[TrailWolf]

For an all around CCW gun - not JUST for pocket carry - which J-Frame would you choose and why?

642 (covered hammer),

638 (shrouded hammer),

or

637 (exposed hammer).

.

[ArchAngelCD]

Although the Bodyguard frame is my favorite (M638) I bought a M642/M442 (Centennial frame) for carry because it was available without the ILS.

[TrailWolf]

So you feel the lack of the internal lock is more beneficial than the ability to fire in single action?

I hadn't thought about that aspect.

[ArchAngelCD]

So you feel the lack of the internal lock is more beneficial than the ability to fire in single action?

I hadn't thought about that aspect.
I don't want to start another "lock vs no lock" thread. I only mentioned it because you asked for the reason I made my choice. some don't like the lock, some feel it is no problem.

[zoom6zoom]

I have both the 642 and a vintage Model 38 Airweight. The 642 has had the lock removed and plugged, so that's no longer an issue. Otherwise I have no real reason to pick one over the other.

[sidheshooter]

Everyone has an opinion; here is mine:

All defensive shooting should be DA, you can get a slightly higher grip on the centennial-style guns, the ILS sucks.

642.

OMMV.

[opr1945]

1. I was shooting my model 36 shortly after I got it. I shot double action for a while and decided to try single. I discovered that it was much easier to fire accidentaly in single action than double because of the reduced trigger pull. After 2 accidental discharges, fortunately they went down range. I decided that in a self defense situation I did not need the easier trigger pull. So I ended up with a hammerless model 342.

2. years ago i worked at night in a warehouse. I thought I heard a burgler and cocked my gun and headed out. I didn't find anyone. But at the end I was standing in the dark empty ware house looking around with a cocked/loaded gun with the adrenalin going. I realized that if anything startled me, cat, dog, rat ,mouse, Kid, Burgler etc, I would jump a mile high and probably pull the trigger at the same time and maybe shoot something I would later regret.

I now believe in longer heavier trigger pulls on self defense gun.

JMO

[skt239]

The 642 or the 638 are the best choices, in that order and in my opinion. I carry a 637 just because I've never owned a spurred j-frame and always wanted one. I hardly ever use the hammer and it never gets in the way when drawing. It's kinda just there.. No matter which you choose, it will be a good choice.

[ArchAngelCD]

I own and have pocket carried a M36 on many occasions. There really is no problem with the hammer if you draw correctly. All you need to do is place your thumb over the hammer and it won't get caught on anything on the way out of your pocket. (but I still prefer carrying a shrouded hammer in my pocket)

[Tony_the_tiger]

I prefer a shrouded/encased hammer for CCW since it eliminates any chance of accidental discharge from engagement of the hammer. In the event of pocket carry, it also facilitates a smooth draw. I agree with the poster whom theorizes that in all likelihood defensive shooting will be single action, so I voted for 642. I personally carry a no-lock 442 and a no lock 640.

[Arp32]

I chose the 642. Didn't want the SA trigger option for the reasons stated above, and the 642 seemed less bulky than the humpback model.

[9mmepiphany]

The M642 has a sleeker profile, allows a higher grip, has an action that is less exposed to debris and gives up nothing in accuracy because it does not have a SA trigger mode available...at least at the distances most users would consider using them. I'd consider the SA might have a slight advantage when you get much over 50 yards and certainly some advantage when you get out to 100 yards.

Inside 50 yards, if you're not shooting the DA as well, it is mostly your technique that is lacking.

[zbird]

638. For the shrouded hammer, and the option of a crisp single action trigger pull. You never know when you need to make a 50 feet head shot. (hostage situation)

[Bobson]

638. For the shrouded hammer, and the option of a crisp single action trigger pull. You never know when you need to make a 50 feet head shot. (hostage situation)
I'm having a hard time accepting that this needs to be said, but if you're trying to make a 50' headshot to save a hostage, you've almost certainly involved yourself in a situation unnecessarily, and most likely, recklessly. Unless of course you happen to be an LEO who's specifically trained to handle hostage scenarios, in which case you wouldn't be taking the shot with a snub-nose revolver... anyway...

I'd opt for the 642 as well, for the same reasons most others pointed out. Less likely to snag on a draw, and I figure most (if not all) SD shooting will be DA anyway.

[chanroc]

Had a 442 and sold it. Ended up getting 638 instead. I like having the option to fire single action if needed. With that said, I still practice 90% of my shots, shooting double action. As another side note, I shoot my LCR better due to its trigger pull, but that's just me.

[fxstchewy]

I vote the 642.

[Havok7416]

Looks like I'm late to this one. My vote goes to the 642/640 for the reasons stated previously.

[cadcom]

I like the 637 but that's just a personal preference. As chanroc mentioned, the Ruger LCR trigger is outstanding. It's also worth a look.

[beatledog7]

Voted 642, and that's what I carry. Mine's a no-lock. and I don't mind that my carry gun doesn't have the SA option.

I won't be taking any 50-yd headshots in a hostage or any other situation with a 1 7/8 barreled revolver, and neither should anyone else.

[guyfromohio]

My locker full of abandoned high-end holsters is a testament to the fact that I've owned and carried many of the solid options that are/were out there. After owning for five years, my 642 is the only one that I've never considered selling. A $700 Sig in a $90 Crossbreed still stays safed far more often than my $350 642 in its $25 POS DeSantis nylon. I'm also very accurate with it.

Your other options are also Great guns, but I swear by the 642.

[JohnBT]

I have two J frames, a 442 for pocket carry and a 649-3 .357 that carries better on my belt because it weighs about 7 or 8 ounces more than the 442.

John

[Beat Trash]

I like being able to get a higher grip on the Centennial design of the 642.

I really have no need of S/A fire capability from a light weight J-Frame gun.

so for a CCW J-Frame, the 642 is my preferred revolver.

[Hapworth]

Another vote for encased hammers.

Because of the usually deeper concealment of a J-frame snubby, snagging upon draw is a real issue. Can you practice working around this? Yes. Will that help? Probably. Is it still a risk in a volatile situation? Again yes, and an unnecessary one.

Also, and again because of the usually deeper concealment of a J-frame snubby (inside pockets; under a couple layers of clothes), an encased hammer greatly reduces the chance of mucking up your internals with lint, dirt, sweat and other deep carry detritus.

Most importantly, defensive work is likely going to be (and arguably should be) double-action only; opr1945's excellent post elucidates why perfectly and lends itself to reading and reflection. Frankly, except for target shooting, I see little advantage to single action capability, and a lot of liability.

So, the 642, I say. But to add a wrinkle, consider the 442 Moon Clip. Same gun save for the finish, and it's factory cut for moon clips which get my vote for fast and easy defensive reloading -- and it's only a few bucks more.

[sixgunner455]

I don't consider my J frame an "all-around" carry gun. I consider it an "all-the-time" carry gun. As such, it normally is carried in my pocket, in a belly band, or in a Smartcarry. I have a belt holster for it, just so I have the option, but it only rarely is carried that way.

All guns are compromises to one degree or another. Pocket guns make more compromises than most - size, power, capacity, shootability. I choose for my pocket gun a revolver. I am concerned about the reliability of pocket autos, even though the one I had was quite reliable, because of a myriad of reasons that don't need harping on at this point, but I choose to trust a revolver in this role.

As a pocket gun, my J frame is compromising shootability that comes from size and weight for carryability that comes from size and weight. The size and weight are also compromising capacity, and since I will never shoot a .357 through one of them, it is compromising power, but only a bit since I got a .38.

As it is mostly carried very close to the body and gets sweated on, it must have stainless construction or an impervious finish.

As it gets carried in a pocket very frequently, snagging a hammer on the draw when done quickly is very possible. Pocket lint etc getting in the hammer (or hammer channel, on a bodyguard style revolver) is also a concern.

Thus, I went for the smooth, sealed frame of the Centennial, in airweight to weigh down the pocket less (but still have enough weight to shoot it), and stainless for corrosion concerns.

642 is, for me, the definitive pocket revolver.

I read once that the definition of an optimist is the man who carries an Airweight snubbie and a speedloader. :D Perhaps I should change my name to "The Eternal Optimist", as I carry a speedstrip or two, and keep a speedloader close at hand as well. :D

[Arp32]

I sure hope I am never this hostage I keep reading about. That poor guy is a goner either way.

[mesinge2]

I went with the 649, the 357 steel framed version of the 638:

http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc401/mesinge2/My%20heaters/My357MagSWmodel649-31.jpg
http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc401/mesinge2/My%20heaters/My357MagSWmodel649-32.jpg
http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc401/mesinge2/My%20heaters/My357MagSWmodel649-33.jpg

[Tony_the_tiger]

NICE!!!!!

[YJake]

I vote 442-No Lock, been carrying one for 8 months now and everything discussed here about the centennial frame is fairly spot on.

I recently put a set of stock magna/banana grips on it and WOW I can squeeze 3 fingers on the grip and I have attained a MUCH higher grip on the gun for better control.

