The 642 club
- Thread starter fiVe
- Start date
- Status
jad0110
Member
I should clarify that I don't have personal experience with the 325PD, but know some who do and they say it smarts
!The Model 25 45ACP S&W is based on the company's N Frame, which is a pretty beefy gun. Not many people can CCW them, not unless you are a big dude! I tried concealing my smaller L Frame 686. It was possible, but that is a lot of gun to tote around. Though it is possible, I'd try one on for size if you get a chance before you buy.
I like stainless and blue about the same. Stainless is easy to maintain and it does look cool on the 686, but the blue does have a lot more character.
If you are interested in another blued revolver for CCW that isn't too painful to CCW, you could look at 2.5" S&W K Frames such as the Model 19 in 357 Magnum or the 2.75" Ruger Security/Service/Speed Six also in 357 Magnum. I'd like to pick up the latter one day to supplement my 642.
Well, from one blued finish fan to another, here's a picture of my fraternal twins:
Left: 22LR S&W K-22 Masterpiece / Model 17-0 from 1959
Right: 38 Spl S&W Model 14-4 from 1980
AStone
Member
Tel,
Welcome to THR and 642 Club.
Can't comment on the Golden Sabers although they shot well in my 9.
Only thing I'd add to Mattw's recommendations for cleaning kit.
I've recently become a convert when it comes to metal rods: don't use them.
Get either a coated rod or a carbon fiber.
And don't worry too much about cleaning after every shoot.
I'm on a more relaxed cleaning schedule now (with everything but .22).
_________
Jad, pretty pair o' 'volvers.
Welcome to THR and 642 Club.
Can't comment on the Golden Sabers although they shot well in my 9.
Only thing I'd add to Mattw's recommendations for cleaning kit.
I've recently become a convert when it comes to metal rods: don't use them.
Get either a coated rod or a carbon fiber.
And don't worry too much about cleaning after every shoot.
I'm on a more relaxed cleaning schedule now (with everything but .22).
_________
Jad, pretty pair o' 'volvers.
Changing Grips
Greetings to all!
After deciding to buy a 642 I had the good fortune tonight to find your club.
I have a few questions before placing my order. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
I want get a hard, smooth set of grips as a substitution for the factory rubber that I don't believe would be good for a pocket holster draw.
The 642 Lady Smith comes with the Dymondwood Grips, that appear to have a smooth wood finish. (I haven't seen them up close yet.)
The 642 Lady Smith will cost me $110.00 more than the 642.
The Factory Representative said that there is no difference between the two
revolvers except for the Dymondwood Grips, and the engraved Lady Smith logo.
Should I just bite the bullet and pay the extra $110.00 and buy the Lady Smith, or find out about replacing the grips on their 642?
Many thanks!
XY17
Greetings to all!
After deciding to buy a 642 I had the good fortune tonight to find your club.
I have a few questions before placing my order. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
I want get a hard, smooth set of grips as a substitution for the factory rubber that I don't believe would be good for a pocket holster draw.
The 642 Lady Smith comes with the Dymondwood Grips, that appear to have a smooth wood finish. (I haven't seen them up close yet.)
The 642 Lady Smith will cost me $110.00 more than the 642.
The Factory Representative said that there is no difference between the two
revolvers except for the Dymondwood Grips, and the engraved Lady Smith logo.
Should I just bite the bullet and pay the extra $110.00 and buy the Lady Smith, or find out about replacing the grips on their 642?
Many thanks!
XY17
Don't buy the gun for the grips.
There are a myriad of sources for smooth grips in a number of configurations for J-frame Smiths..
You can get inexpensive grips, used grips, custom grips, you name it, on E-bay. Look for J-frame round butts.
Or you can get some really nice new ones from grip makers such as Ahrends, Badger,Eagle, and Spegel.
The smooth grips are good for pocket carry, but you will pay a price in recoil. .
Get the gun you want, try the grips that come on it, and go from there.
The money you save between a LS and a 642 will buy you the best set of grips of custom grips you can find and some ammunition to boot.
Good luck.
