CCW J-Frame: 642, 638 or 637

[TrailWolf]

For an all around CCW gun - not JUST for pocket carry - which J-Frame would you choose and why?

642 (covered hammer),

638 (shrouded hammer),

or

637 (exposed hammer).

.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Although the Bodyguard frame is my favorite (M638) I bought a M642/M442 (Centennial frame) for carry because it was available without the ILS.

 

[TrailWolf]

So you feel the lack of the internal lock is more beneficial than the ability to fire in single action?

I hadn't thought about that aspect.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

So you feel the lack of the internal lock is more beneficial than the ability to fire in single action?

I hadn't thought about that aspect.

I don't want to start another "lock vs no lock" thread. I only mentioned it because you asked for the reason I made my choice. some don't like the lock, some feel it is no problem.

 

[zoom6zoom]

I have both the 642 and a vintage Model 38 Airweight. The 642 has had the lock removed and plugged, so that's no longer an issue. Otherwise I have no real reason to pick one over the other.

 

[sidheshooter]

Everyone has an opinion; here is mine:

All defensive shooting should be DA, you can get a slightly higher grip on the centennial-style guns, the ILS sucks.

642.

OMMV.

 

[opr1945]

1. I was shooting my model 36 shortly after I got it. I shot double action for a while and decided to try single. I discovered that it was much easier to fire accidentaly in single action than double because of the reduced trigger pull. After 2 accidental discharges, fortunately they went down range. I decided that in a self defense situation I did not need the easier trigger pull. So I ended up with a hammerless model 342.

2. years ago i worked at night in a warehouse. I thought I heard a burgler and cocked my gun and headed out. I didn't find anyone. But at the end I was standing in the dark empty ware house looking around with a cocked/loaded gun with the adrenalin going. I realized that if anything startled me, cat, dog, rat ,mouse, Kid, Burgler etc, I would jump a mile high and probably pull the trigger at the same time and maybe shoot something I would later regret.

I now believe in longer heavier trigger pulls on self defense gun.

JMO

 

[skt239]

The 642 or the 638 are the best choices, in that order and in my opinion. I carry a 637 just because I've never owned a spurred j-frame and always wanted one. I hardly ever use the hammer and it never gets in the way when drawing. It's kinda just there.. No matter which you choose, it will be a good choice.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I own and have pocket carried a M36 on many occasions. There really is no problem with the hammer if you draw correctly. All you need to do is place your thumb over the hammer and it won't get caught on anything on the way out of your pocket. (but I still prefer carrying a shrouded hammer in my pocket)

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

I prefer a shrouded/encased hammer for CCW since it eliminates any chance of accidental discharge from engagement of the hammer. In the event of pocket carry, it also facilitates a smooth draw. I agree with the poster whom theorizes that in all likelihood defensive shooting will be single action, so I voted for 642. I personally carry a no-lock 442 and a no lock 640.

 

[Arp32]

I chose the 642. Didn't want the SA trigger option for the reasons stated above, and the 642 seemed less bulky than the humpback model.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The M642 has a sleeker profile, allows a higher grip, has an action that is less exposed to debris and gives up nothing in accuracy because it does not have a SA trigger mode available...at least at the distances most users would consider using them. I'd consider the SA might have a slight advantage when you get much over 50 yards and certainly some advantage when you get out to 100 yards.

Inside 50 yards, if you're not shooting the DA as well, it is mostly your technique that is lacking.

 

[zbird]

638. For the shrouded hammer, and the option of a crisp single action trigger pull. You never know when you need to make a 50 feet head shot. (hostage situation)

 

[Bobson]

638. For the shrouded hammer, and the option of a crisp single action trigger pull. You never know when you need to make a 50 feet head shot. (hostage situation)

I'm having a hard time accepting that this needs to be said, but if you're trying to make a 50' headshot to save a hostage, you've almost certainly involved yourself in a situation unnecessarily, and most likely, recklessly. Unless of course you happen to be an LEO who's specifically trained to handle hostage scenarios, in which case you wouldn't be taking the shot with a snub-nose revolver... anyway...

I'd opt for the 642 as well, for the same reasons most others pointed out. Less likely to snag on a draw, and I figure most (if not all) SD shooting will be DA anyway.

