I am looking at a 438 or a 638 for a pocket carried gun/BUG/NPE gun... I have read that the black finish is tougher than the "stainless" finish. I'm asking for real world advice. Any reason to favor one versus the other?



Seems the 638 is more common around these parts, but I think I'd prefer the black finish of the 438.



Both have the ILS, which I plan to disable/eliminate/plug. As far as I can tell, they don't currently make these models without the ILS.

The only models smith makes without the ILS is the enclosed hammer models. The 438 is kind of a rare bird. The finish on the frame will last a little longer on the 438 but the cylinder and barrel is carbon steel verses the stainless of the 638. Really it is a toss up. It may come down to wanting a highly visible gun or a low visibility gun. Arguments can be made for the purpose of either. Why are you so set on the shrouded hammers?

I say 638.

I like to be able to cock it on the range to shoot targets farther away in single action . Also the stainless steel is better for concealed carry close to the body. The finish is durable when exposed to sweat over time and easy to clean. Just wipe down with CLP regularly and it will always look new.

Carried 638 for some years.  Never had any finish problems.

This in red is good info. I prefer non-shiny carry guns, is the reason I prefer black. But, having a gun that is more impervious to the elements would be nice. I'm used to being spoiled by frying pan Glock finishes. I may end up with a 638... Though I wonder how hard it would be to get the steel parts ceracoated or similar.



As for shrouded hammers, I want a pocketable gun, but like the capability to hand cock the hammer if desired. I have heard the humpbacks tend to stay in place in the pocket better than the enclosed DAO guns. Most of my practice will be DA. The utility of SA vs DA isn't really a big deal... nor is the looks of the gun. The humpbacks are ugly, for sure, but not as ugly as a Ruger LCR.



I normally carry a G19 and this would be a second gun for winter coat pocket carry, backup duty, and a lounge around the house/check the mail/mow the lawn gun. I have a P-32 that I sometimes carry, but want to try the J-frame for a more potent pocket gun. Practicing with the DA trigger can't hurt my Glock shooting either.



Thanks for the comments so far guys.
 

I actually own one of each.

The frame finish on the 638 began to wear fairly quickly.  The 438 has only just gotten into my carry rotation over the past year but it's holding up well.

Were I to buy another one, I'd probably buy another 438. Not so much for any perceived increase in durability but simply because, like yourself, I prefer more muted / dark carry guns.

I see the need for a black or blued handgun more than a bright one. I wouldn't worry about the rust on the 438 cylinder or barrel too much. I can't say I have ever seen it interfere with the function on a 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, or even 438. If you are willing to go with a centennial model the 442 Pro is a great value and will give you the stainless cylinder and barrel with the black finish. You also gain the ability to use moonclips if you desire and it does not have the dreaded lock.

I too vote for the 442 Pro with no lock.

The moon clip cut doesn't really appeal to me... I have read of issues with certain brands of brass not working with them, and also of them bending and becoming useless, or worse, locking a gun up. I know the gun can work without them... so it's not a a huge problem either way. As far as I can tell the 442 Pro doesn't have any action work, etc, so that leaves the only reason to go with one being the lack of the ILS... which can be eliminated fairly easily in any case. Not sure it'd be worth the markup.



I will probably eventually get a Crimson Trace laser as well. If I find a deal on one that is already installed, I may go that route.



At this point, I'll probably end up with the 638, as it appears the 438 is not currently in production with S&W... though there are some floating around out there on the internet.



 

The primary reason to get a 442 Pro is to get the stainless barrel and cylinder. I love the black finish because it works well for me with a hiding spot in my wrangler since I can't carry into my work. Except maybe some scandium models, I can't think of a black Smith that is stainless except the 442 Pro. The 442 Performance Center that a friend of mine owns does have a spring kit and a stainless barrel. I was disappointed to see the carbon steel barrel. I have a 360j, but it does have a carbon steel cylinder, and it has minor rust. I hear some are made with a SS cylinder but there isn't a way to easily tell until it gets some wear on it.

I plan to buy a 442 pro and only use the moonclips for the first five rounds. I never realized how nice the moonclips were for positive extraction. I am like you, I don't care for carrying reloads with moonclips because the can be somewhat fragile. However, I have gotten a case rim under the extractor and that was an eye opener. There are as many reasons to use moonclips as there is not to use them.

Speaking of bending, if you get a shrouded hammer Smith be cautious to not drop it on the shroud. If they get bent it will lock the gun up.

I got one of the first 442 Pros that were made (waited 6 months to be made, which was ok as I was in Astan).  I carry mine also with the moon clip for positive extraction and speed strips in the left rear pocket (442 is in front pocket).  I live on the NC coastline and never had any rust issues.


CD

I had not considered that. Something to research.



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Revisiting this again... According to the 2016 S&W catalog, the 442 Pro has a carbon steel cylinder. See the top of page 72...



http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/other/2016_Catalog_REV052216.pdf



They sure don't make it easy to decipher their model numbering/SKU scheme...



I've seen it mentioned in many many places that the Pro's were stainless cylinder, and possibly the barrel too, so I wonder if it's a typo, or a recent change to the model.



 

The shrouded guns have a much better DA trigger pull, but you can get lint in them and if you are ill disciplined you'll shoot it in single instead of double action.

The 2012 S&W catalog also stated that the 442 Pro had a carbon steel cylinder. Multiple people on the S&W forums have called and confirmed that the 442 Pro does get stainless parts.

That is the first time I have heard of shrouded guns getting better triggers. Honestly, they all feel the same to me. Since he included hammer guns do not have the hammer block you would think they would be lighter or smoother in the action. In my dozen or so J frames I can't really tell a difference in any of them.

By shrouded I meant the hump backed ones with Spurs. The centennials with a fully enclosed hammer have the worst triggers of them all.

Just as an update to this thread, I am picking up a 442 Pro tomorrow. After I get some dryfire time in, I might order a Wilson Combat spring kit for it.



I may still pick up a 438 or 638 in the future.



Thanks for all the information, folks!

I think you will be very happy! It is super easy to instal the spring kits, but please use the right sized screwdriver. The triggers smooth out a lot with dry fire and range firing.

I am going to dryfire the piss out of it before I buy the spring kit. The DA pull on this example is pretty smooth, if a bit heavy. With any luck I'll pop a few rounds through it tomorrow.