Sometimes I think they had it right back in the day. Rubber is nice, but those wood grips REALLY have me reconsidering.

Not to mention, they're classy. ;)

-Jake

[jon86]

I carry a 638, which makes range time and plinking a bit more fun because of the single action capability. I voted for the 642. You can get a slightly higher grip, it has one less place to pick up lint and foreign pieces of dirt, and it has an ever so slightly longer sight radius. For all practical reasons, get the 642. For a great carry gun and a really fun plinking toy, get the 638. Don't get the 637. It offers nothing the 638 doesn't.

[earplug]

I own a M-38, 638, M-60 and the 642.
Hands down the 642 is a better mouse trap for defense. Your forced to practice with one trigger pull. In time you can get pretty good with staging the trigger for more accurate use.
Not having the slightly finer accuracy of the others single action pull is moot when defensive use is considered.
If your prone to flinching after shooting a light weight gun, the DA pull somewhat cures that.
Your clothing won't get ate up by any hammer. Lint is not a issue.

[packindapistol]

I like to carry the Taurus 651, enclosed hammer but can still choose single or double action.

[ArchAngelCD]

I'm a little confused here. How does shooting SA add any additional liability on a good shoot than shooting DA?

[Unistat]

I had a 442 (blued version of the 642) while my wife carries a 642, both no lock. Love those little guns.

[NMPOPS]

I'm a little confused here. How does shooting SA add any additional liability on a good shoot than shooting DA?

It is claimed that the Prosecuter may try and say you shot accidently or in the case of a law suit that if you shot single action again it was an accident or hair trigger. I agree if you had the right to defend yourself it shouldn't matter.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2

[bannockburn]

I voted for the Model 638. I have always been a fan of the Model 38/49 series and have both a Model 638 and a Model 649.

[Hapworth]

I'm a little confused here. How does shooting SA add any additional liability on a good shoot than shooting DA?

I used "liability" in the general, not legal, sense -- in other words, the liability of discharging a round when you do not mean to, because you've reduced a ten pound pull to a three pounder in a high-anxiety situation. Again, see opr1954's post...

Legally speaking, a justified shooting is a justified shooting regardless of double or single action, though that is no guarantee of not having to defend yourself in criminal or civil court. Furthermore, save for videographic proof or an exceptionally astute witness, I don't know how a prosecutor could prove a revolver was shot single-action if the shooter didn't say so his or herself.

[viking499]

I have a 642 and like it for pocket or jacket carry.

[Striker]

I shoot my carry J frames DA exclusively. All my 36/37s have bobbed hammers and are converted to DA only.

[627PCFan]

I used "liability" in the general, not legal, sense -- in other words, the liability of discharging a round when you do not mean to

I think its a moot issue. If you have a recessed hammer cocked, it better be for a damn good reason, and if you have one fire off accidently your definitely doing something wrong.

[Taroman]

This one works for me in pocket duty. Had to lose the rubber grip, though:
http://www.hverovhe.com/442.jpg

[GRIZ22]

None of the above. For an extra 5-6 ounces I carry steel j frames for a bunch of reasons.

[opr1945]

I'm a little confused here. How does shooting SA add any additional liability on a good shoot than shooting DA?
I don't think it's the "good shoot" that is the problem. It's when the reduced trigger pull of single action results in an "unintentional Shoot" with it's accompanying "unintended consequences."

A good shoot is a good shoot. It's the shoot with unintended consequences that results in the charge, trial, and so forth......

[ArchAngelCD]

If the simple act of shooting a revolver SA causes you to fire that gun unintentionally you shouldn't be carrying a handgun. (IMHO of course) Ummm, how do you get around the light trigger pull of a SAO semi-auto???

[bdb benzino]

I acctually prefer the 638 for the additonal SA trigger pull as well, but just like an earlier poster said, I was drawn to a no lock 442 earlier this year and rather enjoyed pocket carry with it today at a family dinner. Both are great but I have to say any S&W fan that does not have one, better jump on the available no locks just in case they decide to stop making them again. I would LOVE a 638 no lock, do you hear me S&W?? LOL.

[Hapworth]

If the simple act of shooting a revolver SA causes you to fire that gun unintentionally you shouldn't be carrying a handgun. (IMHO of course) Ummm, how do you get around the light trigger pull of a SAO semi-auto???
It's not a "this therefore that" equation; no one is saying that going single-action on a revolver in a defensive situation inevitably means a negligent discharge -- only that it (prohibitively, some feel) increases the chances of it in a high-pressure situation.

