Help me compare S&W Revolvers for CCW

[KentuckyBlue]

I am looking at the following for a carry revolver. I would appreciate your insight in trying to narrow down the field. I am considering the Crimson Trace Laser grips as well. I'm not sure if they will fit on all of these guns or not. Thanks for your comments.

My apologies. Intended to list 442, 637, 638 and 642. It appears that the only difference between the 442 and 642 is the black finish vs stainless. Are there concerns about either of these finishes that I should consider? Thank you.

 

[Bearhands]

I think you forgot "the following"?

 

[Fear Night]

The 325PD would make a sweet carry piece.

 

[Old Sarge]

A S & W 642 is on my short list.

 

[Technosavant]

The CT grips will fit any of the J frame guns. I'm guessing that's what you're considering.

.38 spl revolvers, aluminum frame
637- exposed hammer, but that hammer can snag
638- shrouded hammer, won't snag, allows SA firing, but decocking from SA could be dangerous due to the shroud.
642- DAO "hammerless", won't snag.
442- A 642, but black finish.

.357 J frames
640- like the 642, but all steel (heavier)
60- like the 637, but all steel (heavier)
340PD- very light, Scandium/aluminum frame and Ti cylinder
M&P 340- Sc/Al frame, but steel cylinder (IMO, probably a better pick than the 340PD). Either 340 will have absolutely punishing recoil with .357 loads.
M&P 360- like the 340, but exposed hammer.


There's a few other "classic" models similar to these, but that's the vast majority of the J frame ones. Of the J frames, I might lean towards the 638 or M&P 360 if I were out buying another CCW revolver.

But then, there's some Night Guards that might conceal reasonably well too (but not pocket). The 386 and 396 would be quite decent defensive revolvers.

Which ones did you have in mind, so we can get specific?

 

[KentuckyBlue]

I have edited my post to include the missing info. My apologies.

 

[snubfan]

642 w/ laser grips.You won't regret it.

 

[Ichiro]

Grips make a HUGE difference on guns of this size. Something a little bigger and fuller than the stock grips can make the gun 100% more pleasant at the range. If the extra size spoils your carry plans, however, then it's a moot point.

I had the old, hard-plastic CTCs on my 642, but sold them because they made the gun all but unshootable for me. The new CTCs are bound to be much better, but I've settled with the stock grips, pocket carry, and regular-pressure .38s.

Lightweight J-frames are an exercise in compromise.

 

[Technosavant]

Ah, ok.

As you said, 442 vs. 642 is just the finish. The 442 will show a more defined cylinder turn ring, the 642 will show burn rings around the charge holes on the front of the cylinder. Since both are aluminum, if the finish wears on the 442, you still don't need to worry about rust. IMO, it's just personal preference (well, there's availability; the 642 seems to be more plentiful).

The 637 could possibly snag on the hammer. Not that it will, it just might. To me, I don't know that such a possibility is acceptable in a CCW, especially when non-snagging models are nearly identical.

The 638, with its shrouded hammer, has the anti-snag of the 642 with the single action capability of the 637. While you won't likely be using the SA mode defensively, it is useful to see where a particular load prints in relation to the sights when practicing.

I have a 642, and don't regret it, but t'were I to re-do it, I'd probably go 638.

 

[mustang 22]

I had this same dilemma last year and price was an issue. I ended up buying the 637, so far I have been real happy with it. I like the light weight and ease of concealment. The exposed hammer could be a problem which I solved by placing my thumb over the hammer while drawing from my front pocket, as soon as the weapon clears the pocket my thumb returns to it's normal position for double action shooting or cocks the weapon for single action use. The 637 was also the least expensive of the S&W group. Granted it's not a match grade piece and not my favorite target gun but for ccw and self defence it does the job well. I am pleased with it.

 

[Oro]

I have heard the black over stainless isn't very durable - don't own one.

Also have "heard" that some of the clear coating on the alloys is touchy to cleaning solvents - e.g. - will peel.

I prefer all stainless for wear, and also the added weight for recoil control and follow-up. Put some finger-groove combats and a steel j-frame will handle like a K-frame with standard grips. My approach was to get a used 2" .38 Model 60 - a little extra weight to help with recoil, long-wearing, low maintenance stainless, and no lock to potentially fail a the wrong time.

 

[ChristopherG]

How do you plan to carry it? It makes all the difference.

Pocket carry, 642 (or maybe 638). If you get CT grips, they need to be the small ones to pocket carry.

Holster carry? Get a steel j-frame--a 60 if you're not concerned about the theoretical danger of hammer hang-up (I'm not), or a 640 if you are. The weight of a steel j-frame is not a problem in a holster.

 

[Sir Aardvark]

I carry a S&W 340PD with Crimson Trace 405 lasergrips.

I can not praise this gun enough - it is so lightweight that I nearly forget that I am carrying it.

It has its Pros and Cons:

Pros:
Incredibly lightweight - the first time I picked it up I thought it was a toy.

Cons:
Very expensive!
Brutal recoil with .357 magnum ammo - the Crimson Trace 405's really help with this.

For something that sits in my pocket all day, it can't be beat. The weight does make a big difference, but this is something that you'll have to decide.

 

[Ala Dan]

I own both, a S&W 442 and 642 .38 Special. The only thing I would be
concerned 'bout, is the fact the 442 will require more T-L-C; with some
periodic inspections, especially if carried daily under "hostile environment"
conditions~! Properly done, the 442 will last just as long as the 642.

 

[Doug S]

I really think it's hard to do better for pocket carry, than a S&W 642 in a Mika pocket holster.

 

[Snubster]

+1 to 442 needing a little bit of TLC compared to the 642. My 442 cylinder will rust if there is moisture, even for a day. But, I prefer the 442 because I prefer darker guns. Ironically, more than half of my revolvers are stainless or nickel. I guess ultimately it depends on how/where you will carry.

 

[Haywood]

If I were startting out and had the cash, knowing what I know now, I would buy the 640 for IWB carry and back it up with a 442 for pocket carry. The 640 would have to be fitted with grips that could handle 357 recoil, because I practice with my carry snubs.

 

[umc180gr]

I just bought a 442, have not shot it yet but its a sweet gun. Plan to carry it as soon as I get my papers. Can anyone recommend a nice holster for a 442? I am thinking a clip to the pants kind of one.

 

[Glock Holiday]

I carry an older Model 38-2 and I love it.

 

[ButchG17]

I've carried this Model 38 since 1980 (someone else carried it for 20 years before that), I'd go for the 638 in a flash!

 

[mrheythere]

S&W 500, but finding an ankle holster willl be challenging.

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

Model 13 or 65, three inch round butt with Bianchi Lightning grips that shroud the hammer. Wear a belt.

ECS

 

[kanderson586]

i love my 340ct for daily carry!!

 

[gcrookston]

here are my 3. I carry the 40 mostly. I prefer a steel gun after years of carrying a P230. It's been parkerized.

 

[welldoya]

I love my 642 but as somebody else mentioned, be careful with solvents such as Hoppes # 9 on the finish. Use Breakfree CLP.
I carry mine in a Mika round-cut.