Not all 642's shoot +P

[MonRiver]

Hello everyone! This is my first real post here. I commented on a thread, but I don't count that!

I recently won a $1200 gift card for a local gun store through a fund raiser. I decided to buy the .44 Magnum I've always wanted and brought home a nice, new, Ruger Super Redhawk, ammo, powder for loading, dies, and targets. It was a great win!

Anyway, my interest in revolvers was rekindled. And I pulled my 642-1 out of the safe to clean, oil, take to the range, practice, and start carrying again. (I'm carrying a Sig P938 now.) While cleaning the 642, I noticed the barrel didn't have the +P designation that's stamped on the newer Airweights--I bought this gun new in 1996. I looked in the manual and noticed 642 wasn't rated for +P on the chart. However, I have a 642-1. So, I emailed Smith and Wesson.

They got back to me in a few days and stated that, and I'm quoting from their email,

"Hi Brad,

We began rating our revolvers for +P ammunition in 1997 so we wouldn't recommend its use in that 642-1 you have.

Smith&Wesson values its customers and we are happy to have served you today. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require further assistance.

Regards, Nate"

Glad I asked!

Looks like I'm ordering some Buffalo Bore .38 Special for Short Barrel.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

In 1997 S&W switched to their "Magnum" frame and rated those guns for + P. From what I'm told if you carry +P ammo in your M642-1 and on the outside chance you needed to use it, it would not cause a catastrophic failure. It will probably accelerate the frame stretching though. I'm not telling you to shoot +P in your revolver, only what I was told a few years back.

 

[bassjam]

In 1997 S&W switched to their "Magnum" frame and rated those guns for + P. From what I'm told if you carry +P ammo in your M642-1 and on the outside chance you needed to use it, it would not cause a catastrophic failure. It will probably accelerate the frame stretching though. I'm not telling you to shoot +P in your revolver, only what I was told a few years back.

What's different in the frame? Are the pre 96 guns smaller, or are the newer frames the same size, just stronger?

 

[cfullgraf]

The J frames that can shoot 357 Magnum are a bit longer to accept a longer 357 Magnum cylinder than the 38 Special only guns. I do not remember if they made some other areas a bit beefier as well.

S&W quickly standardized on the magnum J-frame for all J-frame models.

I have a 642-1 that I purchased in 1999. It is built on the magnum J-frame and is marked 38 Spl +P.

 

[MonRiver]

The J frames that can shoot 357 Magnum are a bit longer to accept a longer 357 Magnum cylinder than the 38 Special only guns. I do not remember if they made some other areas a bit beefier as well.

S&W quickly standardized on the magnum J-frame for all J-frame models.

I have a 642-1 that I purchased in 1999. It is built on the magnum J-frame and is marked 38 Spl +P.

Mine doesn't have the +P stamp, which prompted my email.

I wonder why the model wasn't changed to 642-2 when they made the frame change?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

What's different in the frame? Are the pre 96 guns smaller, or are the newer frames the same size, just stronger?

I "think" the magnum frame is slightly larger and beefed up at the stress points to withstand the greater pressures. I doubt you would notice the difference when carrying in your front pocket.

 

[cfullgraf]

The "Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson, 4th ed." says the 642 no dash was discontinued in 1993.

The book says the 642-1 was re-introduced in 1996 in the magnum frame and were rated for 38 Special +P. (This needs to be taken with a grain of salt given the OP's gun markings and info from S&W).

In 1997 or so, the barrel markings were all moved to the left side leaving the right side bare. My 1999 642-1's markings are on the left side.

Maybe S&W did not update the roll marking in 1996 when the re-introduced the 642 but that is only a guess on my part. I'd follow S&W's advice or dig some more and find someone at S&W that is more knowledgable.

I've read some information on other issues on old recalls with S&W revolvers where folks have gotten different information from different folks.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

Nothing new here. Regardless of what the Standard Catalog of S&W says about it...ain't right even though a couple of very knowledgable fellows wrote those books.

My 642-1 was bought NIB in 1996 or 97. I'd have to dig out the receipt to find out for sure. It is not rated for +P and is not roll marked, stamped, nor etched in any way to indicate that it is.

A call to S&W years ago confirmed my gun was not +P rated. When the S&W employee asked for and was given the serial number his reply was "Your 642-1 is not +P rated. It is too old."

And that is all I know about that.

 

[JellyJar]

Well I am certain I bought my 442-1 in 1994 ( it has an MIM trigger ) and I thought it was rated for +P but now that I look at it again I don't see any indication it is rated for +P. I have not really shot it that much and then only standard 38s because of the recoil. I now have is loaded with standard 38s so I guess I am good to go.

 

[Gary A]

It has always been my understanding that the 642-1 indicates the J-magnum frame with the elongated cylinder stop milled as part of the frame and not a "button" press fit into the frame. Additionally the frame is slightly longer to accommodate a longer cylinder and also has radiused or rounded corners of the cylinder window to better take the stress of hotter ammo than the original squared corners of earlier J-frames. I have no idea if there was any change to the type or strength of the aluminum used for the frame. It is also my understanding and memory that Smith and Weston did not begin to advertise their J-frames as being Plus P capable until Taurus began a rather large advertising campaign sometime during the mid 90s touting the plus P capability of their small frame Model 85 ultra-light .38 revolvers. Shortly after the Taurus media blitz, Smith and Wesson decided/discovered their Airweights could handle Plus P ammo. (Wink, wink!). Not criticizing Smith, just saying much of the Plus P hype was driven by marketing pressure to get sales.

 

[cfullgraf]

Here the barrel marking on a later 642-1.

The second photo shows the longer cylinder in the magnum J-frame. The left gun is the 642-1, the other is a mid-1980s 38 Special Model 60-1.