Difference between S&W 442, 637, and 642
- Thread starter qwert65
- Start date
- Status
the 442 and 642 are basically the same gun. they both have aluminum alloy frames, but differ in the material of their cylinder and barrels. the 442 is carbon steel, while the 642 is stainless.
the 637 is like the 642 (stainless), but has an exposed hammer and hence a shorter frame behind the cylinder. it's disadvantage is the possibility of snagging and providing an entry for debris into the action
the 637 is like the 642 (stainless), but has an exposed hammer and hence a shorter frame behind the cylinder. it's disadvantage is the possibility of snagging and providing an entry for debris into the action
The Lone Haranguer
Member
442: Concealed hammer DAO, aluminum alloy frame, carbon steel barrel/cylinder, blued (more properly a blackened finish that resembles bluing) finish
642: Concealed hammer DAO, aluminum alloy frame, stainless steel barrel/cylinder, silvery coloration
637: Exposed hammer DA/SA, aluminum alloy frame, stainless steel barrel/cylinder, silvery coloration
Which one to choose depends largely on how you wish to carry it. If primarily for pocket carry, the concealed hammer is better; it will not snag, and you can even shoot through a pocket if necessary, however unlikely. If it is to be carried in a belt holster, especially one with a thumb break, or a shoulder holster, the spurred hammer is better.
642: Concealed hammer DAO, aluminum alloy frame, stainless steel barrel/cylinder, silvery coloration
637: Exposed hammer DA/SA, aluminum alloy frame, stainless steel barrel/cylinder, silvery coloration
Which one to choose depends largely on how you wish to carry it. If primarily for pocket carry, the concealed hammer is better; it will not snag, and you can even shoot through a pocket if necessary, however unlikely. If it is to be carried in a belt holster, especially one with a thumb break, or a shoulder holster, the spurred hammer is better.
Sorry if this is a "simple" question.
If the 442 and the 642 are the same gun, (different color), is there a difference in any quality because the barrell is made from different materials? Or is that simply to obtain the different colors?
If the 442 and the 642 are the same gun, (different color), is there a difference in any quality because the barrell is made from different materials? Or is that simply to obtain the different colors?
Last edited:
Equal quality. At one point there were issues with the clear-coat finish coming off of some 642s when coming into contact with some types of cleaning solvent. I really have no idea if that's an issue with current 642s. It was just cosmetic. You can't go wrong with either model. I have had both and still have the 442 and have put a few thousand rounds through it. I put a set of Hougue Bantam grips on mine. The only reason I sold the 642 was to fund another purchase. Sort of wish I'd kept it.
I've got a 642 and a 638 (shrouded hammer, see link).
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...angId=-1&parent_category_rn=15704&isFirearm=Y
I've carried both in high humidity (Florida vacations) and as ankle guns. No problem with wear or finish. Great guns.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...angId=-1&parent_category_rn=15704&isFirearm=Y
I've carried both in high humidity (Florida vacations) and as ankle guns. No problem with wear or finish. Great guns.
Four Knives
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2009
- Messages
- 103
442 is my preference. The finish seems to be more durable than the 642, and I like the enclosed hammer models.
I had 2 642s at different times and besides those two, I've seen a number of them with the finish flaking off, specifically on the backstrap.
I liked the 'stainless' look of the 642, but in my experience found it to look ratty under minor conditions.
Some people like finish wear as a sign of use, but I'm one of those weirdos who likes his firearms to stay looking good for as long as reasonably possible. (I also don't like rusty or splintered-handled shovels, so I know I'm a little odd in that respect.)
I had 2 642s at different times and besides those two, I've seen a number of them with the finish flaking off, specifically on the backstrap.
I liked the 'stainless' look of the 642, but in my experience found it to look ratty under minor conditions.
Some people like finish wear as a sign of use, but I'm one of those weirdos who likes his firearms to stay looking good for as long as reasonably possible. (I also don't like rusty or splintered-handled shovels, so I know I'm a little odd in that respect.)
ArchAngelCD
Member.
content
Member
Hello friends and neighbors // IMHO the 442 being blue/black is also easier to conceal and less of a focusing point for your opponent. This was my choice.(no lock)
My Father likes the SA ability and smaller profile of the 637 and bought one. (with lock)
My 14 year old sister shoots it well.
A friend thinks the stainless 642 will be less trouble and bought one. (no lock)
I hope you find whats right for you.
My Father likes the SA ability and smaller profile of the 637 and bought one. (with lock)
My 14 year old sister shoots it well.
A friend thinks the stainless 642 will be less trouble and bought one. (no lock)
I hope you find whats right for you.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
IMO any one of the J frames would have been a good choice. I carry a M642 most of the time and I'm very happy with it. I used to carry a M638 until my son "borrowed" it from me..
content
Member
Hello friends and neighbors // A fine choice, I'm certain mine will outlast me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