To say that the chance of that means someone shouldn't carry a gun at all ignores the realities of human physiological responses under stress, including in highly trained individuals.

There's a reason that, when revolvers were law enforcement primaries, so many departments made duty revolvers double-action only -- and again, we're talking about for highly trained individuals.

As for single action only semi-autos, you'll be hard pressed to find any meant for duty use with the factory three pound trigger pull most S&W revolvers have in single-action mode. More often they're between four and five-and-a-half pounds; Wilson's 1911s come the nearest, as far as I recall, with factory single-action pulls just shy of four pounds -- a bit light, in my opinion.

And many departments don't allow single-action only for a general purpose duty weapon. More often, the semi-autos you'll find have a double-action first shot, then become single action thereafter.

And it's precisely for the purpose of avoiding that adrenaline infused bad first shot when the sh-- hits the fan.

[ArchAngelCD]

Just because I like them ALL:

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/M442-2.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/M642-4.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/M640-02.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/twins-1.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/DSCN2203.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/DSCN1988.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/M36-1.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/Colt-02s.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/service6-1.jpg

[griz1]

Voted for 642. But I carry the all steel 640 when it came in 38 spc only. I like the extra weight and have had it for over 20 years. Still my favorite carry piece.

[FMF Doc]

Just because you "probably" will not need more than 5 shots, you still carry reloads, while you "probably" will not need to engage a target beyon 21ft. you still practice out to 25 yards, so while you "probably" will not fire it in anything other than double action in a self-defense situtaion, it is till nice to have the single action option, because "probably" might get you home alive, and that is not good enough for me. I like the ability to fire my pistol in single action if necessary. They put those things there for more than just something to run a retention strap around afterall.

[Havok7416]

Just because you "probably" will not need more than 5 shots, you still carry reloads, while you "probably" will not need to engage a target beyon 21ft. you still practice out to 25 yards, so while you "probably" will not fire it in anything other than double action in a self-defense situtaion, it is till nice to have the single action option, because "probably" might get you home alive, and that is not good enough for me. I like the ability to fire my pistol in single action if necessary. They put those things there for more than just something to run a retention strap around afterall.
I am not trying to argue and you are certainly entitled to carry whatever however you want, but perhaps you could provide an example where single-action might be feasible or preferred. Again, I'm not trying to argue, I am just trying to see things from your point of view.

[JohnBT]

"Ummm, how do you get around the light trigger pull of a SAO semi-auto???"

Is there a SAO autoloader with a 2.25 pound trigger pull? The 649-3 .357 I have came from the factory with a crisp 2.25# SA pull. It feels like it's about 1.5, but my Lyman digital gauge says I'm wrong.

John

[Hapworth]

I am not trying to argue and you are certainly entitled to carry whatever however you want, but perhaps you could provide an example where single-action might be feasible or preferred.Uh, hello? To show the dude you got the drop on that YOU MEAN BUSINESS... :p

[opr1945]

If you are pointing your gun at someone, I suspect it makes little difference if it is cocked or not. However the likelyhood of an unintentional discharge goes way up if it is cocked in my opinion.

see post #7.

One time I had a Mississippi State Trooper turn and point his .357 revolver directly at me from about 40 feet. I suspect that it was not cocked, but I could not tell and it really did not make any difference to me. I knew he was all business. actually all I could see was the end of the muzzle. I don't have a clue what he looked like. And I am really glad he did not discharge his revolver either intentionally or unintentionally.

[Viper225]

In my quest for perfection, I sold my 638 a while back and replaced it with a 442 Pro Moonclip. I picked up a couple J Frame Moon Clip Carriers from TK for my reloads. I really like this one. It is a No Loc also.

My brother owns a 637, as well as an LCR-22. He likes his 637 just fine.

I currently own the 442 Pro and also an LCR-22. I have owned a 49, 649, SP101, LCR-357 and the 638. Depending on how you carry they all will work fine.

Pocket carry is where the list gets smaller. You need Light Weight PLUS No Snag.
That means 442/642 or 438/638 or LCR-38/LCR-357 are the top choices.

As you can see from me owning a 638, 49, and 649 at one point I thought I needed the ability to cock my J Frame. After years of shooting them, I never cock my J Frame anymore.
With the 442 Pro Moonclip I covered another base. I can Speed Reload this J Frame. With the California Competition Works J Frame Moon Clip Carriers I can carry my reloads where I can access them also. I still carry a Quick Strip in my pocket. It has 5 shotshells for a snake reload.

Bob

[CarlJ]

Viper how do you cary the moonclips? It seems just carrying in a pocket they might get bent. I am trying to figure out some way to carry a reload or two.

