Thanks guys! Sidheshooter, those were exactly the options I was down to, just from this discussion, 642, 442, or LCR.
So basically the biggest perk of the LCR is the trigger?
And what are the pros/cons of the cylinder differences of the 642 and 442?
Purely on aesthetics I would go with the 442, but if the stainless cylinder is better on the 642, I'd go with that.
So, I went to the range yesterday for a j frame outing (and a CCW seminar, what the heck...). I took my 36-1 and my 642.
What a great gun the 642 is. In some ways, it is the zenith of design for it's intended purpose. Check out some Hickock45 vids where he discusses the weight v caliber and the point of diminishing returns (and rings the 80-yard gong with it!). BTW, my original preference would have been the 442, just because I prefer the look of blue, and I find that blue sights work slightly better for me in bright light than stainless. But the no-lock 642 was right there at my LGS when I was looking, so away we went.
Along the lines of sights, tomrkba brings up some good points.
The sights could definitely be better. The LCR--especially the fiber optic version--is light years ahead in this regard. A lot of 642/442 users go with a bit of paint on the front sight (best if only on the top half, per folks like Claude Werner, and similar to the stock 340PD sight).
Grips. The whole point of the j-frame centennial is concealability. I never saw the point of putting bigger grips on a j frame; I'd rather just go with my 2" model 12 airweight K at that point. Everything comes with a cost; just depends if one can live with the price. The price of what is literally a carry-anywhere, NPE-level gun is tiny grips and more effort to get practiced up. The j will never be a Gov't 1911 in either hit potential, or carry ease on the other side of the equation.
Chamfered cylinders: wish everyone did this. But then it would be a $700-800 gun. I have mine smithed in. which leads to trigger...
I have no problem getting the hits with a stock 642 trigger, but then I've been a die-hard wheelie guy since the early 90s, including competition, pins and classwork. That won't stop me from having my guy stone up the interior and go slightly lighter on the return (once internal friction is reduced from the stoning only, and stock main coil only on CCW j frames for me!) Even the S&W performance guys reportedly claim a 25 percent reduction with such work. I could live with that.
At that point, I think I will much prefer the trigger over the LCR trigger, and here is why: I tried the range rental LCR yesterday against my 642; no doubt about it, the LCR is just a lighter pull to make it go off. That's the first thing that anyone who picks both guns up in a shop will notice: LCR=lighter pull.
But if one monitors the reset slowly and carefully, there is another side to the comparison: the S&W reset is smoother out of the box, and can be smithed into glass. That LCR reset was clacking and clanking like a Japanese pachinko machine on the way back, plus, it was hard to tell when it actually reset. A trigger that fails to give feedback against short stroking is in danger of violating the "five for sure" rule, IMHO. I am sure that those that own LCRs will point out that practice makes perfect, but you have to pick your battles. I'd rather battle the j grip/trigger finger placement compromises, since I've already gone a long ways down that road.
Also, the LCR grip really is bigger. This is both a plus and a minus, depending on application and preference.
So far as .357 chambering, I've got no dog in that fight, since I'm only a fan of stout and fierce recoil; I stop at "brutal". Again, I reference Hickock et al. re: point of diminishing returns.
That said, the guy I train with currently is a huge fan of the 340PD. There is a great case to be made for that gun--although, there is always a price. First is cost, but buying guns is fun, so I won't dwell there. The other cost is brutal recoil. The guy I train with also, in addition to being a pin winner rogers-level shot, is a darn big guy, and he hates the recoil. He spoke directly about the 340PD recoil saying that the likelihood of being involved in a shooting using his back-up piece is infinitesimal, but the likelihood of carrying it every day borders on 100 percent.
The 340PD wins for light weight. That thing is 12oz. Think about it: the 340 is as much lighter than the light .38spec LCR variation as the LCR is than the 642!
The 340 also has a half-red front sight in stock form. If money was no object, and I wanted the very definition of carry a lot and shoot a little, I'd go 340PD and an action hone from a pro. This will, of course, take me to within spitting distance of 100 bucks an ounce by the time tax and transport is figured in but, again, everything has a cost.
For about 8 bills, I can have my 642 AND get it tuned, chamfered, and have a small bead or red insert put in. And that's the price I'll end up paying to *legitimately* get away from the LCR's extra bulk, trigger reset and looks. The upside is arguably a superior carry gun by the time the modifications stack up.
For sure, other mileage may vary, but that's how I see it, fresh off of fondling everything under discussion (including that sexy 340PD) yesterday.
I figure all this pretty much goes for the 442 comparison too. Sorry about no relief there.