There are a myriad of sources for smooth grips in a number of configurations for J-frame Smiths..
You can get inexpensive grips, used grips, custom grips, you name it, on E-bay. Look for J-frame round butts.
Or you can get some really nice new ones from grip makers such as Ahrends, Badger,Eagle, and Spegel.
The smooth grips are good for pocket carry, but you will pay a price in recoil. .
Get the gun you want, try the grips that come on it, and go from there.
The money you save between a LS and a 642 will buy you the best set of grips of custom grips you can find and some ammunition to boot.
Good luck.
I'm definitely not a big dude, 5'10" and 165. I tried the 25 last night and no way will I make that thing disappear. It's longer in person than I thought, and the flat butt really prints. Of course, that was with cheapo holsters... Maybe a good one would make it work.
The trigger was OK on it, but the trigger on the 4" 45ACP Thunder Ranch aitting in the case below it was much nicer. Since either would end up being a range gun (my first, all my others, including my favorite 1911, are "workers"!), the extra inch on the barrel won't matter, and the Thunder ranch is $150 less than the snubby.
I really like the look of the snubby, though. It screams "good guy" (from an old cop movie!). Can't have 'em all, though (at least *I* can't!)
I'll look out for those. Is the bluing nice on both of them? The "bluing" on my 442 isn't really blue at all, some sort of matte black finish. The only S&W's I have seen in nice blue are the larger framed guns. Perhaps I just need to keep looking. Most shops seem partial to stainless, except in "range gun" type pieces.
Your two pistolas look beautiful!! Thanks for the eye candy! Gotta get a blued revolver one of these days...
In 442 news... I shot my snubby a little last night. A little standard range ammo, but I also picked up a box of Speer Gold Dot +P snubby loads and shot a few of those along with my normal pressure 38spl. It was quite accurate and recoil wasn't nearly as bad as I thought. Only a mild stinging sensation that doesn't occur with the regular pressure ammo. Big thumbs up on that load
I Joined The Club! Comments and Questions
Hi All
I'm an occasional poster and a long time lurker. After purchasing my first gun (Springfield XD9 4") last month, I've officially joined the 642 club this week . I bought mone with Lasergrips. I fired 50 rounds at the range Wednesday night and really enjoyed it. For starters I was much more accurate at 4-5 yards than I expected. I'm not sure about the lasergrips. They are cool looking but my groups were very similar when I shut the laser off and just aimed by sight. The kick was snappy as others have described, but definitely controllable. The webbing in my hand was a little sore the next day but that's it.
I picked up a Galco stow-n-go holster so when I am ready to take it outside it will have a place. I'm in good shape but my pants are too tight to wear at 4:00, but it does ride next to my abdomen quite nicely. A trip to the tailor to let my dress pants out is coming up though so I can wear it to the side and cover with a jacket.
As far as rounds go, what do you recommend? I'm thinking 135gr Gold dots or 110gr DPX. I want something with stopping power, but without too much *kick*. Thanks!
Hi All
I'm an occasional poster and a long time lurker. After purchasing my first gun (Springfield XD9 4") last month, I've officially joined the 642 club this week
. I bought mone with Lasergrips. I fired 50 rounds at the range Wednesday night and really enjoyed it. For starters I was much more accurate at 4-5 yards than I expected. I'm not sure about the lasergrips. They are cool looking but my groups were very similar when I shut the laser off and just aimed by sight. The kick was snappy as others have described, but definitely controllable. The webbing in my hand was a little sore the next day but that's it.I picked up a Galco stow-n-go holster so when I am ready to take it outside it will have a place. I'm in good shape but my pants are too tight to wear at 4:00, but it does ride next to my abdomen quite nicely. A trip to the tailor to let my dress pants out is coming up though so I can wear it to the side and cover with a jacket.
As far as rounds go, what do you recommend? I'm thinking 135gr Gold dots or 110gr DPX. I want something with stopping power, but without too much *kick*. Thanks!
rb4browns: I really enjoy my Kramer pocket holster. In dress slacks or khakis, it looks just like a wallet. Draws nicely, too. I was considering a nice IWB for my snubby, but I think I'll stick with the pocket holster and leave the more uncomfortable (to me) IWB method of carry for my larger semiautos.
