642 Club Part Deux

yongxingfreesty - This looks like the one you might want...It is Here...:




For a full size grip I like the Houge Monogrip:



For Concealed Carry the Houge Bantam:

OK I need to get rid of one 442 or 642.

Which one stays and what one goes?

I'll take that 442 off your hands if you're giving it away.

My new 642 pro series. I haven't even shot it yet.

... 642 pro series.

Click to expand...

????

Nem,

642 Pro Series - #170328 - Looks like a 442, being matte black, but:

642 Pro frame: anodized aluminum
442 and 642 frame: aluminum alloy

642 Pro cylinder: stainless steel
442 cylinder: carbon steel
642 cylinder: stainless steel

642 Pro Barrel: 2.125" ported
442 and 642 barrel: 1.87"

642 Pro sights: Adjustable Dovetail white Dot front, Square notch rear.
442 and 642 sights: Integral fixed

MSRP per 2009 S&W Catalog:
642 Pro: $735
442 and 642: $600

cool, that barrel is ported?

Ward, thanks for that.

This is news to me. How long have these been available? Have we ever discussed these in the club?
Don't remember ever reading about these, yet I just checked the SW site and there it is.

I hope to hear more about these from members.

I'm especially curious about this ported barrel.

Nem,
The 642 Pro Series shows as a new item in the 2008 S&W Product Guide.

the barrel is ported

New FIST IWB holster. This holster really wears well. It needs to be "worked" for a while more for a smoother presentation.

Hi Guys,

Question for ordering grips.

Are 442s square or round butts?

How exactly do I tell by looking at my revolvers which is which?

I have a couple I want to get new grips for but have put it off due to the square or round question.

Thanks



T

Diggers - Grip info is here:

http://www.grips4guns.com/revolver/smithwesson/smithwesson.html

glockman19 - If I could have only one, I would choose...Both

lsufan1971 - Welcome to the 642 Club...awaiting you range report...

There's a member over here asking if he should sell his J-frame (a 637).

Complains that it's too hard to conceal.
______________

OK, I'm still intrigued by this x42 pro-series,
especially since they're black.

I've been thinking for a while I'd eventually trade up to an MP340,
but knowing I'd not shoot .357m in it. Motivation: just a better quality revolver.

Have I found an alternative in the pro-series?
(Shhhhh. Don't tell DA. It'll upset him. )
Are they substantially different in quality from a regular x42?

And, what of this ported barrel? Pro/con?

I'm interested.

Wardo88's specs got me curious. A google tonight showed

1. No high links to a S&W spec sheet--but:

2. a pdf file that appears to be a revised 2009 S&W Handgun catalog, or a segment of the master catalog.

Information for the Pro Series guns includes this (new) model of the 642. See pdf page 18, or Catalog-numbered-page 38. It looks like that kind of "value-based" upgrading they do--that is, here an anodized finish on the aluminum airweight frame.

I suppose a hacksaw could solve the port problem, but it might slow rounds down too much.

Jim H.

Jim, thanks. That's an interesting page (18).

I think you're right re "value-based" (what a marketing term; where's Bill Hicks when you need him?).

Here's the blurb from the top of p. 18. Clearly written by marketers, but yeah, I get it.

Completing the line between main production and the Performance Center, the Smith & Wesson Pro Series represents the next step from standard models. These firearms are offered with a variety of enhancements yet still remain true to "stock." Bringing competition specifications and features to factory models, the Pro Series offer that ready-to-go package while still maintaining production line integrity.

Click to expand...

Still curious about "port". I understand the concept: reduces muzzle flip. I understand some of the limitations: extra noise.

I'm wondering about the tradeoffs. Must be some since they're producing a revolver with it, right?

And that extra half inch is appealing for those like me who don't (and won't) pocket carry.

I have a 60 PRO--

which S&W sold me at a reduced price after I blew up my 60. That upgrade was a good value--but I only paid $14.00 extra. I do NOT care for the 60 Pro barrel profile, but it did have a better trigger, 'better' grips, and a better finish. The googling showed 642-442 Pro priced 'retail' at about $735.00 from Lipseys, and I think I caught a glimpse of a sell price somewhere for under $600--like maybe $550 plus shipping. But, with the standard aluminum frame, is it worth it--the anodized finish is worth something, given the continuing problems with the standard airweight finishes--but no better strength. As you may recall from my previous posts, I do consider the scandium frame to be worth a premium, if not a 357 premium.

