand on a table, palm up, while a friend hits the web area between your index finger and thumb with the ball end of a ball peen hammer.

Incorrect. Unless the analogy assumes the shooter has the back of his hand against a wall or something, striking a hand lying on a table with a hammer is completely different. At most, it would be as bad as catching said hammer in the air (but actually more like holding the ball of the hammer and having it struck with an equivalent force).

My bad about jabbing you on your signature, and sorry to hear they placed restrictions on how big it could be. I can tell it is important to you. And if anyone really has a problem with it, it's not like they can't choose the "hide signature" option to make the thread a smoother read. It's just that I've never seen one quite so... grandiose. :neener:

[BluesBear]

Hmmm lemme see...

I carried a S&W Model 49 for several years until i replaced it with a 1972 vintage Model 40. I carried depatment issue Remington R38S3 ammo. (125gr SJHP +P).
I shot the Model 49 a lot, always with factory original wooden stocks.
I shot the Model 40 18 times with issue ammo and 18 times with mid range wadcutters before I completely removed the grip safety and installed Pachmayr Compact grips. After that it was fine.

I have also had my hand hit with a ball peen hammer.

The two sensations are most definitely comparable.

Incorrect? :rolleyes: You go find one. Fire it and get back with me.

[jlh26oo]

You missed the point about hand lying on the table. Unless you shoot with your hand up against a wall for some rea...

...wait, did you just say you hit yourself with hammers?

~slowly backs out of thread~

Most of the problems lie with the fool rather than the tool. Incompetent people can hurt themselves with a rubber mallet in a sandbox, given enough opportunity to explore their options...
" -1911 Tuner, as quoted by Blues Bear

[jashobeam]

Maybe I want two of them! One for each pocket. :D

[BluesBear]

I didn't say I did it to myself,

And you are once again the one missing the point.
I compared one form of hand discomfort with another.
I never said they were identically created.

It's amazing you can accurately quote certain portions while reconstructing others to suit yourself. :scrutiny:

Perhaps due to the problem you had with me in another thread you're purposely trying to annoy me in this one? Lots of luck. Even intelligent people have tried that and failed.

This thread has been hijacked long enough. Go bait someone else you are now and forever on my ignore list.
You seem to have nothing to say worth listening to.
I appologize to the good members for the distraction.

[gunfan]

The Casull CA-2000, in .32 H&R Magnum, seems to be that answer to your question. 5 rounds of .38-power-level ammunition, 8-ounces when empty, all stainless steel construction and a folding trigger... How much more compact and powerful and compact revolver do you desire? :confused:

Scott

[chuck pullen]

I have the S&W 642 and 637. The 637 has an awesome trigger for a J frame. The 642-as Jon Stewart would say-" not so much. " Still an
outstanding revolver for its intended purpose-up close, life and death confrontation -where 5 rounds of the good old .38 special will save your **s.

[jlh26oo]

I didn't say I did it to myself, numbnuts.

And you are once again the one missing the point.
I compared one form of hand discomfort with another.
I never said they were identically created.

It's amazing you can accurately quote certain portions while reconstructing others to suit yourself.

Perhaps due to the problem you had with me in another thread you're purposely trying to annoy me in this one? Lots of luck. Even intelligent people have tried that and failed.

This thread has been hijacked long enough. Go bait someone else you are now and forever on my ignore list. [COL OR="White"]You have nothing to say worth listening to.[/COL OR]
I appologize to the good members for the distraction.

Allright, sorry man. I didn't mean to get you so riled. I made a joke about your sig. We have had problems in the past? I have no CLUE what other thread you are talking about (you must mix it up with alot of people, because you are confusing me someone else). But I don't blame you for taking your internet ball and going home, fingers in ears "la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you" style, if that's what works for you. Just sorry I had to do it to you.

Can't imagine why you ever would have been locked out of a forum before. :neener:

(my apologies to OP as well, I'll take my bad for starting this. i know not everyone has a sense of humor)