On the ammo: as I mentioned in my last post, I tried the Speer Gold Dot 135gr +P snubby load yesterday. Loved it. No real difference in time back to target, and it wasn't nearly as big of a deal as I thought. A little more sting, but at the price they run, it's not like it will be an all-the-time practice ammo for me.
On the ammo: as I mentioned in my last post, I tried the Speer Gold Dot 135gr +P snubby load yesterday. Loved it. No real difference in time back to target, and it wasn't nearly as big of a deal as I thought. A little more sting, but at the price they run, it's not like it will be an all-the-time practice ammo for me.
Hey guys, I have the 637 ( a 642 with a hammer) but would like to trade it in on a 642. My finish is worn off along some leading edges in spots but the gun is in good condition. I'd like to get the 642 so it's less likely to snag. I've pocket carried my 637 for a long time and practiced different techniques for drawing such as putting my thumb on the hammer during the draw but the more I practice the more I wish I had the 642. Wouldn't mind having a new finish too and this time I won't be using a fobus paddle holster. I did that alot with mine when I went fishing or hiking and I also carried mine in a fishing vest pocket so I was a bit hard on the finish. With a new 642 I'd only use leather and be more careful but here's the question.
How much do you think I can expect to get in trade on a new 642? My local shop wants $385.00 for a new 642. My 637 does show wear on the laquer coating but is in pretty good shape otherwise and it's about three years old.
What do you think?
Your opinions are appreciated!
God Bless
Gideon
How much do you think I can expect to get in trade on a new 642? My local shop wants $385.00 for a new 642. My 637 does show wear on the laquer coating but is in pretty good shape otherwise and it's about three years old.
What do you think?
Your opinions are appreciated!
God Bless
Gideon
jad0110
Member
xy17,
Welcome to THR and The 642 Club!
Personally, I woudn’t pay the extra $110 for the LadySmith when I can get nicer stocks for a fraction of the price. Also consider that for about $40 more than the ladysmith you can get CT Laser Grips!
Iggy offers good advice in checking out Ebay. Someone on THR recently picked up a set of 50 year old diamond magnas for $7 including shipping
!
My favorites are the Ahrends. They usually run around $60-70 plus $6 across the board for shipping. I just did my taxes tonight and am thinking of buying myself a set of matching Ahrends stocks for my blued babies (see post above), some stocks for my 686 ,and maybe some for my 642.
http://ahrendsgripsusa.com/index.htm
This pic comes from their website; I think these stocks would look pretty spectacular on a 642 (their grips are also available without finger grooves and in round-to-square butt conversion formats):
loplop,
The picture above is of a S&W K Frame. Judge for yourself, but I think she's pretty spellbounding! In general, Ruger's blueing isn't usually as deep and lustrous as S&W blueing (though the Ruger Security/Service/Speed Sixes are stonger in the forcing cone dept than the K Frames). It is more like the low shine finish of the S&W Model 28 Highway Patrolman.
For all those who have a warm place in their heart for blued revolvers, be sure to check out this thread if you haven't already: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=209667
Enough blued honnies their to make your head spin!
Welcome to THR and The 642 Club!
Personally, I woudn’t pay the extra $110 for the LadySmith when I can get nicer stocks for a fraction of the price. Also consider that for about $40 more than the ladysmith you can get CT Laser Grips!
Iggy offers good advice in checking out Ebay. Someone on THR recently picked up a set of 50 year old diamond magnas for $7 including shipping
!My favorites are the Ahrends. They usually run around $60-70 plus $6 across the board for shipping. I just did my taxes tonight and am thinking of buying myself a set of matching Ahrends stocks for my blued babies (see post above), some stocks for my 686 ,and maybe some for my 642.
http://ahrendsgripsusa.com/index.htm
This pic comes from their website; I think these stocks would look pretty spectacular on a 642 (their grips are also available without finger grooves and in round-to-square butt conversion formats):
loplop,
The picture above is of a S&W K Frame. Judge for yourself, but I think she's pretty spellbounding! In general, Ruger's blueing isn't usually as deep and lustrous as S&W blueing (though the Ruger Security/Service/Speed Sixes are stonger in the forcing cone dept than the K Frames). It is more like the low shine finish of the S&W Model 28 Highway Patrolman.
