Posted: 7/31/2011 3:40:43 PM EDT
| Recently I have been in the market for a pocket/back-up ankle ankle gun. I was looking at the 642 or 442 to fill this position. I was wondering what was the difference, if any, between these two other than the finish? Which finish stands up better for an everyday carry in these positions? |
|
I just went through this not too long ago.
The 642 cylinder is stainless, the 442 cylinder is blued steel, the 442 PRO has a blackened stainless cyl that has a recess cut to accommodate moon clips. I would stay away from the 442 as the carbon cyl will rust up in short order in your pocket on a hot sweaty day. |
|
the advantage is that you can carry 5 rounds in the clip and drop the whole thing in the revolver. After you fire them you eject them all together in the clip then drop another in.
moon clip |
| I'd suggest getting the Pro Series 442 for the blackened stainless cylinder, the stainless barrel and the black anodized frame. You don't have to use the moon clips, but they are handy. The 642 has a polished frame with a clear coat. The clear coat will wear off at contact points over time. |
|
Quoted:
I'd suggest getting the Pro Series 442 for the blackened stainless cylinder, the stainless barrel and the black anodized frame. You don't have to use the moon clips, but they are handy. The 642 has a polished frame with a clear coat. The clear coat will wear off at contact points over time. It is not a polished frame, it is just a silver paint. I called S&W and talked to them about it. The tech I talked to said that the black and silver paints hold up about the same. The plus of the silver paint is that you will have silver metal showing through silver paint VS silver metal showing through black paint. Personally I would go with the pro BECAUSE it will accept the moon clips. I don't really care about the finish on an EDC gun, as long as it is stainless and will not turn orange in a day. |
|
Quoted:
I'd suggest getting the Pro Series 442 for the blackened stainless cylinder, the stainless barrel and the black anodized frame. You don't have to use the moon clips, but they are handy. The 642 has a polished frame with a clear coat. The clear coat will wear off at contact points over time. Barrel is carbon steel, rest is correct for a 442 Pro. If it was all blackened stainless then it would be a 642 Pro. I got mine last year and it is rated for +P and the Pro does not have the ILS. 
CD |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd suggest getting the Pro Series 442 for the blackened stainless cylinder, the stainless barrel and the black anodized frame. You don't have to use the moon clips, but they are handy. The 642 has a polished frame with a clear coat. The clear coat will wear off at contact points over time. It is not a polished frame, it is just a silver paint. I called S&W and talked to them about it. The tech I talked to said that the black and silver paints hold up about the same. The plus of the silver paint is that you will have silver metal showing through silver paint VS silver metal showing through black paint. Personally I would go with the pro BECAUSE it will accept the moon clips. I don't really care about the finish on an EDC gun, as long as it is stainless and will not turn orange in a day. Are moon clips durable/dependable enough for concealed carry? I have no experience with them, but seem like a good idea for a quick reload. |
|
just going to throw this out there. personally I REALLY want a 340pd. I studied up on all of the hammerless 38's and 357's (that is why I am so versed on them now). II was just about ready to buy a 442 or 642 then I handled a 340pd. The 340pd is only a couple of ounces lighter but it is 357, and the cylinder is titanium, barrel stainless, and frame scandium alloy. When a revolver is already as light as a 442 or 642 2oz less makes a big "feelable" weight difference.
So I am waiting until I either come across a steal on a 340pd or I can afford one. |
|
Quoted:
According to a recent magazine article I read, and we know those guys are always spot-on with the facts, the 642 is a metallurgically updated version of the 442 designed to live longer with +P rounds. I would question that. When I spoke to a S&W tech, he told me the only difference was the color of the finish applied to the frame and a stainless cyl + barrel. |
|
Quoted: Well, I did read it in a magazine so it's gotta be true, right? Quoted: According to a recent magazine article I read, and we know those guys are always spot-on with the facts, the 642 is a metallurgically updated version of the 442 designed to live longer with +P rounds. I would question that. When I spoke to a S&W tech, he told me the only difference was the color of the finish applied to the frame and a stainless cyl + barrel.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I did read it in a magazine so it's gotta be true, right? Quoted:
According to a recent magazine article I read, and we know those guys are always spot-on with the facts, the 642 is a metallurgically updated version of the 442 designed to live longer with +P rounds. I would question that. When I spoke to a S&W tech, he told me the only difference was the color of the finish applied to the frame and a stainless cyl + barrel.
