442 vs. 642? What are the differences?

as far as i know the only difference is that one is ss and one is blued. kinda like the 586 and 686 etc.

The 442 is blued steel and Al. and the 642 is stainless steel and Al. other than that they are the same. I have both and think they may be the best BUGs I have found, for me. Light weight (but not too light) and smooth contours and a small butt. I like the factory stocks. They ride easily in my pocket. (On my weak side). It's always with me.

the first number in a s&w model to my knowledge signifies the metal type, I'm guesinbg the 442 is scandium?

The 442 has a carbon steel barrel and cylinder with an aluminum frame. The 642 has a stainless barrel and cylinder. Other than that, identical. You can still find some new no locks.

The question I've always had regarding the differences between the two is why does the 442 cost significantly more than the 642? At least in my area it does.

The differences are like night and day. That is, one is dark and one is light.

The only signigicant difference is that the barrel and cylinders are made of different materials. The 642 has a stainless steel barrel and cylinder and the 442 is carbon steel.

p.s. I hear some of the newer no-lock 442's have stainless barrels and or cylinders but I haven't been able to confirm that.

They both weigh the same and shoot the same. Pick the color you like and buy one because they are a great pocket carry.

the first number in a s&w model to my knowledge signifies the metal type, I'm guessing the 442 is scandium?

Click to expand...

The 3 series guns are the black scandium ones, I believe, and the 4's are black aluminum.

"why does the 442 cost significantly more than the 642"

They didn't always. Why they do now is unknown to me.

John

I'm in the market for a 442, so I'm not complaining, but how is that black finish considered "blued"?

It seems more like a coating than a metal treatment.

I wish they weren't so popular, the demand has them up over $500 around here.

S&W says: "Finish: Blue / Black"

It depends on which part of the gun you're talking about, the aluminum or the steel.

And the MSRP is $600.

John

"why does the 442 cost significantly more than the 642"

They didn't always. Why they do now is unknown to me.

Click to expand...

I'm curious as to when the relatively large price disparity between the two models started and why. My 2005 catalog listed the MSRP of the 642 as being $469.00, while the same catalog showed the 442 going for $600.00. In most cases where firearms differ only in the material they're made of (blue carbon steel vs stainless steel, everything else being equal) and one costs more than the other, the cheaper one is the blued version. Which makes me wonder in this case if something else is in play. If the two revolvers differ only in the material they're made from (which does seem to be the case here), my only guess is that the 642 is far more popular and the higher volume of production allows the company to sell them cheaper. But that much ($131.00) cheaper?

Both are listed as $600 in the current catalog as well as the M637 and M638.

I bought my barely used 442-1 near the end of 2003 and had been looking at the new 442's and 642's. As I remember it, the 642 was slightly more expensive and I kept debating spending the extra, but was put off by stories of the clearcoat peeling on the 642's. Meanwhile, I ran across an ANIB 442-1 at a gun show for $310 and snapped it up.

History from www.snubnose.info/docs/m642.htm

"The Airweight Models 442 (blued) and 642 (stainless) were brought to market in 1990, discontinued in 1993 and reintroduced in 1996 as the 642-1. As noted earlier, the Model 642 has been enormously successful."

I'd bet the price change happened in 2004-2205, but really don't remember.

John

The 442 can shoot +P ammo while the 642 cannot.

-Robb

The 442 will rust a lot more quickly than the 642.

Robrat said: The 442 can shoot +P ammo while the 642 cannot.

Sorry, that is wrong. Any 642 made in the last twenty years (or thereabouts) says +p is okay, right there on the barrel.

Cordially, Jack

I stand corrected, always thought that was the difference.

And it's Rat Robb, not Robrat, lol.

-Robb

"The 442 will rust a lot more quickly than the 642."

No it won't. Why would it rust at all? Well maybe it'll rust if you drag it behind the truck and don't oil the scratches that go down to bare metal, but that's just pure mistreatment. And even then, the aluminum parts won't rust.

I've left my 442 wet in a leather holster a couple of times when I didn't have an alternative and it didn't rust.

John

638 ftw!

Love my 442. Black is the way to go.

The dealer had a 442 and a 642, both no locks, when I was looking. The 642 was $30 more. I went with the 442 partially because of the clearcoat issue but mainly because I just liked the black. I have and love stainless (or the look) but wanted something different. I'd say just get the one you prefer. You can't go wrong.

I was picking up my Buck Mark this past weekend and he had another 642 no lock for $469.00. Up $20 from almost a year ago. Not bad in todays market.

638 ftw!

Click to expand...

Will Learn,
Or the M438 ftw