Is there any difference for pocket carry between LCR and 642?

I don't see any issue there. What does come to mind is that the rubber grip of the LCR could potentially grab clothing material, adding resistance to the draw. A Smith with wood grips might be better in that regard. I don't know for sure. I dont pocket carry. Just a thought.

I think the 642 is a tad more pocketable, but I prefer the LCR by a fair margin. Then again, I don't pocket carry a revolver unless it is in a big coat pocket.

I installed a bantam grip on my LCR. It's much slicker than the chunky grip that comes with it, but I still shoot it very well for such a small gun.

eazyrider said:

First why the big difference in preference and second, why do you only pocket carry with deep pockets? I plan on using my jeans pocket.

Click to expand...

I simply shoot the LCR better than the 642. The cammed trigger really seems to help. However, in full disclosure, I have backed away from lightweight .38s. I don't prefer them. My LCR is a 9mm (but many say the recoil is worse on the 9mm than the .38), but i shoot it better than any other snubbie I own.

As for why I only carry in deep coat pockets is that I wear more fitted jeans. I can carry a revolver in them, but drawing it is problematic. I usually pocket carry only the smallest .380s. I don't even like IWB most of the time. I prefer carrying everything OWB or in my jacket.

I will often carry my LCR rather than one of my metal snubbies because the LCR feels so much lighter.

The biggest difference is that the LCR is butt-ugly. That said, I carry a S&W Model 642-2 as my "always" gun because I almost stole it. I'm looking at a 3 inch LCRx .38 for my bug-out bag/backpacking (not in bear country ).

Elm Creek Smith said:

The biggest difference is that the LCR is butt-ugly.

Click to expand...

Hey, you're carrying concealed. Who is gonna know?

I think of the LCR as modern-looking or even a bit futuristic, form following function to a high degree. I don't object to its appearance, but the lines of the Smith echo a look we've had a century to get used to. One is modern, one is classic--both are very good revolvers.

eazyrider said:

The 642 doesn't have quite as pronounced of a hump covering the hammer as the LCR does. Is this little bit of difference a big deal?

Click to expand...

No big deal. The S&W 638 is more humpbacked than the LCR and people pocket carry that with no problems.

The LCR or the 642 will do fine for pocket carry. I find that pleated-front canvas pants (Dockers and the like) do a good job of making a small revolver in a pocket holster disappear.

I have a 642 and my girlfriend has a LCR. I find the LCR to be more shootable than the S&W. The trigger pull is better, and the stock grips on the 642 don't fit my hand well. I guess that you should "give 'em both a try." Good luck.

THR rocks.

eazyrider said:

It's just I have never pocket carried before and I don't know what part makes it hard.

Click to expand...

I would say it is excessive weight that is the problem. A comparatively heavy revolver of all steel construction, like the Colt Detective Special, will sway when pocket carried, to and fro in time with your steps. An alloy or polymer lightweight has less mass to it and does not move as much. Carried in a pocket holster that fills out the pocket fairly well, it scarcely moves at all.

With either the LCR or the 642 you are barking up the right tree. If you do not like one better than the other, flip a coin. The choice between the two is win-win.

I have both. The LCR has a little fatter grip and a little smoother trigger. I like the 442 better. I don't like the long (for me) trigger reset on the LCR. Both are good guns. Only you can chose.

eazyrider said:

I know the 638 has a very large hump and that was a bit of a concern for me. While I like the idea of a shrouded hammer that I can cock, I don't think it will be necessary for a self defense revolver. It's just I have never pocket carried before and I don't know what part makes it hard. Sometimes the obvious problems really aren't.

Like when I started carrying I figured barrel length would be the toughest but now I know grip size is the bigger problem. So that is the context in which I am asking. Is the hump a deal or not.

Click to expand...

I pocket carry a 638 all the time. The hump that hides the hammer is not an issue at all. The type and size of grips would be the only potential problem I can see as far as drawing.

Below is my 642-1 "post-lock" snubby...

As mentioned above, there are many "non-grippy" grips available for S&W J-frames which will not grab at cloth and will be less likely to impede your draw. Rubbery textured grips are grippy in your hand, but they are also grippy to cloth.

If you compare the two side-by-side you will find the J-frame is slightly smaller. This is most noticeable in the trigger guard area, but it isn't a huge difference.

Beyond that it is all about personal taste and aesthetics. Both revolvers provide a light, easy to carry defensive weapon which is generally not a fun range gun. Snappy recoil, short sight radius, small sights, and limited capacity are some of the detractors of this genre of firearm. However, because they are so small and light, you will likely have it with you.

