I was thinking about one for an ankle carry gun, used of course, and I would load it with +P ammo, but is the gun strong enough for it?
If you enjoyed reading about "Can *&*s 442 handle +P" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
January 8, 2003, 10:49 PM
According to S&W, yes.
Edited to remove bogus S&W product website url. If you go to smith&wesson website and do a search by model for the 442, you will see that it is rated .38 special +P.
January 8, 2003, 10:59 PM
and the information that comes with it says that +p ammo can be used in it. Good shooting:)
January 9, 2003, 04:03 AM
If I couldn't bring myself to speak the company's name I surely wouldn't want to carry their product.
January 9, 2003, 04:43 AM
Yes; mine works well with Win. 158 gr. LSWCHP..+P, very accurate at 7 yds. with this load....
January 9, 2003, 09:42 AM
According to 2 factory reps, the 442 isn't and the 442-1 is.
January 9, 2003, 10:14 AM
442's seem to be very popular. People who I know carry and love them. I've just never asked this question before, so this is just a "question". So, why do you prefer the carbon steel cylinder of the 442 when you can get a stainless cylinder in a 642?
Thanks, (I only wondered.)
January 9, 2003, 07:43 PM
I had a 642 a couple years ago that I got rid of :rolleyes:
I've got a 442-1 that doesn't have the lock, but has the newer
cylinder release. I snarfed it up as soon as I saw it; airweights are
kinda rare around here. The thing about my 442 that I like is the finish; it's not blue, but flat black....sharp lookin'..
Haven't had any problems with the carbon steel, other than some
finish wear on edge of cylinder...
January 9, 2003, 11:34 PM
It is light, concealable (I have a Barami Hip Grip on mine) and really good looking little gun. Why did I get mine? A guy I know bought one NIB and two weeks later offered it to me for a $100.00. He hadn't even filled out the warranty papers yet. What's not to love? Good shooting
January 9, 2003, 11:44 PM
Because my sweat isn't corrosive and it was like new, maybe 6 months old, and saved me over $100 compared to a new 442 (that I wouldn't have bought anyway.) And I couldn't find a used 642.
And it had a perfect action for a stock S&W. (This was confirmed by the Performance Center gunsmith the last time he was working on guns at the local shop - they do this S&W sale weekend thing and bring a gunsmith. Nice guy. I'm trying to get him to retire and open a shop here.)
And it was 5 minutes til 4 on Sunday and the gun show was over and I still had enough money to get it.
January 10, 2003, 01:12 AM
As someone said, an elegant little gun and one of the most sensible products S&W ever made--everything you need and nothing you don't. Came with a good DA and probably the only revolver I never felt a need to pull the sideplate on.
Hard to believe that the company actually dropped the original M40 for all those years before reintroducing it.
January 10, 2003, 08:49 AM
I would get it they make a nice ankle gun or even in the pocket holster is cool.:)
January 10, 2003, 09:28 AM
S & W
Sellout and Wessel:fire:
January 10, 2003, 11:42 AM
Sometmes a simple question is misconstrued as a slur against a particular weapon. On thing that I forgot to mention is that the carbon steel cylinders of my older S&W's (say late 60's and early 70's models) still lock-up better than my newer models. I'd always wondered if the carbon steel cylinders had something to do with that.
I did notice a little wear on the cylinder stop on one the other night, but not enough to effect the perfect lock-up.
January 10, 2003, 11:54 AM
The 442 and 642 are excellent little revolvers, just about the ideal civilian CCW piece. I do prefer the look of the 642, and stainless is easier to refinish than blued steel. And yes, they do hold up to +P loads.