Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/7/2010 4:09:04 PM EDT
Let me start with the fact that another member here and a good friend. Picked up a S&W 642 and after looking at the set up I really want a 5 shot hammerless revolver "S&W or Colt" of course.
My problem is I would prefer a steel or stainless gun. What are your suggestions on a good used 5 shot hammerless.
Thanks
Speed
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:31:54 PM EDT
You might be better off looking at both new and used.



Link to Promo
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:41:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 4:44:11 PM EDT by speedfreak955]
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
You might be better off looking at both new and used.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/images/promos/carrywithconfidence_newlanding8110.jpg

Link to Promo

Thanks for the link
Input quick and accurate as always
ETA and the add had me at bewbies

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:53:56 PM EDT
I carry a 642 almost every weekend while hiking or paddling. Has a set of Crimson Trace on it. Awesome light-weight setup.

And would you believe a friend GAVE me the revolver and grips. Pretty cool friend, huh? (And he is a member here. Shhhhh!!)

I wanted the 642 for the light weight and small frame. It was the one gun I missed after giving mine to my ex after our divorce so she'd have something for protection. She also ended up with the Model 37. So I was thrilled to have another J-frame.

Mark
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:54:11 PM EDT
The 642 with 38+P is a handful, I don't know about putting 357 in a J frame. Others will have differing opinions, no doubt.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:59:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PaintItBlack:
The 642 with 38+P is a handful, I don't know about putting 357 in a J frame. Others will have differing opinions, no doubt.

Yes, it sure is.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:02:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BookHound:

Originally Posted By PaintItBlack:
The 642 with 38+P is a handful, I don't know about putting 357 in a J frame. Others will have differing opinions, no doubt.

Yes, it sure is.

This was kinda the reason I was thinking of a steel gun in a 357.
shooting 38 special would not punish me or the gun nearly as much.


Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:02:27 PM EDT
My wife has a 637. The recoil on that tiny beast always reminds me of Will Smith shooting the Cricket in the first MIB. I suspect the 642 is similar. That being said, it is fun to shoot and easy to carry.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:07:06 PM EDT
I used to have a 638 and it was a fine pistol. Not a big deal for most men, but it's a bit much for many women when shooting the +p's. My wife just plain couldn't handle it so I ended up getting her an auto instead.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:07:14 PM EDT
The whole concept was to get a hammerless I could fit in my left pocket. and learn to shoot it offhand..
I am not dead set on a steel gun but I want it to last a while.
Thanks for the input guys
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:15:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By speedfreak955:
The whole concept was to get a hammerless I could fit in my left pocket. and learn to shoot it offhand..
I am not dead set on a steel gun but I want it to last a while.
Thanks for the input guys


The 642 is my pool gun. I couldn't get away with a G19 at the pool but a 642, sure. It's lightweight enough you don't need a real pistol belt.

Unless you're going to be dropping thousands of rounds through a 642, which I doubt, it will last a lifetime. It is not a target gun. If you want to learn to shoot offhand start with a 22lr revolver with a 4" barrel or longer.

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:02:35 PM EDT
I have no problems with +P in my 642 but I would never try 357 in a J frame ... especially 125 grain stuff ... it hurts in my Model 28!
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:06:27 PM EDT
Steel J-frames don't make for good pocket guns. I used to have a model 60 with a chopped hammer. No matter what I did, the only good way to carry it was a belt holster. The full steel makes for a nice shooter and a good practice gun but carry an aluminum or scandium gun. If you could just get one I'd go for a 442 with LG405s. It's my pocket gun and is very nice to hide even in more professional attire.

Recoil with the airweights is manageable. I've routinely shot 50 rds of +P for practice and followed it up with .45s. As for accuracy, it is entirely
the Indian and not the arrow. Good fundamentals will yield surprisig results. Ive had many a fist size group at 25-30yards with some effort.

One last note, locks on guns suck. With brand new no-lock guns there's no reason to buy one with it. Nothing worse than a dead
gun/trigger when you need it most.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:21:15 PM EDT
I've got a 442 that I've shot at least 2000 rounds through. Granted only about 150 of those were +P carry rounds and the rest were some sort of standard pressure lead round nose. It still feels as tight and shoots as good as it did new. I recently acquired one of the new 642 "Pro" series J-Frames. The "Pro" is absent of the internal trigger lock mechanism and it is cut to accept moon clips.
An enclosed hammerless J-Frame is hard to beat. Add a set of CT Laser Grips and its that much better. The enclosed hammerless J's can be shot inside of pockets without the hammer snagging anything. I vote you get the 642 Pro. Just settle with the aluminum frame. It will serve you well and last you a lifetime.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:22:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MadcapMagician:
Steel J-frames don't make for good pocket guns.