Edmo

I like both revolvers but, imo, the ugly Ruger has a much better da trigger pull. I am currently looking for an LCR chambered in .327 Federal Magnum to replace a Colt Cobra I use for edc.

SwampWolf said:

I like both revolvers but, imo, the ugly Ruger has a much better da trigger pull. I am currently looking for an LCR chambered in .327 Federal Magnum to replace a Colt Cobra I use for edc.

Click to expand...

If I didn't like my 9mm LCR so much, I would be all over one in .327. There is just too much overlap between the two since I have a 4" SP101 in .327 for trail use already. However, since I have an SP101 snubbie in .357, I would probably pick the .327 LCR over the .357 LCR. I have really taken a shine to that underappreciated .32.

Fiv3r said:

If I didn't like my 9mm LCR so much, I would be all over one in .327. There is just too much overlap between the two since I have a 4" SP101 in .327 for trail use already. However, since I have an SP101 snubbie in .357, I would probably pick the .327 LCR over the .357 LCR. I have really taken a shine to that underappreciated .32.

Click to expand...

My GF's LCR is a .327, and it is a sweet gun to shoot. I load .32 longs for her to plink with, and the .327 Fed Mags are awesome without kicking hard. Loud as heck, though - rang my ears outdoors. Wear ear protection.

LoneGoose said:

My GF's LCR is a .327, and it is a sweet gun to shoot. I load .32 longs for her to plink with, and the .327 Fed Mags are awesome without kicking hard. Loud as heck, though - rang my ears outdoors. Wear ear protection.

Click to expand...

No joke. The report of the .327 (as well as the .357) is what keeps me from considering it for home defense. I know in a life or death situation that my hearing will be the last thing on my mind, but I'll just stick with standard pressure jhp 9mm.

Walking in the woods, it would still hurt, but at least its more open. Plus, .327 out of a 4" barrel of my SP101 is no slouch.

Fiv3r said:

If I didn't like my 9mm LCR so much, I would be all over one in .327. There is just too much overlap between the two since I have a 4" SP101 in .327 for trail use already.

Click to expand...

I just like the extra round capacity the .327 Magnum LCR offers over the 9mm version. 20% more ammunition is nothing to sneeze at (potentially) in a self-defense situation.

I've never owned an LCR...can't comment on those.

My non +P rated 642-1 (has been getting some pocket time since 1997 however.

with Herrett's Shooting Ace grips...longer than factory but flat and hand filling

I had a 642 Centennial, stainless steel, not the alloy frame. I loved it for it's ease of carry & discretion but it had sharp edges on the trigger that chewed up my trigger finger, a lousy trigger and crappy sights with the stainless front ramp that couldn't be changed. I traded it off and got an SP101 which was far more comfortable & shootable, but was far less easy to carry & conceal. When the LCR came out, I thought they were ugly and chintzy. When a buddy started singing the praises of the one his girlfriend had I decided to take another look. When I tried one I hated the standard Houge grips, but bonded instantly with one with the Crimson Trace grips just for the size & feel, regardless of the laser. My choice is the KLCR .357 w/ CT grips, a practically perfect pocket gun IMHO. Change out the front sight to a high viz one and it becomes ideal. My most carried gun by far, very shootable and quite accurate with my preferred load of 125gr .38 +P's. The newer version in .327 would be perhaps only gun that I think might be even better due to similar capability and the benefit of one more round.

Cocked & Locked said:

I've never owned an LCR...can't comment on those.

My non +P rated 642-1 (has been getting some pocket time since 1997 however.

with Herrett's Shooting Ace grips...longer than factory but flat and hand filling

Click to expand...

Elm Creek Smith said:

The biggest difference is that the LCR is butt-ugly. That said, I carry a S&W Model 642-2 as my "always" gun because I almost stole it. I'm looking at a 3 inch LCRx .38 for my bug-out bag/backpacking (not in bear country ).

Click to expand...

You are correct...the LCR is butt ugly. But as the great bearded one, Jeff Quinn, says at gunblast.com, ''a gun aint sposed to be attractive. You don't take it outa your pocket to rub on it."

Cocked & Locked said:

with Herrett's Shooting Ace grips...longer than factory but flat and hand filling

Click to expand...

Both of my Smith J-frames have Herrets Shooting Ace grips on them. I don't know if they make them anymore (I've had mine for decades) but, imo, they are the best looking and best "feeling" grips out there for these little revolvers.

I agree with that! I've three sets for J-frames plus a set of Charters Bulldog .44.