Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/20/2006 5:10:59 PM EDT
What is the difference between the 442 and the 642? I am looking for something for pocket/ankle carry. I am also thinking of the 640. Is it really needed to have a .357mag with a barrel this small? How does the mag compare to some of the loads out nowadays for the .38 +p. The reason for leaning toward the 640 is caliber versatility and the extra weight for when shooting at the range, but is it going to be too heavy compared to the other 2 for comfortable pocket/ankle carry? Which would you choose and why? Thanks, Terry
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 1:59:07 AM EDT
642 is stainless
442 is blue
For the ankle either one of these will be good. The 640 is about 25oz compared to the 15oz of the 642/442. While I too like the versatility of 357/38 in the same revolver I find no pleasure in shooting magnums out of short barreled revolvers. Having already gone down this road I recommend you get the 642 and enjoy a good carry revolver.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:44:22 PM EDT
I have a S&W 640(all stainless) and a 342PD(with Ti cyl & Al frame). The 640 is quite heavy compared to it's lighter weight cousins. I would go wih the 442 Al frame and carbon steel cyl, which is only 2oz heavier than my 342PD, and $200 cheaper(actually, S&W no longer manufactures this model). I've seen the 442 for around $400.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:48:46 PM EDT
I've got the 642 with Lasergrips. Sweet to carry, but not that fun to shoot. On another thread I read recently somebody compared it to striking an anvil with a piece of rebar.

The Lasergrips are a nice addition though. I never knew a 2" snubby could be accurate.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 4:36:43 PM EDT
As mentioned the metal finishs of the guns but the 442/642 have an aluminim frame where the 640 is all steel. I've had a M442 for over ten (maybe 12) years now and it used to be a constent compaion when I wasn't carrying one of my 1911s. Haven't been home much to carry in the last 6 years though so now that I'm back I need to take it to the range again this weekend.

CD
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:46:19 PM EDT
Found a 642 for $345 the other night and couldn't resist any longer. This thing is fun to shoot. Really enjoyable shooting standard .38 Spec, but did snap a good bit when I put some 135gr +P Gold Dots through it. Still not uncontollable though. I though that my old SP101 cracked my hand ALOT worse back when I had that while shooting mags from it. Very happy and love the way it carries. I do know where a 3" 60 is for $325. Very nice little .357 that I can't stop thinking about now. BTW, I was a bit confused about the differences in the models because I saw a few guys selling 442's as 642's. Guess I'm not the only one that didn't now, huh Terry
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 12:17:52 AM EDT
I've been enjoying my 642 for a couple of years now.

The holsters I use most often are the Hume JIT, and the Ken Null SKR.

The best loaders I've found are the Jetloader and the SL Variant (no longer sold in the U.S. I think. At least the only dealer I knew of sold out and wasn't going to carry them anymore - supply difficulties I think).

I also use a Bianchi speedstrip if I need the flatness for concealment.

For ankle carry, I've only used the Uncle Mike's ankle holster.
It's okay, but my problem with it is the strap cuts into my ankle too much.
Other than that, it holds the gun securely and allows a good draw.

I'm still planning on trying a custom made ankle holster and have narrowed it down to either a Ken Null, Bulman, Tauris, Alessi, DeSantis, Don Hume, or perhaps a Bianchi.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:02:57 AM EDT
The 442 is lighter to carry than the 640. It is also more controllable (.38 Special). The 640 is heavier and stainless. I just bought my wife a 640 to replace her 442. She carries it in a fanny pack. So weight for her may not be a factor. Don't know yet because she is in the process of putting some rounds through the 640 for a reliability check. The 640 has a lot more recoil with .357s than the 442 with the .38s. If you plan to load a 640 with .38s just stay with a 442. The 442 is a lot lighter to carry on your hip or in your pocket. The 640 would be a tad heavy for pocket carry. It would have to go on your hip with a strong holster. My wife seems to think that it will not be that bad in her fanny pack. We will see how she feels after she starts carrying those extra 10 ounces. All the J frames are not range guns. They are carry revolvers. You should practice with what you carry. The other advnatage on both of these revolvers is the concealed hammer (if you want to carry concealed). I have a Model 60 stainless (.38 Special) which is also heavier than the 442. It has less recoil however, and has an exposed hammer. For years it was what I would take with me on walks or bike rides where I was concerned about sweating. If my wife starts carrying the 640 in her fanny pack I will probably start carrying her 442 when going on walks. It is easy to put in your pocket.
Top Top