Concur. I have a 640 and it was like lugging a boat anchor around in my pocket. As others noted, the +P's are a handful and I've fired exactly 5 .357's out of it with the intent of 0 more.

Link Posted: 9/8/2010 2:41:41 AM EDT
I've had an older model 442 for a very long time. Fired untold number of rounds, of various pressures, out of it. Still shoots like a champ and locks up tight.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 2:53:55 AM EDT
+ 642
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 5:07:01 AM EDT
S&W 638 gets my vote.

Why bother with +P? Does it really get you that much more out of a sub 2" barrel?
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:10:08 AM EDT
My 442 I got from Kblagg many years ago still shoots great. It's certainly a purchase I don't regret.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:39:02 AM EDT
I also have a 642 in .38 and carry the +p loads. Yes it is rough shooting the +Ps, but you don't have to do that all the time at the range. Standard pressure rounds aren't too bad. I love the light weight of the 642 and it is very concealable under a t-shirt. You can't see any profile. I have about 300 rounds through it and there is no signs of any issues with the gun even after about 50 +p rounds.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 8:18:18 AM EDT
OP said S&W or Colt, but what about the Ruger LCR. It is now available in 357 as well.
Hate to shoot 357 in such a light gun though.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 9:04:48 AM EDT
The LCR sounds like a set of janitors keys every time you pick it up.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 9:40:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MadcapMagician:
The LCR sounds like a set of janitors keys every time you pick it up.

LOL!
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 4:46:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By arlessinsc:
OP said S&W or Colt, but what about the Ruger LCR. It is now available in 357 as well.
Hate to shoot 357 in such a light gun though.


Not a revolver fan, but I have fired an LCR in .38. Very smoooottthh trigger and not too much snap in the recoil.

I don't recall it rattling either while firing or being handled.

Link Posted: 9/8/2010 5:22:32 PM EDT
Colt Detective Special with a shroud.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 5:47:46 PM EDT
Speed, get a S&W 442 no lock. It's the one you want.

Accountant
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 4:30:47 PM EDT
Speed, you know how much I like my 642. Here are my two everyday carry setups.

my 642 and my Emerson CQC7. I think this a Comp-Tac 2 O’clock IWB. You would be surprised how well these things carry IWB. They are a little thick right in the cylinder. But the barrel is so short and thin that it never digs into you when you sit down. Also the grip is short and curved. It blends into your body well and does not print or dig into you.


this is for when I need a little more concealment. The Spyderco is much thinner and lighter than the Emerson. And this is the best pocket holster I have ever seen. It is a little company called Aholster if I remember correctly. Everyone that has tried it loves it. The Kydex adds almost no thickness to it at all. But it smoothes the shap and keeps it situated right in your pocket. the little “hooks” on the top catch you pocket when you draw and the holster stays in the pocket.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 4:47:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dana:
Speed, you know how much I like my 642. Here are my two everyday carry setups.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a147/rc51kid/-2878.jpg my 642 and my Emerson CQC7. I think this a Comp-Tac 2 O’clock IWB. You would be surprised how well these things carry IWB. They are a little thick right in the cylinder. But the barrel is so short and thin that it never digs into you when you sit down. Also the grip is short and curved. It blends into your body well and does not print or dig into you.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a147/rc51kid/-2880-2.jpg
this is for when I need a little more concealment. The Spyderco is much thinner and lighter than the Emerson. And this is the best pocket holster I have ever seen. It is a little company called Aholster if I remember correctly. Everyone that has tried it loves it. The Kydex adds almost no thickness to it at all. But it smoothes the shap and keeps it situated right in your pocket. the little “hooks” on the top catch you pocket when you draw and the holster stays in the pocket.

That second pic is the shit
Now, I've either gotta sell one "which I really hate" or save and wait" which I really hate"
Thanks for all the advice guys I really appreciate the input!
Looks like a 442 or 642 without the lock
Again thanks for taking the time to respond.
Speed

Top Top