Odd J frame?


PDA






Racinbob
November 25, 2012, 07:34 AM
I looked at a S&W J frame at Gander Mountain yesterday. I was a bit confused. The Gander tag showed it as a 642. Many of their tags are marked incorrectly so I took a closer look. The first thing that caught my eye was that it was black like a 442. It also had a full shroud and a heavier, ported barrel. On the yoke it was indeed marked 642. It was about $250 higher than the standard 442 but the heavy barrel and porting answered that question. But I'm baffeled by the black finish on a 642. It was a .38 spl and not a .357. I just checked the S&W site and don't see it. Can anyone enlighten me?

If you enjoyed reading about "Odd J frame?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
grptelli
November 25, 2012, 08:48 AM
Interesting? Gander for one sucks here in IL. I have the 442. I have seen on grabagun and buds a
Sw model 360 (?) I think that was a scandium frame, ported 2 in barrel, etc. I couldn't find it on their site, but it definitely available on grabagun and buds. It was a .38spl and over $500. I think I just confused you more....


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

JohnBT
November 25, 2012, 09:02 AM
I don't know the story behind them, but they show up from time to time. John

www.georgiagunstore.com/gun_store_products/Handguns-Smith_&_Wesson-S&W_642_2125_38+P_MBLK_NS_PRTD_5RD.html

List price: $785

Racinbob
November 25, 2012, 07:38 PM
That's it John. It's an odd bird in my opinion. Why call it a 642 when 442's are black, why port .38 spl?? I'll stick with my plain old 442. Even if they were priced the same.

grptelli
November 26, 2012, 08:38 AM
Thats a lot of $$$ for that model. My 442 was $367.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Alnamvet68
December 4, 2012, 12:19 AM
I would love to see the J frames all come with a full shroud as standard.

ArchAngelCD
December 4, 2012, 12:55 AM
That looks like a M442 Pro or something like that. The standard $400 M442 doesn't have a 2.125" barrel and the barrel isn't ported. Them calling it a M642 is probably an error.

MyGreenGuns
December 4, 2012, 08:39 AM
I would love to see the J frames all come with a full shroud as standard.
:barf: Ugh! Blasphemy! They make both versions, ya know

jhvaughan2
December 4, 2012, 09:18 PM
It has a blackened stainless cylinder check here (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_766075_-1_770653_757964_757964_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y)

GJgo
December 4, 2012, 11:20 PM
Being an airlite, it might actually have a scandium frame & a titanium cylinder. I've had a couple of those in other calibers, I'll stick with steel thanks.

ArchAngelCD
December 5, 2012, 01:54 AM
It has a blackened stainless cylinder check here (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_766075_-1_770653_757964_757964_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y)
That link brings you to a Pro Series revolver like I mentioned in Post #7 although they are calling it a M642 which goes against their naming scheme. That was probably before they developed the M442 and I kinda like that revolver! LOL

jhvaughan2
December 5, 2012, 09:17 PM
That link brings you to a Pro Series revolver like I mentioned in Post #7 although they are calling it a M642 which goes against their naming scheme. That was probably before they developed the M442 and I kinda like that revolver! LOL
It is not a 442.
"6xx" means stainless. Note the specs in my link above. They cylinder is stainless even though it is black. It does not go against the naming scheme. 442 is carbon steel, and 642 is stainless. This is not always the color. Stainless can be made black, which is not the same as blued carbon steel. I believe the OP has found one of these 'blackened; 642s.

pikid89
December 5, 2012, 09:24 PM
^ this is true...just like the midnight black 686's

taraquian
December 5, 2012, 09:27 PM
I am not sure but I think it is a stainless gun that has been coated, I own one just like you described that my wife won at an FNRA banquet a few years back, I have been trying to figure it out since I got it

ArchAngelCD
December 6, 2012, 02:23 AM
It is not a 442.
"6xx" means stainless. Note the specs in my link above. They cylinder is stainless even though it is black. It does not go against the naming scheme. 442 is carbon steel, and 642 is stainless. This is not always the color. Stainless can be made black, which is not the same as blued carbon steel. I believe the OP has found one of these 'blackened; 642s.
S&W has gone against their naming scheme before and did again here. The 6 for stainless and 4 for carbon does not refer to the cylinder, it's supposed to refer to the frame!

jhvaughan2
December 6, 2012, 08:51 PM
The 6 for stainless and 4 for carbon does not refer to the cylinder, it's supposed to refer to the frame!
No, it refers to the steel. The Cylinder is steel, the frame of the 442 and 642 are anodized aluminum (alloy). There is no difference between the composition of the frame in Airweights. They are all the same alloy just with different coatings. The difference is in the steel, not the color.

In an all-steel revolver. you are correct. The frames are carbon (4xx) or stainless (6xx)
Note the 342. The frame is the same as 4/642 it is the Alloy of the cylinder that contains the titanium/scandium. You can get it in a silver or black color.

ArchAngelCD
December 7, 2012, 01:43 AM
I know very well the frames on the M642 and M442 are the same except for the M442 being anodized, I own both!

You can argue all you want but the original numbering scheme referred to the frame, not the cylinder and I have the feeling you are guessing they are referring to the cylinder because in your mind it fits. Please do a little more research and when you find out the frame was to original reason for the numbers come back and tell everyone it's the frame and nit the cylinder.

Also, how do we explain the M586?

Do you really think this is worth arguing over? I don't know about you but S&W never put any money in my pocket so I'm done here...

jhvaughan2
December 7, 2012, 05:59 PM
Do you really think this is worth arguing over?

Apparently you do.

I was never intending to argue what was S&W's mind when they first came up with the 6 prefix. Archangel are right that "6" first meant a stainless gun -- frame included. In reference to Archangel's definition of the "4" being carbon frame post #16?. Can anyone tell me of a "4xx" revolver that has a carbon frame? I do not know of one (I did a little research and did not find one). 5xx is used multiple times to reference carbon steel revolvers in K and N frame sizes.

The disucssion here was why the OP's 642 was black. I attempted to explain it was because an airweight with stainless steel was numbered 6xx no matter what the color

My logic is only using S&W's model numbers and naming (yes a little research again). In 1990 S&W released the Model number 642, called ".38 Centennial Airweight Stainless" We know the "stainless" does not refer to the frame in this case so that is why I suspect a 642 made with stainless steel is a 642 no matter what the color. Since S&W has numbered this piece a 642, they appear to be following that logic. (It apparently fits in someone else's mind but mine.)

Archangel seems to be suggesting that all 6xx air-weights are mis-numbered because their frames are not stainless. Maybe they should all be 4xx's to? Maybe "4" means aluminum frame?

No true science here

If you enjoyed reading about "Odd J frame?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!