[aHFo3]

Hey everyone, please help me out here...
I've been looking hard at the S&W 642/442 as a ccw.
My question is which model is the better choice. The factors I'm considering are: sight picture (I don't want CT grips), finish durability with pocket carry, ease of cleaning, and any other factors that I may be missing. Aesthetically, I like blued revolvers better...if you can call a 442 blued, but I'd get the 642 if there are major advantages to the stainless cylinder and barrel.
Thanks for your help
Zac

[doberman]

Sheesh. I dunno.

I think the difference between the two is minimal to none.

If I had to choose I'd probably go 642 though, but thats just me.

Plenty of info here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=314422&highlight=642+club

[johnnylaw53]

I have the 642 because when I went back to a snub for off duty it was a little cheaper then a 442 in the case. When I asked the owner why he said he paid a little less for the 642's which make sense to me. Other then that if you like blue weapons the 442 will serve you just as well the stainless cylinder and barrel is really of no real help since on both weapons the frame is still alloy. My old mod 60 which was all stainless steel had an advantage since I fish in salt water and if it got expose to the salt water it was easy to clean, alloy don't like salt at all. The blue will flash less if your cover garment get blow away from your weapon if that's important to you.

Be safe

[adweisbe]

If you only have one then the 642 due to the additional corrosion resistance of the cylinde and barrel. Ideally both so you can have a black gun for additional concealment in certain situations.

[krs]

I have a 442, but I bought it used and it has no lock. Otherwise I don't think it matters although I've seen people asking about refinishing their 642 because the paint fell off. FWIW the black on my 442 is showing holster wear now - shiny places that respond pretty well to magic marker refinishing :)

[Racinbob]

I just bought a 442 no lock. The dealer had a 642 no lock as well. It was $30.00 more. That $30 didn't decide it for me. That would have been forgotten in no time. I just liked the looks of the black revolver even though I love stainless. My thinking is that the 642 would take to harsh conditions better if you don't keep it clean. I baby mine so I went with the 442 cuz it looked cool in my eyes. I went to the gun shop looking for a no lock x42 and if he only had the 642 I'd have gone that way.

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

the look of a stainless handgun -- especially revolvers.

The only blued handgun I ever had was my first and it was a Ruger 6" single action only 357 Magnum. It served me well, then I "graduated" to an SP101, then eventually to all Smith & Wesson products.

Both of my Smiths are stainless.

[deputy tom]

As has been posted before the S/S bbl. and cyl. will wear better than the darker finish.tom.:cool:

[Dollar An Hour]

I prefer dark guns, and for daylight practice, the silver 642 front blade is harder to see than the 442's dark sights.

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

Which would mean in low-light conditions, the stainless would be preferable over the black.

In that case, I'll stick with the stainless as I can see well enough in daylight, but not quite as well in the black.

[JohnBT]

Does anyone know if they're still having problems with the clearcoat peeling off the 642's alloy frame? I know they'll refinish them for free. I'm just curious.

I haven't have a bit of trouble with my 442-1 and I bought it lightly used.

John

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

I've only seen some 642's that have been "around" as the coating is partially off on them (pictures of some in the thread 642 club part deux).

I wouldn't care if my new 642 looks like that after a few years of daily carry. If it was blued, I'm sure the blueing would be worn after the same amount of carrying.

So, in a nutshell, stainless or blue is really just a matter of what you like. Myself, I like stainless. That's just my preference. I used to have a stainless mini 14. That was a nice gun.

[wrs840]

It seems to me, the many positive attributes of this "ultimate CCW" are further enhanced by the stealth of the matte black finish.

And, psychologically, I think it looks a tad meaner than the 642.

IMHO.

Merry Christmas,

Les

[earlthegoat2]

442s look a whole lot better with the pink Crimson Trace grips.

[wrs840]

Pink Grips? So much for the psychological upper-hand...


Are you making fun of my 442s?

hehehe

Les

[aHFo3]

Thanks for all the input. Sounds like it is just a matter of color choice...maybe I'll let my wife choose, but no pink grips.
Zac

[Sarvisian]

Personal preference only, I chose the 442. Can't imagine any performance difference at all.

[earlthegoat2]

Can you imagine the embarassment anyone who has been shot by a pink gun and lives will have for the rest of their lives.

[yongxingfreesty]

642 yes

[ArchAngelCD]

I have shot both and IMO they feel exactly alike. Both revolvers are practically identical so there will be no difference what so ever in sight picture or felt recoil. All you really need to do is ask yourself, which one looks better to me. Both will serve you well so pick the one you like best. (they really are the same except for color)

[glockman19]

I couldn't make up my mind either so I got both.

[HexHead]

I bought the 442 since I don't like stainless revolvers. Come to think of it, I don't really care for stainless handguns, period. I just wish it was real "bluing".

I think it was like $20 less than the 642 at the time as well.

[Min]

Either one is fine.

Sometimes I feel like I'd rather have a 442. Black is mean looking.

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

As you can see, there are as many opinions as there are people!
:confused:
That's why they make vanilla and chocolate (and strawberry and blueberry and mocha and........).

[CoRoMo]

642?

We're all tied up now.

[Edubya]

When I pull my 642-2, I don't think that anyone will have time to think (much less, say), "Geez, that's a bad ass gun!" As for the other people that might see it, well, either they know guns enough to not judge a gun by the color or size or they don't even know what a pistol looks like. The bottom line is, I don't intend to impress anyone with the looks of my guns, but the regret of inspiring their exposure.
I could wear a pink one, I don't show it off. A "self defense" gun is exactly that.

[wrs840]

The OP is asking for advice, and my opinion is that while it may be subtle, there is an undeniable psychological effect created by the weapon that is presented. How finish may or may not figure into that equation is debatable, for sure.

...But to suggest that there's no psychological effect, or not enough time for any psychological effect to occur, or that most people are either too sophisticated or too stupid to be psychologically influenced by such an effect when a gun is pointed at them seems implausible to me.

That said, I recognize that for most of us, our "advice" is simply a defense of purchase decisions that we have already made. To each his own.

Les

[Saabman]

well I like em both but I favor the darker 442 model it reminds me of the 442 olds hot rod of years gone bye.. In name only.:o

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

I'm a lot more impressed than with a blued pistol. Especially if some of the blueing is worn at the end of the muzzle (which undoubtedly happens if the gun is carried with any regularity).

[Geezer59]

I have one of each - both excellent revolvers. But for looks, I prefer the dark 442 over the 642. Thinking of having the 642 treated with Ionbond or similar process.

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

Is your 442 missing a bit of blueing or do you just want to have a perfectly good gun treated?

I'm not familiar with the process you mentioned (Ionbond), so you might have to educate me on it.

If any gun can be construed as "evil" just by its color, then I want the stainless one -- just in case they outlaw black guns.