PPK/S vs 642

[kentucky_smith]

Which? Just had an incident and am going to get one or the other.

Looking for something to carry quite often, easy to conceal either IWB or ankle.

Bringing up the lock means instant forfeiture. :neener:

[Rodentman]

I have a PPK and a 638. I prefer the 638. At least it hasn't been recalled. I prefer the .38 to the .380 for SD. I have CT405 grips on the Smith which cushion the backstrap and lessen the perceived recoil (which isn't that bad anyway.)

JMHO of course...

[A.K.A.]

I bought a 642 Super Tuned last week, because my wife really liked the way it felt in her hand and it has a really smooth action. It is a handful to shoot - like holding a firecracker in your hand. Although it smarts with FMJ .38s, it is possible to shoot tight groups at both 15' and 25 '. The sights are almost worthless on this bright metal gun.

Now I am looking for a set of Pachmayrs so I can get my pinky on the grip, too.

[Big Daddy Grim]

642 excellent gun

[blkbrd666]

I would get the PPK Interarms version just to punish S&W for putting that ridiculous "tang" on the PPK...ranks right up there with seatbelts.

[Duke of Doubt]

I conceal a Beretta 92FS IWB. Works great.

[gwlammers]

My 642 always goes bang. No FTE or FTF's to date.

[9mmepiphany]

i like the PPK, but if you're going with the longer frame of the PPK/s, you'd mind as well get the longer barrel of the PP anyway.

voted the 642 as it's more balanced, easier to have tuned and has more effective ammo

[kentucky_smith]

I conceal a Beretta 92FS IWB. Works great.

I've got a Browning High Power and an Argentine Detective HP, just looking for something a lot smaller.

[viking499]

I think the 642 would be the way to go if looking for something smaller. I like the 38 better than the 380. More versatile.

[searcher451]

A Walther PPK/S is my daily carry gun, and it is 100% dependable and reliable 100% of the time. Don't leave home without it.

[Auburn1992]

What about a Beretta Cheetah. You get more capacity, and - seeing that you can conceal larger handguns - it shouldn't be a problem to conceal.

[ArmedBear]

just to punish S&W for putting that ridiculous "tang" on the PPK

Why?

To turn the gun into a practical firearm?

What a horrible sin that is!:rolleyes:

[David E]

Personally, I'd get a Kahr P-9 if I just had to get something in this size.

Shoots/hides easily and well.

.

[ArchAngelCD]

Consider this, the Walther PPK is very snappy and in turn difficult to practice with. Since practice is extremely necessary especially with your carry gun the J frame would be a better choice IMO.

[Mr.510]

I voted for the PPK/S because I prefer autos and I'm allergic to cheese. :)

Seriously, I carried a PPK/S 24/7/52 for 17 years and would still trust it with my life against anything on two legs. I put a Bullseye spring kit in mine and converted the stock rear sight to make it a 3-dot. They do have pretty sharp recoil, you definitely won't fall asleep at the range shooting one. That said, I did manage to put more than 10,000 rounds through mine with zero malfunctions after the first couple hundred. I've heard the Pachmayr grip that wraps around the back of the frame helps a lot with the recoil but I never tried one. I just "man'd up" and got used to it. :D

[blkbrd666]

To turn the gun into a practical firearm?

I was a practical gun for over 50 years, they just turned it into an ugly practical gun with added recall. I have been shooting them all my life and have never noticed the "fault" that S&W seems to think they had. :D

[JDG23]

Hard to beat the 642!

[Eightball]

I like my 638, and worry absolutely none about "the lock;" however, the 638's not an option.

That being said, if "the lock" is even an issue to you, I'm sure you can pay the premium and nejoy the hassle of ordering one of the supposed "non-lock" models they make.

But, on the flipside.....a PPK (or similar firearm) seems appealing to me, and I kinda want one :P

[lechiffre]

Quote:
just to punish S&W for putting that ridiculous "tang" on the PPK
Why?

To turn the gun into a practical firearm?

What a horrible sin that is!

i say for beating the ppk with the ugly stick

oh yeah, and for completely changing the feel of the gun.

and then there is the whole recall issue.


to give an answer to op :

walther

[chriske]

Slightly different, but not much : in terms of reliabiliy, I prefer my S&W 640 to my Walther PPK.

[kentucky_smith]

*UPDATE*

Bought one of the Bill Hicks scandium 360s with the steel cylinder on a good deal. Airweight's seem to be scarce at the moment, and didn't really want to get a Taurus.

13 ounces of .38 Fury!

[viking499]

That one will work too...........

[Kind of Blued]

A 642 is never a mistake. I can't even remember the last time mine wasn't within 18" of my body. If it could talk, I probably would have shot it by now with my other gun. Alas, I got the non-talking version, and I can't imagine ever getting sick of it.

[ArmedBear]

I was a practical gun for over 50 years

With a 50-year reputation for slide bite. S&W didn't make that up.

[LoneCoon]

I'd say the 642, only because I don't care for the way the PPK recoils.