For all those who have a warm place in their heart for blued revolvers, be sure to check out this thread if you haven't already: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=209667
Enough blued honnies their to make your head spin!
Dear Iggy & jad0110,
Thank you for welcoming me to THR and The 642 Club, and for your excellent suggestions. I certainly don't want to increase the recoil.
Now you have me seriously considering adding on the CT Lasergrip. The weight is the same. How is the pocket draw with the Lasergrip? Is there anything negative about having a Lasergrip? (other then my sweating about the extra $150.00)
The Ahrends stocks look pretty neat on the blue. Philip Marlowe would like having it in his holster.
Best,
XY17
Thank you for welcoming me to THR and The 642 Club, and for your excellent suggestions. I certainly don't want to increase the recoil.
Now you have me seriously considering adding on the CT Lasergrip. The weight is the same. How is the pocket draw with the Lasergrip? Is there anything negative about having a Lasergrip? (other then my sweating about the extra $150.00)
The Ahrends stocks look pretty neat on the blue. Philip Marlowe would like having it in his holster.
Best,
XY17
xy17
There are several variations of the CT grips.
Some of the newer versions are more comfortable to shoot but not quite as good for pocket carry if that is your wish.
My wife swiped mine and put them on her Mdl 36. They are the older "hard" models.View attachment 291817
I think the CT grips are a worthwhile investment. The 36 is her carry gun and is on her nightstand every night
I have a set on a 1911 that rests on my nightstand each night.
They don't replace iron sights and proper marksmanship, but two of those red dots on a BG's chest may give him something to think about if the dog doesn't eat him first.
There are several variations of the CT grips.
Some of the newer versions are more comfortable to shoot but not quite as good for pocket carry if that is your wish.
My wife swiped mine and put them on her Mdl 36. They are the older "hard" models.View attachment 291817
I think the CT grips are a worthwhile investment. The 36 is her carry gun and is on her nightstand every night
I have a set on a 1911 that rests on my nightstand each night.
They don't replace iron sights and proper marksmanship, but two of those red dots on a BG's chest may give him something to think about if the dog doesn't eat him first.
Last edited:
Gargoyle357
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 38
Not with CT-405 Laser Grips included it isn't.
Last edited:
erikd65
Member
Is it me or does the Speer Gold Dot 38. Special 135gr. ammo weigh more?
This ammo seems to put a lot more weight on the S&W 642... and I can notice it. Is it me or is this true?
This ammo seems to put a lot more weight on the S&W 642... and I can notice it. Is it me or is this true?
Iggy
I like your wood grips a lot. The ones from Lightning Arms Sports are just the type I had in mind. Here's another question: The 642 .38 Special +P weighs
15 ounces. About how much does it weigh in at when loaded with Speer Gold Dot 135 Grain +P HP or Cor-Bon DPX 110 Grain?
Thanx!
XY17
I like your wood grips a lot. The ones from Lightning Arms Sports are just the type I had in mind. Here's another question: The 642 .38 Special +P weighs
15 ounces. About how much does it weigh in at when loaded with Speer Gold Dot 135 Grain +P HP or Cor-Bon DPX 110 Grain?
Thanx!
XY17
xds&gsps
Member
Proud Papa!
As of today I am the proud new owner of a SW 642 Airweight. It is actually for my wife as soon as she gets her cwp, but until then it is my bug.
As of today I am the proud new owner of a SW 642 Airweight. It is actually for my wife as soon as she gets her cwp, but until then it is my bug.
fastbolt
Member
Damn.
Back a couple of years ago I was trying to tell anyone who would listen at the factory that S&W ought to offer the 642 with a Scandium frame, just to make a good revolver even better. Even stronger.