 

[chanroc]

Had a 442 and sold it. Ended up getting 638 instead. I like having the option to fire single action if needed. With that said, I still practice 90% of my shots, shooting double action. As another side note, I shoot my LCR better due to its trigger pull, but that's just me.

 

[fxstchewy]

I vote the 642.

 

[Havok7416]

Looks like I'm late to this one. My vote goes to the 642/640 for the reasons stated previously.

 

[cadcom]

I like the 637 but that's just a personal preference. As chanroc mentioned, the Ruger LCR trigger is outstanding. It's also worth a look.

 

[beatledog7]

Voted 642, and that's what I carry. Mine's a no-lock. and I don't mind that my carry gun doesn't have the SA option.

I won't be taking any 50-yd headshots in a hostage or any other situation with a 1 7/8 barreled revolver, and neither should anyone else.

 

[guyfromohio]

My locker full of abandoned high-end holsters is a testament to the fact that I've owned and carried many of the solid options that are/were out there. After owning for five years, my 642 is the only one that I've never considered selling. A $700 Sig in a $90 Crossbreed still stays safed far more often than my $350 642 in its $25 POS DeSantis nylon. I'm also very accurate with it.

Your other options are also Great guns, but I swear by the 642.

 

[JohnBT]

I have two J frames, a 442 for pocket carry and a 649-3 .357 that carries better on my belt because it weighs about 7 or 8 ounces more than the 442.

John

 

[Beat Trash]

I like being able to get a higher grip on the Centennial design of the 642.

I really have no need of S/A fire capability from a light weight J-Frame gun.

so for a CCW J-Frame, the 642 is my preferred revolver.

 

[Hapworth]

Another vote for encased hammers.

Because of the usually deeper concealment of a J-frame snubby, snagging upon draw is a real issue. Can you practice working around this? Yes. Will that help? Probably. Is it still a risk in a volatile situation? Again yes, and an unnecessary one.

Also, and again because of the usually deeper concealment of a J-frame snubby (inside pockets; under a couple layers of clothes), an encased hammer greatly reduces the chance of mucking up your internals with lint, dirt, sweat and other deep carry detritus.

Most importantly, defensive work is likely going to be (and arguably should be) double-action only; opr1945's excellent post elucidates why perfectly and lends itself to reading and reflection. Frankly, except for target shooting, I see little advantage to single action capability, and a lot of liability.

So, the 642, I say. But to add a wrinkle, consider the 442 Moon Clip. Same gun save for the finish, and it's factory cut for moon clips which get my vote for fast and easy defensive reloading -- and it's only a few bucks more.

 

[sixgunner455]

I don't consider my J frame an "all-around" carry gun. I consider it an "all-the-time" carry gun. As such, it normally is carried in my pocket, in a belly band, or in a Smartcarry. I have a belt holster for it, just so I have the option, but it only rarely is carried that way.

All guns are compromises to one degree or another. Pocket guns make more compromises than most - size, power, capacity, shootability. I choose for my pocket gun a revolver. I am concerned about the reliability of pocket autos, even though the one I had was quite reliable, because of a myriad of reasons that don't need harping on at this point, but I choose to trust a revolver in this role.

As a pocket gun, my J frame is compromising shootability that comes from size and weight for carryability that comes from size and weight. The size and weight are also compromising capacity, and since I will never shoot a .357 through one of them, it is compromising power, but only a bit since I got a .38.

As it is mostly carried very close to the body and gets sweated on, it must have stainless construction or an impervious finish.

As it gets carried in a pocket very frequently, snagging a hammer on the draw when done quickly is very possible. Pocket lint etc getting in the hammer (or hammer channel, on a bodyguard style revolver) is also a concern.

Thus, I went for the smooth, sealed frame of the Centennial, in airweight to weigh down the pocket less (but still have enough weight to shoot it), and stainless for corrosion concerns.

642 is, for me, the definitive pocket revolver.

I read once that the definition of an optimist is the man who carries an Airweight snubbie and a speedloader. Perhaps I should change my name to "The Eternal Optimist", as I carry a speedstrip or two, and keep a speedloader close at hand as well.

 

[Arp32]

I sure hope I am never this hostage I keep reading about. That poor guy is a goner either way.