[MR.G]

I have owned and shot all three. All three are great guns but I sold the 642 and the 637. I like the 638 for pocket carry because the hammer is shrouded and you can still shoot it single or double action.

[chicharrones]

The M642 . . . has an action that is less exposed to debris . . .

Exactly. Covered/concealed hammer for the win if going spurless.

Popping a side plate off just to get the pocket lint out sucks.

At least with the open back autoloaders (P3AT, LCP, etc.) all you gotta do is take off the slide to clean out that open hammer slot. Yet, that sucks too. :D

[scotjute]

Went with the shrouded hammer for the option of single action firing.

[marcclarke]

So you feel the lack of the internal lock is more beneficial than the ability to fire in single action?

I hadn't thought about that aspect.
So take the lock out or disable it. $26 for "The Plug" to fill the hole if you remove the locking mechanism. Videos on YouTube for how to do it. Or grind off the locking flag. Or put red Loctite in the lock's keyway.

[marcclarke]

Exactly. Covered/concealed hammer for the win if going spurless.

Popping a side plate off just to get the pocket lint out sucks.

At least with the open back autoloaders (P3AT, LCP, etc.) all you gotta do is take off the slide to clean out that open hammer slot. Yet, that sucks too. :D
This is an often-repeated myth. My 638 does not accumulate any crud or lint inside the revolver. Just wipe the lint off of the outside of the hammer if it bothers you. It is a cosmetic issue only; not a functional issue.

[marcclarke]

I'm a little confused here. How does shooting SA add any additional liability on a good shoot than shooting DA?
It doesn't, unless you are a police officer.

[skoro]

My choice is the 642. Just about snag-proof when drawing from a pocket holster.

[marcclarke]

I'm a little confused here. How does shooting SA add any additional liability on a good shoot than shooting DA?
Clearly one must never use a single-action handgun for self-defense. A 1911? An HK P7M8? Both carried by various US law enforcement agencies? Whatever were they thinking? Don't they know that single-action handguns just go off all by themselves in stressful situations? And that they will be found liable?

This double-action only for self defense is the most poorly thought out crock I have ever heard.

Only a crappy, long, heavy, sight-alignment-disturbing trigger pull is suitable for self defense? Oh, come on.

[Hapworth]

This is an often-repeated myth. My 638 does not accumulate any crud or lint inside the revolver. Just wipe the lint off of the outside of the hammer if it bothers you. It is a cosmetic issue only; not a functional issue.It's a myth because it's never happened to you?

The illusion of the central position.

[Hapworth]

Clearly one must never use a single-action handgun for self-defense.Nobody's saying that -- only discussing the increased chances of accidental or negligent discharge in a high stress situation.

Nothing wrong with debating the points, except when you distort what others are saying, which is an unfortunate thing to do in an otherwise good discussion.

A 1911? An HK P7M8? Both carried by various US law enforcement agencies? Whatever were they thinking? Don't they know that single-action handguns just go off all by themselves in stressful situations? And that they will be found liable?Sarcasm instead of discourse. Nice.

As noted previously, find the widely-used single action only law enforcement sidearm that's factory set to the pull poundage of a standard S&W revolver in single action.

And, again aforementioned, many departments were (and are) concerned about single action discharge liability; it's why several removed the single action capability during the revolver era, and why today many choose or require single action capable sidearms to have a double action first pull.

This double-action only for self defense is the most poorly thought out crock I have ever heard.Presumably you hear many.

Only a crappy, long, heavy, sight-alignment-disturbing trigger pull is suitable for self defense? Oh, come on.Because these are the only choices? A three pound or less single action pull or the terrible double action of your description?

There's quite a bit of room in between extremes, for those inclined to think that way...

[dubya450]

Of the three I prefer the 637 because I like the exposed hammer and ability to fire single action if i want. That being said, the only j frame I own is a M&P 360. BTW I know theres a way to remove and plug the lock, is it easy enough to do myself? Or would I need to send it somewhere?

[chicharrones]

This is an often-repeated myth. My 638 does not accumulate any crud or lint inside the revolver. Just wipe the lint off of the outside of the hammer if it bothers you. It is a cosmetic issue only; not a functional issue.

Not a myth if it happens in real life. It happens to my pocket carried revolver which I carry 200 or so days a year, only to be spared pocket time by carrying an autoloader on the other days during a year.

I don't have to pop off the side plate each time I clean my revolver, but I do pop it off about once per year. Lint and grit get past the hammer and into the gun. Maybe it is just my pockets and my luck. :scrutiny: