S&W 642 Recoil?

[johnnylaw53]

When I went back to the snub for carry i went with the 642 in the past carried older mod. 60 had a Colt DS for awhile too. the webb of my hand had skin torn off with the 642. I try a couple of other grips and had problems too. I really wanted to stay with the snub due to my bad luck with small auto's. I thought about a 640 for more weight but the lightness of the X42's is what i really like due to being able to carry it so many ways. I then found my old style grips that use to be on my mod. 60. Got a new tyler-t adapter and it seems to work for me. After the range you know you been shooting but it doesn't tear my had up anymore.

be safe

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Shooting Airweight J-frame .38's isn't much fun for novice shooters...

It's not even much fun for experienced shooters unless your definition of fun is something I'm unfamiliar with. +1 on the steel frames. Much easier to control, more FUN to shoot, still easy to carry.

 

[swampshooter]

S&w642

My ccw is a S&W342, same gun only scandium, so it kicks even more. For a while i carried factory wadcutters in it which tamed it down immensely, but chronograph-ed velocity was only about 650 fps. I'm now using Federal 110 jhp, low recoil bullets. The recoil isn't much more than the wadcutters, velocity in snub is 900 fps. Not really a powerhouse but then it is a 12 oz. pocket pistol. If you stay with the .38spec. any number of loads are available that will tame the recoil and still be much more effective than a .22. Wild Bill Hickok sent many men to boot hill using a .36 cal. cap & ball revolver. Lead ball at about 850-900 fps.

 

[.380awsome]

i have an older model 36 chief special and it has manageable recoil,i love it,but since its a 642 airweight making it lighter,ya i have no clue,but im sure its not quite as pleasant

 

[Meeteetse]

I taught an NRA women's handgun course for 20 years and the one thing that I learned is that women can do more than men think they can. I had women who shot everything from .22's to .44's, but the one gun none of them liked was the lightweight J-frame guns, even with light loads.

If they wanted a small revolver most liked the Ruger SP-101 because of the additional weight, and even then most chose 110 gr. loads or wadcutters. If the gun is to be used for concealed carry, the Ruger is a great choice. If the gun is to be mostly a house gun I recommend the medium frame S&W's and the GP Series of the Ruger.

If you can borrow or rent several guns and let your mom shoot them, that would be the best solution. In any case, keep the loads light to start with. She may move to stronger loads later, but don't scare her off at the beginning.

 

[M1911]

I taught an NRA women's handgun course for 20 years and the one thing that I learned is that women can do more than men think they can. I had women who shot everything from .22's to .44's, but the one gun none of them liked was the lightweight J-frame guns, even with light loads.

I've got no doubt that most women have more tolerance for pain than most men. If that wasn't the case, no women would have more than a single child

But my experience as an instructor mirrors yours. I haven't had a single female student who liked the airweight.

 

[Racinbob]

I had a 642 for a while. Sweet to carry but I swear, it hated humans. I don't mind a stout recoil but it just wasn't fun to shoot. I ended up selling it. Not just because of the recoil but I also enjoy shooting single action and I hated the lock. Found an older 60 in great shape. Even with +p's (keep it limited) it is easy on the hand. I just put in a Wolff 15# rebound and 8# mainspring and did some polishing. Very nice!!!! After a few trips to the range to make sure it doesn't light strike it will replace my PM9 as my carry. Only in a nightmare would I pull the trigger on a .357 in the 11.4 oz 340.

 

[Stainz]

The 642/442 were never designed to be plinkers - they are for that moment when fecal matter has impacted the air movement device. To be effective, they must be carried - always. To be carried, they must be light weight and small. Also, to be effective, they must have decent ammo. Sights are less important at the 3yd or less range they would typically be used at - but proper operation is still important. For lighter recoil, and still able to do some damage, consider the target round - 148gr LWC - full wadcutters.