I don't particularly care for titanium cylinders, especially since the J-frames which have them aren't recommended for use with all-lead bullet ammunition. I still like the 158gr LHP +P load, even though I've been carrying the Speer 135gr GDHP +P.
Now they've gone and done something close enough to make it interesting. The new M&P 340 Centennial. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...ted=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=15702
Stainless steel cylinder ... blackened. Cool enough.
Scandium frame. Nice. Strong enough.
XS front night sight. Icing on the cake.
Damn. Might have to buy one now.
The .357 Magnum chambering is likely a 'plus' for which I wouldn't have much use, although I could possibly see occasionally loading it with Winchester's 145gr STHP, which has always seemed to be a medium-type load when it came to felt recoil.
Of course, I really need to call and ask about any ammunition restrictions for this new revolver, though, since the weight is approx 1.7 oz less than the 642, and yet approx 1.3 oz heavier than the regular 340 Airlite. Hmmm. Might still be interested even if it's only recommended for jacketed ammunition.
Damn ...
Like I need a fourth J-frame ...
Back a couple of years ago I was trying to tell anyone who would listen at the factory that S&W ought to offer the 642 with a Scandium frame, just to make a good revolver even better. Even stronger.
I don't particularly care for titanium cylinders, especially since the J-frames which have them aren't recommended for use with all-lead bullet ammunition. I still like the 158gr LHP +P load, even though I've been carrying the Speer 135gr GDHP +P.
Now they've gone and done something close enough to make it interesting. The new M&P 340 Centennial. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...ted=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=15702
Stainless steel cylinder ... blackened. Cool enough.
Scandium frame. Nice. Strong enough.
XS front night sight. Icing on the cake.
Damn. Might have to buy one now.
The .357 Magnum chambering is likely a 'plus' for which I wouldn't have much use, although I could possibly see occasionally loading it with Winchester's 145gr STHP, which has always seemed to be a medium-type load when it came to felt recoil.
Of course, I really need to call and ask about any ammunition restrictions for this new revolver, though, since the weight is approx 1.7 oz less than the 642, and yet approx 1.3 oz heavier than the regular 340 Airlite. Hmmm. Might still be interested even if it's only recommended for jacketed ammunition.
Damn ...
Like I need a fourth J-frame ...
Last edited:
AStone
Member
Two new clubs
As a result of the raging success of this club, two other clubs have sprung up:
Jad and I are already members of the former. It promises to be very interesting. It's already growing very fast.
I started the 336 Club just a while ago. If there are any 336 owners in here, come on by.
As a result of the raging success of this club, two other clubs have sprung up:
Jad and I are already members of the former. It promises to be very interesting. It's already growing very fast.
I started the 336 Club just a while ago. If there are any 336 owners in here, come on by.
fastbolt
Member
The 15 oz. Airweight 642 can be used with all-lead bullet ammunition since it has a steel cylinder instead of the titanium cylinder.
It's the Airlites with their titanium cylinders that may have problems with non-jacketed bullet ammunition.
Since the new M&P 340 seems to be a little lighter than the 442/642 models, even with a steel cylinder, I don't yet know whether S&W considers them suitable for use with all-lead ammunition.
Of course, it's a wise idea to not only make sure the manufacturer doesn't have any specific recommendations or precautionary warnings with any model, but to also check to see whether the ammunition selected exhibits any issues in a particular gun.
Here's the warning on page 14 in the S&W Revolver Manual:
AMMUNITION WARNING FOR Ti, Sc, PD Series REVOLVERS
Before placing any of these reduced weight revolvers into
service, perform the following test to determine the suitability
of the ammunition you intend to use.
At a gun range or other suitable and safe location, prepare your
revolver for firing by fully loading its cylinder with the ammunition
to be tested. While pointing the firearm in a safe direction, fire all
but the last round. Remove the empty casings and the last
loaded round from the revolver’s cylinder.
Carefully inspect the loaded round to determine if its bullet
has started to unseat (move forward) from its casing.(Figure 2)
If it has, you should not use the tested ammunition in your
revolver. Choose another projectile weight or brand of
ammunition and repeat this test until you find one that
DOES NOT UNSEAT under these test conditions. When you
are finished, fully unload your revolver and secure it safely.