I understand you. I am also offering my findings as just that, my findings. Would not be the first time I was wrong. |
|
Quoted:
just going to throw this out there. personally I REALLY want a 340pd. I studied up on all of the hammerless 38's and 357's (that is why I am so versed on them now). II was just about ready to buy a 442 or 642 then I handled a 340pd. The 340pd is only a couple of ounces lighter but it is 357, and the cylinder is titanium, barrel stainless, and frame scandium alloy. When a revolver is already as light as a 442 or 642 2oz less makes a big "feelable" weight difference. So I am waiting until I either come across a steal on a 340pd or I can afford one. Me too, but if I remember correctly, the price doubled between a 442 and a 340. I just could not see paying 100% more for the upgrades over the Pro 442. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
just going to throw this out there. personally I REALLY want a 340pd. I studied up on all of the hammerless 38's and 357's (that is why I am so versed on them now). II was just about ready to buy a 442 or 642 then I handled a 340pd. The 340pd is only a couple of ounces lighter but it is 357, and the cylinder is titanium, barrel stainless, and frame scandium alloy. When a revolver is already as light as a 442 or 642 2oz less makes a big "feelable" weight difference. So I am waiting until I either come across a steal on a 340pd or I can afford one. Me too, but if I remember correctly, the price doubled between a 442 and a 340. I just could not see paying 100% more for the upgrades over the Pro 442. you are correct. the price pretty much doubles. I have a model 60 in 2 3/8 357. So I have a snubbie 357, it just feels like I am carrying a barbel around in my pocket. I am going to wait until I can afford what I really want (a 340pd). That way when I do get it I will not always think "this 442 is not bad but it is not the 340pd I really wanted" There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 442, I just REALLY want a 340pd. I do wish they where cut for moon clips but I guess you cant have it all. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
just going to throw this out there. personally I REALLY want a 340pd. I studied up on all of the hammerless 38's and 357's (that is why I am so versed on them now). II was just about ready to buy a 442 or 642 then I handled a 340pd. The 340pd is only a couple of ounces lighter but it is 357, and the cylinder is titanium, barrel stainless, and frame scandium alloy. When a revolver is already as light as a 442 or 642 2oz less makes a big "feelable" weight difference. So I am waiting until I either come across a steal on a 340pd or I can afford one. Me too, but if I remember correctly, the price doubled between a 442 and a 340. I just could not see paying 100% more for the upgrades over the Pro 442. you are correct. the price pretty much doubles. I have a model 60 in 2 3/8 357. So I have a snubbie 357, it just feels like I am carrying a barbel around in my pocket. I am going to wait until I can afford what I really want (a 340pd). That way when I do get it I will not always think "this 442 is not bad but it is not the 340pd I really wanted" There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 442, I just REALLY want a 340pd. I do wish they where cut for moon clips but I guess you cant have it all. See TK customs. They are the ones that make the moon clips for Smith and will cut the 340PD cylinder to except the moon clips. Believe its $100 to do the conversion. TK Custom CD |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
just going to throw this out there. personally I REALLY want a 340pd. I studied up on all of the hammerless 38's and 357's (that is why I am so versed on them now). II was just about ready to buy a 442 or 642 then I handled a 340pd. The 340pd is only a couple of ounces lighter but it is 357, and the cylinder is titanium, barrel stainless, and frame scandium alloy. When a revolver is already as light as a 442 or 642 2oz less makes a big "feelable" weight difference. So I am waiting until I either come across a steal on a 340pd or I can afford one. Me too, but if I remember correctly, the price doubled between a 442 and a 340. I just could not see paying 100% more for the upgrades over the Pro 442. you are correct. the price pretty much doubles. I have a model 60 in 2 3/8 357. So I have a snubbie 357, it just feels like I am carrying a barbel around in my pocket. I am going to wait until I can afford what I really want (a 340pd). That way when I do get it I will not always think "this 442 is not bad but it is not the 340pd I really wanted" There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 442, I just REALLY want a 340pd. I do wish they where cut for moon clips but I guess you cant have it all. See TK customs. They are the ones that make the moon clips for Smith and will cut the 340PD cylinder to except the moon clips. Believe its $100 to do the conversion. TK Custom CD After I get one I will contact them. I wonder if they will cut the cylinder on a 340pd as it is titanium. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
