[g5reality]

Going to buy one tomorrow. leaning towards the 442 because it's blued and better for CCW, and I already have a 686 stainless.

What one would you get?

[Hemicuda]

I carry a 637-2 almost EVERY day and love it... the painted frame shows some wear, but I've only been packing it around on my belt for 5 or 6 years, just about daily... and it AIN'T a show piece or BBQ gun.. it is a WORKING gun...

[Ala Dan]

Many here at THR (including me) will tell you that the S&W 642 is best
over all for a CCW piece. I have carried many different makes and models
over the years; but I find the 642 just ideal for most concealed applications.
First off, its all stainless/alloy construction make it very durable and its lite
weight make it a joy to carry all day long. Its internal firing mechanism allow
for coat pocket, or even pants pocket carry without the fear that it is going
to snag on your clothing. And, to top it off S&W service policy (you most
likely will never need it), is second to none.

I'm in the firearms retail sales business (as if you didn't know?), and the
S&W 642 out sells all other makes and/or models 10 to 1; without any
doubts. Heck, when we sell out of 'em, we will buy from other dealers
just to keep our customers satisfied.

[Technosavant]

The only difference between the 442 and 642 is the color. The whole "dark hides better" think is a bunch of baloney- if your concealment depends on people not noticing your gun is peeking out, you need better concealment-period. Just pick the color you like better- no need to justify it to us.

As for the x42 vs. the 637, IMO, the hammerless design's elimination of the possibility of hammer snag on draw outweighs the ability to shoot single action. Snubby revolvers, although more accurate than people usually think, are not used for bullseye shooting- in a defensive situation, it isn't necessarily advisable to thumbcock the hammer (doing it might not send you to prison, but it won't help your case any).

Either way, it's just a matter of preference.

[ArchAngelCD]

You left out the M638 Bodyguard. It's the best of both worlds IMO. The hammer is shrouded but still accessible so SA/DA are both an option without the fear of snagging the hammer on clothing. I own a M638 and it's a great revolver.

[Steve 48]

Go for the 642, the Bodyguard is fine but it will snagged up a bit in your jean pockets and lint and dirt can get in it more than a 642. Steve48

[xd45gaper]

i carry the 642 it gets very dirty (visually) though shooting it. i think im going to change my carry gun from .38spl to .357 though for the better knock down power.

the 642 is a blast to shoot though!

[Headless]

If i had the choice again, i'd go shrouded hammer (638) rather than concealed hammer (642)

[Bob79]

Get the 638 Bodyguard. It won't get snagged on anything, or clogged with 4 pounds of lint, or any other BS that people like to imagine. Standard hammers have been carried on hand ejectors for over 50 years, and I can't find one account of lint clogging up the gun.

The 638 will allow for a snag free draw (a 637 hammer could catch on clothing) but it will still allow for single action shots.

I do like a black carry gun, because a dark color does matter. I've carried in the pocket and just a very small amount of the butt has stuck out of pants with shallower pockets, and if it was a stainless color it would attract more attention. If you carry OWB, then the black will also not stand out so much.

Go to a gunshop and see if you can check out the different variations.

[Richmond]

637-2 is my most common daily carry gun. I love it.

My other common choices are a Kimber Ultra CDP II (a little bigger) and a Keltec P3AT (a little smaller).

I love the J frame for daily carry and deliberately chose the exposed hammer 637 for flexibility. I don't carry in a pocket as much as I do in a Kramer pocket holster, and when I do I use a Kramer pocket holster.

I guess my second choice would be a 638 - I really like the single/double option. Of course, the only reason I don't carry a 642 is that I don't have one. Yet. ;)

[pacodelahoya]

I got the wife a 642 a couple of years ago. Airweight, I think 15 oz empty.

Now she hardly ever gets to carry it.:D

[jmhai]

I vote for the 442,

[g5reality]

Well I bought and am in the DROS period on a 642. Reason is the 642 was recommended by too many to comapre anything else to. It was a close one with teh 442 however, teh 442 being blued/blacked may lose color with more corosive cleaning solvents. As it is a BUG or primary CCW, eventhough I use a Glock 19, I'll deal with the lint issues as they arrive.

I'll let you know how I think it shoots in 10 days...if this thread is still available.

Special thanks to:Ala Dan, Steve 48, xd45gaper and pacodelahoya. You all helped in my decision. My local indoor range master & former LEO also recommended it.:)

[ArchAngelCD]

I have been carrying my M638 for a year now and have no problems with lint AT ALL. There is no way for the hammer to snag either since it's fully shrouded yet you retain the option for SA shooting.

I also like the M442 but since it's Blue, it could be a problem. Since your CCW is usually carried close to the body you have a good chance of wetting it with sweat from time to time. Sweat and Blue finishes don't mix well.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/DSCN2054.jpg

[LaP]

642 gets my vote. Light, accurate, and reliable. After shooting mine for awhile, my wife bought one for herself. We both enjoy concealed carry and trust these little guns to perform as designed...closeup and personal.

[B36]

I have a pair of 642s, one in each front pocket in Null holsters.:)

[Diamondback]

Truthfully I would be happy with any of them...... I went with the 37-2 with the factory bobbed hammer. There were a bunch of these floating around for sale last year at a reasonable price. They are +p rated and DO NOT have the internal lock or MIM parts. Apparently they were made by S&W under contract specification for some off-shore law enforcement agency....who never took delivery. I don't know the entire story.
Any who...because I was unable to find a M38/M638/M442/M642 without a lock (not a big fan of the lock personally, YMMV), when one of these "popped up" recently at a decent price on auction, I bid ...and won . This is the actual picture of the one I won at on Gunbroker.:D

http://i7.tinypic.com/2d2hdoz.jpg
- Regards

[22-rimfire]

Get what you like. I carry a 442. I pocket carry it with pocket holster. I have other options, but usually just do the pocket thing. I don't really care if it shows some wear. I like it.

[fiVe]

I guess it's no surprise to anyone that I vote for the 642.

[Bob79]

If that 37-2 does not have the full cylinder stop milled into the frame coming down from the recoil shield, then it's not "officially" +P rated. I believe all of those bobbed, pre-lock, pre-mim, were not +P rated.

[Diamondback]

f that 37-2 does not have the full cylinder stop milled into the frame coming down from the recoil shield, then it's not "officially" +P rated. I believe all of those bobbed, pre-lock, pre-mim, were not +P rated. Thanks for the heads-up Bob ! Some research I did over on the S&W forums led me to believe this particular "batch" are all +p rated. I will be able to determine if this gun has the full cylinder stop or not as it has arrived at my receiving FFL, and I am due to pick it up tomorrow. I'll do more research contacting some folks I know who own these over on the S&W forums and do further investigating. I doubt I would send thousands of rounds of +p rounds down range with this lightweight revolver, nonetheless I want to know the facts. Thanks again for the alert !

- regards

[Bob79]

No problem, Smith & Wesson only "officially" rates the J-magnum frames for +P use, and the easy way to tell is to look for that full cylinder stop coming down from the recoil shield. Non J-magnum frames just have the regular circular notch in the corner.

I'm sure that a few +P rounds here and there will not loosen up a non J-magnum frame.