It dropped right into my jeans pocket.
It was nice and light.
There was no hammer to snag.
I was about to start carrying concealed. The 642 seemed ideal.
Though I had never taken any defensive shooting training, I had been shooting handguns for decades.
I bought the 642.
I shot it reasonably well, in slow fire, at the square range.
But:
- After fifty rounds, I had to soak my hand in warm water due to the recoil.
- There was no way for me to draw from a pants pocket while moving off-line fast, as required in the training drills
- The poor sights, and the heavy trigger pull combined with the light weight of the gun, made the kind of rapid shooting needed in the defensive shooting training drills too difficult for me.
- Some of the drills required more than five shots.
I realized that my choice did not represent an informed decision.
So:
- I bought a Ruger SR-9c and a good holster.
- The trigger and the sights were much better.
- It had a capacity of twelve rounds.
- It was much more controllable in rapid fire.
- The training drills were a breeze.
- My hand did not hurt afterwards.
I was surprised to see that the Ruger was no larger than the 642.
I retired the 642.
I do have a small revolver for CCW. It's a Kimber K6a.
- Excellent trigger pull and adequate sights.
- Heavy enough to fire rapidly--and shoot all day.
- The capacity is six shots.
And, of course, I know to carry it in a holster.
I had a very similar experience.
Ive owned a number of 642's over the years, and still have one. Still shoot it a couple of times a month too. Mostly to try and stay on top of it, and to remind me why its usually sitting in the safe.
Ive always been a fan of S&W snubbies, and have a number of them, .38 and .357, and as much as I like the 642's, they have always been the least pleasant and the one that was always a chore to shoot. And because of that, the one of the lot that actually gets shot the most. 50 rounds is about my limit too.
I think something that Kleanbore pointed out about running drills with them is, or can be, a big wake up for those who have never tried it, when you actually try. Their shortcomings there are pretty stark and quickly become clear.
Ive gone through a bunch of smaller, what I call "back up/second/third line guns" over the years, which included the 642, and settled on my 26's for that role. While slightly chunkier, and a tad heavier than the 642, it also carries double the ammo and has good sights and shoots like a full size, even with the ten round mag in the gun. With a 17 reload in it, its basically, and pretty much instantly, a short-barreled 17. And I carry it in the exact same places I carried my 642's.
I still occasionally use my 642 for that third line role, mostly as an outer coat pocket, under my thigh or maybe on the seat or in the console, etc, while Im driving, or as a hand off to my wife, since she seems to never bother carrying hers anymore.
At the very least, everyone should have a 642, just to know what it is and what its like the shoot. Ive taken a number of newbies shooting who insisted that was the gun they wanted to get and carry. And almost to a one, after just one cylinder full, handed it back to me and said, "NO!".
Reality is a bitch I guess.