If they will be a purse/bag gun, consider a slightly larger grip. For pocket carry - leave those OEM boots on. You must be able to carry it easily - or it will be locked away at home when you really need it - Murphy's law is quite exacting on this.

My wife is not small - 5'10" - but still hates the 642 with +P 158gr LHPSWCs that I alternate with a similar-but-larger 296 5-shot .44 Special for carry in pocket Mikas holsters. Her bedside/car gun is a 2" 10 with those +Ps - but her pocket/purse gun is a Seecamp .32, the only evil-bottom-feeder in the house - and it's her gun. Yeah, it was a bit more than a new 642/442, too. Gotta get something they'll carry!

Stainz

 

[Stainz]

Double - sorry!

 

[indiandave]

If you reload she could try a light wadcutter load. something like a 148gr. over 3.00 of winchester 231. Also what fiVe said a covered back strap makes a big difference in taming recoil.

 

[squinty]

hogues, j-frame, beginners

So what's wrong with belt carry for a small j-frame revolver? Hogue rubber grips do make a huge difference in controllability, and even with the big rubber grips the j-frame hides under a long t-shirt just fine, though pocket carry isn't really possible, and it rides more comfortably on a belt than a full-size gun. With the hogue grip my GF puts 50 or more rounds of +p downrange, with enough accuracy to embarass me (I'm supposedly teaching her to shoot, but her groups are usually smaller than mine) before her hand starts to fatigue. After 55 or 60 rounds she gets tired, but not blistered or sore, and the 638 airweight is her first gun. A trigger job would be nice, but she get's 8" groups at 25-30 yards with the stock sights and trigger, firing about a shot per second, which I think is great for a snubnose in the hands of a novice shooter. At self defense ranges - 7 yards or so - it will make a hole in a bad guy. I don't have nearly the experience of some, such as m1911, and generally defer to their greater expertise - I only have my ccw course and lot's of plinking, and surely couldn't cut it in IDPA or IPSC - so this is just my mileage varying. But I like shooting my j-frame, and don't see it as impossible for the novice at all.

 

[M1911]

So what's wrong with belt carry for a small j-frame revolver?

1) If I'm going to carry a small revolver in a belt holster, then I can just as easily carry an SP101 rather than my 642. The heavier SP101 has much less felt recoil.

2) If I'm going to carry a gun in a belt holster, I can just as easily carry my Kimber Compact Aluminum frame. Now I have 6+1, rather than 5 shots, my reloads are much faster, and it has real sights. In addition, the Kimber is narrower than the revolver, and so is easier for me to conceal.

3) Belt carry is often not an option for many women, due to the styles of clothing that they prefer.

For me, the only point to a snub revolver is pocket carry, and this is especially true of the airweights.

 

[Photoman]

squinty wrote: "she get's 8" groups at 25-30 yards with the stock sights and trigger, firing about a shot per second, which I think is great for a snubnose in the hands of a novice shooter."

If she's shooting 8" groups at 30 yards with an Airweight, I don't think she qualifies as a novice any longer!

 

[krs]

My wife's 642 is loaded with target wadcutters. It's almost pleasant to shoot and I think that lead wadcutters make a nasty defense bullet. A person solar plexus'd with one of those WILL NOT breath for quite a while even if the round doesn't penetrate the slob at all. 148 gr of flatnosed little sledge hammer at 800 fps. THUMP!

 

[Photoman]

KRS: FYI; Factory loaded 148gr wadcutters will not run 800fps out of a snub. Probably wont run 800fps out of any gun. Not that it matters, but thought you might like to know.

 

[johnnylaw53]

So what's wrong with belt carry for a small j-frame revolver?

There nothing wrong with belt carry for a small j-frame. The airweights really come to their own in the pocket or ankle which is the two worse places to carry a weapon too hard to get to in many siturations but due to dress and other things sometimes the only options. I have used both many times. What i like about the airweights is that it fit these options very well but most of the time my 642 ride on my belt in a IWB and sometimes just a belt slide. It very true if the only way you going to carry is on the belt you are best served with a larger weapon I don't like changing weapons for the way I'm dress I think just changeing how i carry the same weapon from time to time is better. The least number of weapons you need to train with the better your chances are if you ever have to use it.