Also: Cheese.

[Clarence]

642 is lighter, will not FTF or FTE, and fires a ballistically superior round.

No-brainer

[Haywood]

PPKS= too heavy, too many sharp edges, 380 ammo more expensive.
642= less weight, no sharp edges, and I like Revolvers better.

[Revolver Ocelot]

mozzarella

[MCgunner]

.38 special trumps .380 every time. PPK is an old design and way porky for the .380. There are more compact 9x19s out there in the 21st century that I prefer. Between these two, 642. Its a good little gun, fits a pocket a lot better, lighter, more powerful. It's like....DUH. LOL I would also trust it to function 100 percent and that PPK would have to prove it to me. It's had a less than stellar reputation in the past in some tests I've read.

I conceal a Beretta 92FS IWB. Works great.

Hmm, I guess I missed that option in the OP. :rolleyes: I'd think a Desert Eagle would be about as easy to carry, anyway.

[mongo4567]

I had a ppk/s, it was a jamming little machine. It had to be perfectly cleaned and oiled to function properly; it failed to fully chamber with FMJ. I gave it the benefit of the doubt; cleaned it very well and oiled it for range trips. I still couldn't make 25 rounds. I would never trust my life to the one that I had.

[Jim PHL]

I voted 642. For something to "carry quite often", I think it is a little more carryable in most situations. (To be more specific, I guess IWB, the PPK would have the edge due to its ultra-thin profile, I think in most other carry styles, -pants pocket, jacket pocket, ankle, etc.- the snub has the edge.)

A .38 special is also much more versatile due to the variety of loads available and, at least around here, .38's are cheaper than .380's for practice or carry. I had a Kel-Tec .380 that was a great 'always carry', but eventually got rid of it based on my preference for .38 specials over .380 as a defensive round. (I have since considered getting another KT or Ruger LCP - one thing I can say about that Kel-Tec, when I owned it, I was rarely - if ever - without it. There are times these days I venture out without even my pocket snub, and on at least some of those days, I guess I would have the KT on me if I still owned it.)

The PPK is a beautiful gun and has great historic appeal and "cool factor". It would be a good choice if your method of carry would always be IWB/OWB. For me personally, there are few autos that make good pocket guns, where the j-frame seems to excel for this. A 642 would carry well IWB/OWB, in an ankle holster and - for me especially important for a "carried often" gun - in a pants or jacket pocket.

With the exception of the Kel-Tecs, I just think the size and squared edges of an auto are 1) more likely to "print" or reveal themselves as a gun in your pocket and 2) make it slightly more difficult to smoothly and quickly draw from a pocket. I am constantly amazed at the number of people I read stating they carry subcompact Glocks, Micro-1911's or even PPK's in a pocket. It just doesn't work for me, but to each his own.

[Monster Zero]

642, hands down. Like the man said, you can't go wrong with the 642. You can't go wrong with a good .357 to go with it, either.

BUT: If I could only own two guns, they would be the 642 and a Remington 870 express, in that order. Then a high-powered rifle, and a .22 rifle, a full-size .357, and a bunch of other stuff too. But for starters, a 642 and an 870 can fill all your CCW and social work needs.

Oh yeah, you can go hunting with an 870 if you want to. I know you didn't ask, but you can. Just sayin'...

[MCgunner]

Yeah, that's another bonus to the 642. If you carry it as a backup to a .357 carried IWB, you can stoke either with reloads in .38 special. I have done that, carried my 3" .357 IWB and my snub 5 shot .38 as back up. I stoke the .357 with 140 .357s and carry .38 reloads in speed strips.

I mean, I don't often carry IWB, but on occasions I've been compelled to carry a bigger primary and the .38 as back up.

[batmann]

I usually carry a Key-Tec only because it is MUCH smaller, but my S&W 442 is also an excellent choice. It is light, reliable, and uses a pretty good round. One advantage a 442/642 has over the PPK is you can actually shoot one while it is in your coat pocket. NO, I have never done it, but years ago,and I mean many years, SWAT magazine did just that. Given the choice between the two---go with a 442 (alloy) first, a 642 second (steel) and a PPK third, after the recall, of course.

[9mmepiphany]

go with a 442 (alloy) first, a 642 second (steel) and a PPK third

the 642 also has an alloy frame...if you want all steel, you'd have to get a 640

[RJM]

The PPK is about as small as I would want to go in a handgun and it is thinner than the 642. I am pretty partial to revolvers, and have at one time owned both of these pistols, but if I was going to choose one soley based on ccw carry and possible ankly carry, I would pick the ppk (not the ppk/s with the longer grip) and buy some mags without the finger rest on them, I found the finger rest to be just in the wrong place for my hand. Current manufacture from Smith and Wesson really does, for the most part, solve the slide bite issue which was an issue with my interarms version.

I found the ppk to be a very well made, high quality pistol that was very thin and easy to shoot once you got passed that really heavy double action pull, plus carrying a spare mag I find much easier than carrying spares for a revolver, at least its easier to reload for me.