ALL SCANDIUM REVOLVERS FIRING MAGNUM AMMUNITION
WARNING: DO NOT USE MAGNUM® LOADINGS WITH BULLET WEIGHTS OF LESS THAN 120 GR. THIS WILL REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF PREMATURE CYLINDER EROSION.
One of our folks mentioned that he previously experienced some issues with even jacketed bullets even jumping their crimps while he was shooting his Taurus total titanium snub revolver. He said he didn't remember the ammunition brand and bullet weight involved, though.
I'm simply hoping the new M&P J-frames with the stainless steel cylinders are of sufficient weight and mass to permit them to be used with all-lead ammunition. Otherwise, I'll have to limit myself to using the 158gr LHP +P in my 642-1 (which is rated for +P), and use one or another jacketed .38 SPL +P or .357 Magnum JHP in the M&P Centennial ... if I decide to get it.
I've been interested in a +P rated 638, too. My older all-steel 649 isn't rated for continuous use of +P, and I've been thinking about either getting a newer one (even though it's actually chambered in .357 Magnum), and/or a 638 Airweight (just chambered in .38 SPL +P). Dunno yet.
It's just that the J-frames are such handy guns for revolver users for some lawful concealment circumstances, and I happen to like how easily I can carry one off-duty.
It's the Airlites with their titanium cylinders that may have problems with non-jacketed bullet ammunition.
Since the new M&P 340 seems to be a little lighter than the 442/642 models, even with a steel cylinder, I don't yet know whether S&W considers them suitable for use with all-lead ammunition.
Of course, it's a wise idea to not only make sure the manufacturer doesn't have any specific recommendations or precautionary warnings with any model, but to also check to see whether the ammunition selected exhibits any issues in a particular gun.
Here's the warning on page 14 in the S&W Revolver Manual:
AMMUNITION WARNING FOR Ti, Sc, PD Series REVOLVERS
Before placing any of these reduced weight revolvers into
service, perform the following test to determine the suitability
of the ammunition you intend to use.
At a gun range or other suitable and safe location, prepare your
revolver for firing by fully loading its cylinder with the ammunition
to be tested. While pointing the firearm in a safe direction, fire all
but the last round. Remove the empty casings and the last
loaded round from the revolver’s cylinder.
Carefully inspect the loaded round to determine if its bullet
has started to unseat (move forward) from its casing.(Figure 2)
If it has, you should not use the tested ammunition in your
revolver. Choose another projectile weight or brand of
ammunition and repeat this test until you find one that
DOES NOT UNSEAT under these test conditions. When you
are finished, fully unload your revolver and secure it safely.
ALL SCANDIUM REVOLVERS FIRING MAGNUM AMMUNITION
WARNING: DO NOT USE MAGNUM® LOADINGS WITH BULLET WEIGHTS OF LESS THAN 120 GR. THIS WILL REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF PREMATURE CYLINDER EROSION.
One of our folks mentioned that he previously experienced some issues with even jacketed bullets even jumping their crimps while he was shooting his Taurus total titanium snub revolver. He said he didn't remember the ammunition brand and bullet weight involved, though.
I'm simply hoping the new M&P J-frames with the stainless steel cylinders are of sufficient weight and mass to permit them to be used with all-lead ammunition. Otherwise, I'll have to limit myself to using the 158gr LHP +P in my 642-1 (which is rated for +P), and use one or another jacketed .38 SPL +P or .357 Magnum JHP in the M&P Centennial ... if I decide to get it.
I've been interested in a +P rated 638, too. My older all-steel 649 isn't rated for continuous use of +P, and I've been thinking about either getting a newer one (even though it's actually chambered in .357 Magnum), and/or a 638 Airweight (just chambered in .38 SPL +P). Dunno yet.
It's just that the J-frames are such handy guns for revolver users for some lawful concealment circumstances, and I happen to like how easily I can carry one off-duty.
- Status