Be safe

 

[M1911]

The least number of weapons you need to train with the better your chances are if you ever have to use it.

Good point.

Personally, I've migrated to a Kimber Compact for belt carry and a Kahr PM9 for pocket carry. The PM9 doesn't have a safety, but otherwise its operating devices (location of slide stop and mag release) are very similar to the Kimber Compact.

 

[Headless]

I read people saying that a .44 magnum feels easier to shoot than a 642 and it makes me wonder what the heck they're shooting. I mean really, comparing 1500fps 200gr rounds to a 850fps 158gr in recoil? They really feel the same? I think people seriously exxagerate in descriptions of these guns recoil.

The first time you shoot it, you are surprised, but if you put 300 or 500 rounds downrange through one of these guns across a month or so you will get used to it - and with larger grips that cover the backstrap of the gun with rubber, it's quite pleasant to shoot. Last time i went out to the range i put 100 .38+P and 100 standard 130gr target through my 642 with the stock grips without any uncomfortable sensation at all. I've put perhaps 2500 through the gun total now - not a huge amount.

Compared to firing a 686+ in .357magnum, a much heavier gun with a 6 in barrel, which threatened to fly out of my grip with every shot, the 642 with .38+P feels like shooting a .22. Furthermore, my girlfriend loves my little 642 and wants one of her own, so mass generalizing about women not liking it isn't too accurate.

That said, if they are a new shooter, they'll likely have a bad grip and not like the muzzle blast and flash from the cylinder gap; i'd go with the aforementioned 432PD - start her with 32s&w and then move up to some 32magnum loads.

 

[M1911]

I read people saying that a .44 magnum feels easier to shoot than a 642 and it makes me wonder what the heck they're shooting.

I never said that.

For me, when I shoot the 642 the trigger guard smacks my fingers. The pain isn't in the palm of my hand, but in my finger. It wouldn't surprise me if different people have different experiences with the gun -- I suspect that part of it is how the grip fits (or doesn't fit) my hand. For me, it just isn't very comfortable.

As for my .44 Magnum, I usually shoot .44 Spcl through it, so that might tell you something, lol.

 

[twoclones]

I read people saying that a .44 magnum feels easier to shoot than a 642

I'd liken shooting my 642 w/LG-405 CT grips to shooting .357s in my model 327 with stock rubber grips. No pain but kicks more than a much heavier gun like a Ruger Blackhawk.

My 5' tall girlfriend is an experienced shooter but the 642 was a bit too much for her...

 

[Headless]

As for my .44 Magnum, I usually shoot .44 Spcl through it, so that might tell you something, lol.

that'd explain it I did find that .44spl was quite mild recoil-wise on the occasion I had to shoot it from a steel framed charter arms revolver.

 

[M1911]

that'd explain it I did find that .44spl was quite mild recoil-wise on the occasion I had to shoot it from a steel framed charter arms revolver.

I shoot .44spcl (rarely) out of one of these:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...d=10001&productId=65446&langId=-1&isFirearm=Y

Yes, it is .44Spcl is mild out of that monster.

 

[RugerSAFan]

I made the mistake of recommending the 642 to my brother who had never shot before. He made the purchase, but didn't find it to be enjoyable. My guess is he never fired more than a box of ammo.

He has since taken up golf.

In hindsight, I should have recommended the S&W M60 or the Ruger SP101.

 

[M1911]

In hindsight, I should have recommended the S&W M60 or the Ruger SP101.

I've got one of each. I find they have much less felt recoil than the 642. However, both are too heavy for me to carry in a pocket. On the other hand, a friend of mine uses his SP101 for pocket carry. YMMV.