just going to throw this out there. personally I REALLY want a 340pd. I studied up on all of the hammerless 38's and 357's (that is why I am so versed on them now). II was just about ready to buy a 442 or 642 then I handled a 340pd. The 340pd is only a couple of ounces lighter but it is 357, and the cylinder is titanium, barrel stainless, and frame scandium alloy. When a revolver is already as light as a 442 or 642 2oz less makes a big "feelable" weight difference. So I am waiting until I either come across a steal on a 340pd or I can afford one. Me too, but if I remember correctly, the price doubled between a 442 and a 340. I just could not see paying 100% more for the upgrades over the Pro 442. you are correct. the price pretty much doubles. I have a model 60 in 2 3/8 357. So I have a snubbie 357, it just feels like I am carrying a barbel around in my pocket. I am going to wait until I can afford what I really want (a 340pd). That way when I do get it I will not always think "this 442 is not bad but it is not the 340pd I really wanted" There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 442, I just REALLY want a 340pd. I do wish they where cut for moon clips but I guess you cant have it all. See TK customs. They are the ones that make the moon clips for Smith and will cut the 340PD cylinder to except the moon clips. Believe its $100 to do the conversion. TK Custom CD After I get one I will contact them. I wonder if they will cut the cylinder on a 340pd as it is titanium. Yes, they can it mentions it specifially on the web site. CD |
|
I don't know how to download a picture here. I see no instructions in the reply area. Anyway, I have both a Smith & Wesson J frame 442, in satin nickle and a 642-1, in stainless steel. Both are (no lock) airweights. The airweights have an aluminum frame. For concealed carry I would go with the 642 since it has a stainless barrel and cylinder. Can put up better with persperation. Any gun you mean to carry very close to the body, esp. when you'll be sweating should be all stainless, or a stainless alloy combo. Otherwise you're going to have problems with the finish, which will start to pit or rust when exposed to persperation.
Moon clips would have to be contained in something to avoid the rounds to become dislodged. I believe you would be better served to have a good quality speedloader from HKS, or Safariland. They will contain the rounds securly, so you can make a quick reload. They load very fast. The 340PD has a pretty high sticker on it compared to other models that would serve you just as well. Then I like them all as long as there isn't one of those damn locks on it. |
|
Quoted:
I don't know how to download a picture here. I see no instructions in the reply area. Anyway, I have both a Smith & Wesson J frame 442, in satin nickle and a 642-1, in stainless steel. Both are (no lock) airweights. The airweights have an aluminum frame. For concealed carry I would go with the 642 since it has a stainless barrel and cylinder. Can put up better with persperation. Any gun you mean to carry very close to the body, esp. when you'll be sweating should be all stainless, or a stainless alloy combo. Otherwise you're going to have problems with the finish, which will start to pit or rust when exposed to persperation.... That is true. I've been carrying the same 442 in my pocket here in the heat of Oklahoma for almost 7 years now. It looks like hammered sh*t which bothered me for awhile. I'm a little anal about my firearms, keeping them clean, well lubed, and as in good a shape as possible, including the finish. I refinished mine with GunKote about 5 years ago to keep it from rusting and pitting and to make it as maintenance free as possible. It still looks like hammered sh*t but it doesn't rust or pit. 
You just have to get it in your mind that if you are going to pocket carry one, it's gonna get beat up a bit. From being bumped into car doors to the wear of being put in and out of your pocket. By all means go with a 642 if you can. I didn't because I'm not crazy about a shiny finish on a pocket handgun or one used for a "get off me" gun. Just my opinion from 37 years of carrying handguns, it's just damn hard to beat an airweight J frame for a pocket gun. It's not the smallest or lightest, not the most powerful, doesn't have the most cartridges, but it rates high enough in ALL of those categories to make it almost perfect of everyday carry for the average person. 
|
|
Quoted: And then there's the fun factor. I can shoot several boxes of +P through an Airweight J-frame and not be in pain. I dare you to try that with full-power .357 in the 340. And realistically, how many more FPS does one get in a ~2" barrel for burning all that extra powder?Quoted: just going to throw this out there. personally I REALLY want a 340pd. I studied up on all of the hammerless 38's and 357's (that is why I am so versed on them now). II was just about ready to buy a 442 or 642 then I handled a 340pd. The 340pd is only a couple of ounces lighter but it is 357, and the cylinder is titanium, barrel stainless, and frame scandium alloy. When a revolver is already as light as a 442 or 642 2oz less makes a big "feelable" weight difference. So I am waiting until I either come across a steal on a 340pd or I can afford one. Me too, but if I remember correctly, the price doubled between a 442 and a 340. I just could not see paying 100% more for the upgrades over the Pro 442. |
|
Quoted:
And realistically, how many more FPS does one get in a ~2" barrel for burning all that extra powder? supposedly 400fps just because you can shoot 357's doesn't mean you have to. you can still shoot 38's, and carry 357's. just shoot some every now and then to keep acclimated. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
And then there's the fun factor. I can shoot several boxes of +P through an Airweight J-frame and not be in pain. I dare you to try that with full-power .357 in the 340. And realistically, how many more FPS does one get in a ~2" barrel for burning all that extra powder?
