contender
Member
I have pocket carried a smith for many years. During that time, i have come to the conclusion that the two best models (for me) are the 642 and 638 series. I still like the option of single action fire, though the vast majority of my practice is double action.
The 642 is better maintaince wise keeping the lint out. Only "must address" point about the smith J frames as far as I am concerned is that they all could use some smithing on the action as they tend to be rough.
Seen too many various pocket autos malfunction on the range and hear the various excuses concerning lube, limp wrist, bad mags, ejected or unseated mags, and bad ammo/picky ammo.
While I will concede that the pocket autos generally will have less felt recoil, better sights, more accuracy for longer distance, are easier to conceal, bigger payload, and faster to reload...the pocket auto still fails in the number one requirement which is near absolute reliability.
All mechanical devices can fail including revolvers. But on any given day, the revolver is more apt to deliver "5 for sure" rounds than the micro auto's 6 or 7 round payload that may or may not choke for mechanical or especially human reasons.
This is based on direct observations of others with pocket autos such as the LCP, P3at, BG380, PF9, and LC9. The problems might be rare but nevertheless they are observed over a period of time. Not so with the snubs.
So yes, the 642 does have drawbacks. But the 642 in my opinion is still the best when it comes to pocket carry. A tap/rack/bang drill I do not want to experience at hand-shake distance.
The 642 is better maintaince wise keeping the lint out. Only "must address" point about the smith J frames as far as I am concerned is that they all could use some smithing on the action as they tend to be rough.
Seen too many various pocket autos malfunction on the range and hear the various excuses concerning lube, limp wrist, bad mags, ejected or unseated mags, and bad ammo/picky ammo.
While I will concede that the pocket autos generally will have less felt recoil, better sights, more accuracy for longer distance, are easier to conceal, bigger payload, and faster to reload...the pocket auto still fails in the number one requirement which is near absolute reliability.
All mechanical devices can fail including revolvers. But on any given day, the revolver is more apt to deliver "5 for sure" rounds than the micro auto's 6 or 7 round payload that may or may not choke for mechanical or especially human reasons.
This is based on direct observations of others with pocket autos such as the LCP, P3at, BG380, PF9, and LC9. The problems might be rare but nevertheless they are observed over a period of time. Not so with the snubs.
So yes, the 642 does have drawbacks. But the 642 in my opinion is still the best when it comes to pocket carry. A tap/rack/bang drill I do not want to experience at hand-shake distance.
Last edited:
