S&W 642 and 442 finish question

9mm · November 21, 2012, 05:22 PM

I am thinking about buying a 442(black model, no IL, you can find these at the gun shows, and onei s coming up in a week!!)

I have the 642 really like it but want another snuby. So the difference in the finish, one is stainless steel the other is black? does that matter for rust or anything? Would the stainless model be better than the black? Same price. I want the black but if I am getting less product for the same... hm.... They run $330-$360 no internal locks.

SW40F · November 21, 2012, 06:24 PM

442 = lightweight, alloy frame, black finish
642 = [edit] alloy frame, light finish [edit]

I have a 442, purchased before they made locks. I like the weight and finish.

9mm · November 21, 2012, 06:59 PM

Ah, so it would be best to buy another 642 then, lesser product with 442.

BarryLee · November 21, 2012, 07:33 PM

Actually I believe the 642 is also an aluminum frame. Basically I think they are the same gun one is just black and the other is unfinished with a clear coat. I might also add the clear coat has been known to flake off of some gun, but not sure if that is still an issue.

I have the 442 and have experienced no problems and in my onion it probably has the better all around finish.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y

coyota1 · November 21, 2012, 07:36 PM

My 642 is an alloy 15 oz revolver, same as the 442. Last time I looked at a catalog the 442 had a black finish.

buck460XVR · November 21, 2012, 08:01 PM

Both have alloy painted frames(black vs grey, not clearcoat). Difference is the way the barrels and cylinders are finished(blued vs stainless).

coyota1 · November 21, 2012, 08:08 PM

They are both excellent for concealed carry.

9mm · November 21, 2012, 09:45 PM

Then let me get this straight, the 642 finish would hold up better than the 442 correct? because of stainless finish.

22-rimfire · November 21, 2012, 10:07 PM

Same product different finish. I have the black and have always preferred it.

I have had no issues with the black finish, but I don't carry it every day. I don't worry about the finish on a carry gun. It is a tool like no other.

Dragline45 · November 21, 2012, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Then let me get this straight, the 642 finish would hold up better than the 442 correct? because of stainless finish.

The 642 and 442 both have aluminum frames, with a stainless barrel and cylinder. The older S&W 640 in .38 special only is the stainless version of the 642 or 442 built on the centennial style frame. Although the newer 640's are now made with a longer frame, barrel, and full underlug to accommodate the .357 cartridge. In fact the older 640's in .38 are slightly shorter in frame length and cylinder length compared to the 642, actually making for a slightly smaller overall package. They now machine all the J frame cylinders the same length regardless if it's for the .357 or .38.

Super Sneaky Steve · November 21, 2012, 10:18 PM

This topic has been covered before. The 642 has the softest, least durrable finish of any gun I've handled. Mine looks like total poo and the finish can be scraped off with my fingernail.

It does shoot well and I carry it 90% of the time but a good looker it is not!

9mm · November 22, 2012, 12:32 AM

Quote:

The 642 and 442 both have aluminum frames, with a stainless barrel and cylinder.

Thats what I needed to know.

Quote:

finish can be scraped off with my fingernail.

Mine mustbe defective.

Going to look for another j frame at the show soon, S&W 442.

Homerboy · November 22, 2012, 06:13 AM

The 642 has a spray on clear coat finish that royally sucks. It will peel off with very little rubbing. Products like Gunscrubber will strip it right off. Go for the 442.

coyota1 · November 22, 2012, 06:18 AM

\

Quote:

The 642 has a spray on clear coat finish that royally sucks. It will peel off with very little rubbing. Products like Gunscrubber will strip it right off. Go for the 442.

I've had one for years and it hasn't pealed a bit. Very durable finish.

Kreyzhorse · November 22, 2012, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Actually I believe the 642 is also an aluminum frame. Basically I think they are the same gun one is just black and the other is unfinished with a clear coat. I might also add the clear coat has been known to flake off of some gun, but not sure if that is still an issue.

The 642 is an aluminum frame and I've never had an issue with the finish on mine.

1goodshot · November 22, 2012, 07:33 AM

I pocket carried my 442 and got sweat all over it the 4th day I had it. It rusted the cylinder, S&W said they would refinish it for me but I just buffed it out. I make sure to wipe it down every couple of days now and havent had a problem since. Great gun but I think I would have gotten the stainless one or the pro which I think is stainless with a black finish.

reb1254 · November 22, 2012, 08:32 AM

I carry a 442 all the time IWB and I think the black is less visible. I regard it as an SD tool and don't worry about the finish much. I have noticed that the cylinder ring shows prominently, but the black is holding great. When I chose it, I had a 642 on the counter too, and have no regrets on the choice.

November 21, 2012, 05:22 PM	#1
9mm Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2011 Location: Land of the Free Posts: 2,834	S&W 642 and 442 finish question I am thinking about buying a 442(black model, no IL, you can find these at the gun shows, and onei s coming up in a week!!) I have the 642 really like it but want another snuby. So the difference in the finish, one is stainless steel the other is black? does that matter for rust or anything? Would the stainless model be better than the black? Same price. I want the black but if I am getting less product for the same... hm.... They run $330-$360 no internal locks.

November 21, 2012, 06:24 PM	#2
SW40F Senior Member Join Date: June 19, 2001 Location: Western MI Posts: 563	442 = lightweight, alloy frame, black finish 642 = [edit] alloy frame, light finish [edit] I have a 442, purchased before they made locks. I like the weight and finish. Last edited by SW40F; November 22, 2012 at 09:22 PM.

November 21, 2012, 07:33 PM	#4
BarryLee Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: The ATL (OTP) Posts: 3,946	Actually I believe the 642 is also an aluminum frame. Basically I think they are the same gun one is just black and the other is unfinished with a clear coat. I might also add the clear coat has been known to flake off of some gun, but not sure if that is still an issue. I have the 442 and have experienced no problems and in my onion it probably has the better all around finish. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y __________________ A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

November 21, 2012, 06:59 PM	#3
9mm Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2011 Location: Land of the Free Posts: 2,834	Ah, so it would be best to buy another 642 then, lesser product with 442.

November 21, 2012, 07:36 PM	#5
coyota1 Senior Member Join Date: April 6, 2008 Location: West Michigan Posts: 663	My 642 is an alloy 15 oz revolver, same as the 442. Last time I looked at a catalog the 442 had a black finish.

November 21, 2012, 08:01 PM	#6
buck460XVR Senior Member Join Date: December 28, 2006 Posts: 4,342	Both have alloy painted frames(black vs grey, not clearcoat). Difference is the way the barrels and cylinders are finished(blued vs stainless).

November 21, 2012, 08:08 PM	#7
coyota1 Senior Member Join Date: April 6, 2008 Location: West Michigan Posts: 663	They are both excellent for concealed carry.

November 21, 2012, 09:45 PM	#8
9mm Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2011 Location: Land of the Free Posts: 2,834	Then let me get this straight, the 642 finish would hold up better than the 442 correct? because of stainless finish.

November 21, 2012, 10:07 PM	#9
22-rimfire Senior Member Join Date: February 19, 2005 Location: Tennessee Posts: 5,323	Same product different finish. I have the black and have always preferred it. I have had no issues with the black finish, but I don't carry it every day. I don't worry about the finish on a carry gun. It is a tool like no other.

November 21, 2012, 10:18 PM	#11
Super Sneaky Steve Senior Member Join Date: August 9, 2011 Posts: 1,248	This topic has been covered before. The 642 has the softest, least durrable finish of any gun I've handled. Mine looks like total poo and the finish can be scraped off with my fingernail. It does shoot well and I carry it 90% of the time but a good looker it is not!

November 22, 2012, 06:13 AM	#13
Homerboy Junior member Join Date: June 16, 2004 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,320	The 642 has a spray on clear coat finish that royally sucks. It will peel off with very little rubbing. Products like Gunscrubber will strip it right off. Go for the 442.

November 22, 2012, 07:33 AM	#16
1goodshot Senior Member Join Date: November 11, 2001 Location: chandler,az Posts: 929	I pocket carried my 442 and got sweat all over it the 4th day I had it. It rusted the cylinder, S&W said they would refinish it for me but I just buffed it out. I make sure to wipe it down every couple of days now and havent had a problem since. Great gun but I think I would have gotten the stainless one or the pro which I think is stainless with a black finish.

November 22, 2012, 08:32 AM	#17
reb1254 Junior Member Join Date: May 28, 2005 Posts: 12	I carry a 442 all the time IWB and I think the black is less visible. I regard it as an SD tool and don't worry about the finish much. I have noticed that the cylinder ring shows prominently, but the black is holding great. When I chose it, I had a 642 on the counter too, and have no regrets on the choice.