Quoted:
just going to throw this out there. personally I REALLY want a 340pd. I studied up on all of the hammerless 38's and 357's (that is why I am so versed on them now). II was just about ready to buy a 442 or 642 then I handled a 340pd. The 340pd is only a couple of ounces lighter but it is 357, and the cylinder is titanium, barrel stainless, and frame scandium alloy. When a revolver is already as light as a 442 or 642 2oz less makes a big "feelable" weight difference. So I am waiting until I either come across a steal on a 340pd or I can afford one. Me too, but if I remember correctly, the price doubled between a 442 and a 340. I just could not see paying 100% more for the upgrades over the Pro 442. I usually run about 20 ronds of .357 through my 340 and the end of every range session. It wouldn't be overly enjoyable firing 200 rounds at once but its not painful either. I carry .38+p as it has better accuracy but .357 one handed is fun when fired from a 13oz snubbie. |
|
I usually run about 20 ronds of .357 through my 340 and the end of every range session. It wouldn't be overly enjoyable firing 200 rounds at once but its not painful either. I carry .38+p as it has better accuracy but .357 one handed is fun when fired from a 13oz snubbie. I'm guessing they aren't full house loads (ie WalMart type 357) 357 has become somewhat like 45-70, 10mm etc. in that it's tough to find full power loads uless you reload or spend $$. A full power load out of a 340 is damn near a wrist breaker. Try some Double Tap of Buffalo Bore type loads. Or maybe you have gotten used to the recoil. I remember the first 45-70 I had was a NEF Handi-Rifle that I thought was a pussy cat to shoot until I actually ran some stout loads through it, something like a 500 fps difference between the run of the mill stuff and the stuff that was loaded to the higher end of pressure specs. |
|
I have never had problems with my 442 cylinder rusting. It is lightly oiled and carried in a pocket holster or with no holster at all.
Why can't they just melonite or tennifer these things? My G19 gets sweated on so much salt crystalizes on the slide and frame. No rust. |
|
Quoted:
I have never had problems with my 442 cylinder rusting. It is lightly oiled and carried in a pocket holster or with no holster at all. Why can't they just melonite or tennifer these things? My G19 gets sweated on so much salt crystalizes on the slide and frame. No rust. It's pretty windy and dry here in the southwest. Lots of dust on hot days sticks to the gun, even in a pocket. Mix some sweat with that and you get a really good chance of rust at some point in time if not wiped off and oiled down often. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd suggest getting the Pro Series 442 for the blackened stainless cylinder, the stainless barrel and the black anodized frame. You don't have to use the moon clips, but they are handy. The 642 has a polished frame with a clear coat. The clear coat will wear off at contact points over time. Barrel is carbon steel, rest is correct for a 442 Pro. If it was all blackened stainless then it would be a 642 Pro. I got mine last year and it is rated for +P and the Pro does not have the ILS. http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/422_Pro.JPG CD How difficult is it to find a 442 Pro that doesn't have the ILS? |
|
The last time I looked at S&W revolvers (non-Pro models) I asked the gun store owner about being able to acquire one without the lock. He indicated that while they weren't all that common, with "a little looking" on his part, he ought to be able to find one at distributor somewhere. However ... he neglected to mention that the Pro series comes standard without the lock. Good to know. Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
+1 on a 340PD. However, I very rarely shoot it with a 357 round. I usually save the mag round for the newbie that I take to the range. That's a great way to really screw up someone's introduction to firearms. Now, does anyone have experience with removing the internal lock on the 642/442? |
|
I'll second the comments that suggest you look at something other than the 442. Mine looks like absolute shit after one summer of carrying it due to the cylinder rust. Quoted: Quoted: +1 on a 340PD. However, I very rarely shoot it with a 357 round. I usually save the mag round for the newbie that I take to the range. That's a great way to really screw up someone's introduction to firearms. +1, why would anyone do that? |