[davidd]

Can you offer comments/comparisions between these two guns. Though I am strongly favoring the kel tec for concealment, i can't help but to remain tempted by my love for revolvers. I looked at both of these guns and i believe both would be terrific, but thought i would get your input as experts. The Taurus is a bit lighter, perhaps 13.5 oz vs 15, both have shrowded hammers (which by the way, what are the advantages, disadvantages of this shrowded vs. std hammer) and both are priced comparably.

Is one better than the other in terms of quality, repuation, customer svc, or anything else? Both felt good in my hand, so no real advantage there. Of course i could not shoot either.

thanks, dave

[03Shadowbob]

I am a huge Taurus fan but I think the 642 is one beautiful gun that performs flawlessly. I am sure the Taurus will perform as designed also but I just love that Smith. I think most here would say that quality, reputation and customer service favor the S&W. If you are carrying concealed I would not get the standard hammer. It can catch on clothing when pulling it.

[Ala Dan]

Well, I sell a lot of both makes~! Taurus offers a complete line of snubbies,
in all kinds of configurations; but their pricing has risen so much in the last
couple of years that it would make sense too buy the Smith 642. The S&W
642 is our leading selling snubby for concealed carry, period~! ;) :D

[Alan Fud]

Some random observations (referring to the below photo) ...

http://fud-files.netfirms.com/image/private/guns/f203-0.jpg (http://fud-files.netfirms.com/image/private/guns/f203.jpg)
Click on above photo to see larger image.

... The S&W's are pictured on the above left and the Taurus models are pictured on the above right. The difference may be too small to notice in the photo but the Taurus models are bigger than the S&W ones. Thus, the S&W models conceal better but I find that I can get a better grip on the Taurus models.

While the 642 (top left) is heavier than the Taurus model, S&W also makes a 340 (bottom left) that is even lighter than the Taurus models.

The two S&W models have an internal hammer so there is nothing to get snagged on clothing. The Taurus models offer an internal hammer (bottom right) but also a model (upper right) that has a concealed/bobbed hammer. It's less bulky than their internal hammer model.

[cookekdjr]

I have owned two Taurus titanium revovlers and several alloy j-frames. Although Taurus quality can be spotty, their Titanium revolvers have been flawless for me. I shoot them much better than any S&W j-frame. Although S&W sets the industry standard for DA revolvers, I prefer the Taurus in this match up.
-David

[jad0110]

Cool picture Alan Fud.

Alan is right about the size difference between the S&W and the Taurus. The S&W J Frame 38 Special is the smallest (though not the lightest) 38 snubby I could find, which was a factor in my final decision.

[davidd]

very helpful, thank you. The 340 SW is noticeably lighter and can also shoot 357 so I am surprised it is not more popular than the 642. It must be based on the price differential since most don't need or want to shoot a 357 out of a snubby. therefore it is easier to justify the savings in exchange for 3 oz. I sure like the idea of a 12oz SW but still am leaning toward the Kel Tec simply based on weight/size/portability at 8.3oz. Everything is a tradeoff i guess, but will pick one this weekend.

[Ala Dan]

Yep, I've got a very slightly used S&W 340PD in stock right now with box
and docs for a little over 5-C notes; and a NIB S&W 642 runs $359.88~! :D