But--about that ported barrel: Pocket carry or not, I no longer find ported barrels appealing anywhere but on race guns. IMO--and I stress that it's my opinion--the advantages of the port for reducing muzzle flip in a SD gun--and particulary an 'up close and personal' revolver--are more than outweighed by the possiblity of disadvantages because of the diverted blast. IOW, I may not be shooting in any sort of conventional two-handed / outstretched-arm stance, and in fact it may be close to my body.

In my own recent incident my 360 was about six inches off my chest, breast high, and pointed left, at the car window. I'll bet the muzzle blast on a ported gun would've trimmed my moustache, and then some.

Then there is the matter of relative effectiveness. For a 357, I have no argument--but I know of few people who shoot high-pressure 357 rounds from a lightweight. On a 38 Special, the lower pressure spec suggests it will not help a lot, even in a lighweight.

I'd rather put the extra money (re the ported barrel) into practice. For others, who will shoot and carry more casually, a port may make up for less conditioning, help on recovery as well--but still offer a potential hazard for the shooter.

Jim H.

I would like to explore the possibility of having the new anodized finish applied to my standard 642 frame. The easily damaged finish on the standard model is my only complaint (and a small one at that).

Hoppy

Jim, good review. That captures what I feel intuitively about ports, based on what I've read.

I'm feeling like Hoppy: I might rather explore putting an anodized finish on a 442 and stay with a known entity.

It'll be interesting to see what other opinions are out there.

Jt, any thoughts on this?

about porting, continued, and lasers--

1. I'll be very interested in a range report from Isufan1971 on his new Pro642. And, after he's acclimated to his new firearm, it'd be neat to see a comparison between his and a standard 4/642, under different shooting conditions. And, maybe he could even (temporarily) switch grips to a true boot grip--which means the port benefit should be even more obvious.

That's a hint, Isufan1971--I hope you can find access to a standard 642 and shoot it side-by-side with your Pro version. For all I know, the port blast issues as a source of unanticipated personal risk are grossly overstated.

2. I didn't call it out specifically in the initial post above, but my bias against porting also exists because my own j-frame carry gun (currently a 360; typically, an M&P340--I sold my 442) usually has a CT 405 (the short / boot grip size) laser installed, and because I also believe point-shooting skills are critical for good use of this kind of SD carry gun.

Besides the obvious advantages of a laser for target acquisition, the use of it as a training device is invaluable. My first training use was simply working on the muscle strength, then the muscle memory acquisition of the grip to minimize bobble. With a laser, it's heads-up all the way, and the eyes are on the target. That kind of use allows one to start making the transition to 'true' point-shooting techniques that are necessary in SD shooting skills.

I come to practical / SD shooting techniques from a marksmanship background. I've reached the conclusion that traditional handgun shooting skills are detrimental to effective SD shooting for a casual shooter: Spending time getting a proper sight picture, with the target properly placed over the front sight and the front sight aligned with the rear sight is one more delay that can get you killed, IMO, and we (carry gunnys) really need to train the SD techniques into priority in our response set.

Jim H.

I hope to get to the range later this week or next weekend. I am placing an order for some Ahrends grips tomorrow. I plan on pocket carry and the factory grips just won't work well for PC. I will give a range report. I can tell you this the trigger is much better out of the box than some of the 642's I have handled in the past. I should add the two main reason's I wanted this gun over the regular 642 was the finish and the ability to switch the front sight to a night site.

Ported 642 opinions

jfh,

I always find your posts very helpful, especially your most recent ones regarding the ported 642 and the use of laser grips.

I realize these may be your opinions, but I really believe that opinions based on experience are very helpful to those of us who have not yet acquired a great deal experience related to such a serious subject as firearms.

Thanks for your help.

Ward

Ditto Ward's words, Jim.

Jim I was a bit concerned about the ported barrel myself. I read and talked to a couple of people that had fired a 637 pro and did not find the gases from the port to be much of an issue. Even when fired from the hip. I hope to have the set of Ahrend boot grips here by the end of the week and will switch out to test the difference. I am going to try an assortment of ammo.

Hornady's 110 grn critical defense (non +p)
Federal nyclad 125 grn
Remington Golden Saber 125 grn +p
magtech 158 grn LRN

Anyone have any other recommendations for ammo to test?

Isufan, yes: most of us would recommend that you add Speer Gold Dot 135 gr. +P to your list.
It's probably the most common ammo used in this series.

And thanks for asking and volunteering to do this.
I look forward to your results, and I know others here who will, also.