The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 23, 2009, 01:10 AM   #1
zwanboy104
Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2009
Posts: 19
S&W 642 or S&W 442?

So I'm finally giving in on buying a S&W snubbie. I've narrowed it down between 2 - the S&W 642 with the stainless steel finish, or the 442 in matte black. Are there any benefits carrying the stainless over the matte black? Is matte black more likely to chip away? If anyone owns either or both of these I'd like to know more about them.
zwanboy104 is offline  
Old November 23, 2009, 02:39 AM   #2
kmrcstintn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Posts: 149
S&W 642 are more prevalent due to 'stainless' steeel being more corrosion resistant...NOT corrosion proof; all guns need to be cleaned and maintained equally;the 642's weakness is the baked on clear coat finish on the aluminum frame...be careful when using harsh solvent cleaners, aerosol cleaner/degreasers, and stiff bristled cleaning brushes...all will easily remove the baked on finish; this will not degrade the corrosion resistance of the aluminum frame or weaken the strength; there will be nominal amounts removed where steel rubs on the aluminum frame in the center of the breechface and from casings smacking the breechface during recoil; if it really bugs ya it can be refinished by S&W

S&W 442 needs more oil on carbon steel to resist corrosion; their strength is the black anondized finish that holds up better to use, cleaning, etc; once anondizing gets worn or banged up you are stuck with it since it's not a simple refinishing job (remove old, prep, apply new, bake) since anondizong is achieved through a chemical process that changes the surface of the aluminum and is thicker than bake on clear coat

there is currently a limited run of S&W 442's that have satin stainless barrels, cylinders, and triggers which makes for a nice contrast of colors/finishes; whatever you get be prepared to shoot it a good deal and it will be a good workhorse
kmrcstintn is offline  
Old November 23, 2009, 02:51 AM   #3
Nnobby45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,148
I tend to prefer black guns (and holsters) because they seem to disappear a little better. Never the less, I have the 642.

Also have a couple of 640's that are stainless. The other day while chrongraphing some loads, I was shooting toward the sun with a 640-1 and got glare from the tang just behind the sight It prevented me from seeing my sights.

I'd get the one with the best trigger.
Nnobby45 is offline  
Old November 23, 2009, 03:33 AM   #4
Bill DeShivs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2006
Posts: 7,116
It's called "anodizing," and it does not change the dimensions of the aluminum.
Any clear coat will be thicker than anodizing.
__________________
Bill DeShivs
www.billdeshivs.com
Bill DeShivs is offline  
Old November 23, 2009, 04:36 AM   #5
Model-P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2009
Posts: 727
and I'd be surprised if the 642's frame was not clear anodized.

edit: Yup, and so it is...
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...egory_rn=15704

Last edited by Model-P; November 23, 2009 at 04:42 AM.
Model-P is offline  
Old November 23, 2009, 10:03 AM   #6
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Largely a rehash, but here's my thoughts:

442 Plus:
  • Black color hides more easily for pocket carry
  • Sights have more contrast in most situations
  • Frame finish generally thought to be more durable
  • Doesn't look as bad when it gets dirty
642 Plus:
  • Gun is more visible, making it easier to index the gun on target during coarsely sighted rapid-fire, also good for intimidation value
  • Sights more visible at night
  • Barrel and cylinder finish generally thought to be more corrosion resistant
  • When finish does start to wear- which is inevitable for a carry gun- silver high-edge wear and scratches are less obvious against a silver-grey background than a matte black background
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old November 27, 2009, 10:14 AM   #7
Dave Chuppa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Posts: 314
I had a tuff time trying to pick one. I started with a bobbed 37. My second one was the 642. I sold the 642 and now carry the 442. I like the Black one better. I think, ya I'm sure, I think.
Dave Chuppa is offline  
Old November 28, 2009, 04:22 PM   #8
batmann
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2004
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 689
Other than color, and that's a personal thing, the biggest difference is weight. The 442 is several ounces lighter than it's stainless brother.
batmann is offline  
Old November 28, 2009, 10:32 PM   #9
Gazzmann
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2007
Location: South Florida
Posts: 129
I owned a 442 for about 10 years now and carry it all the time.
Other than normal slight wear marks on the front of the barrel from the holster, the finish holds up great and it still shoots like a new one.
Its a fine CC gun. Little getting used to the DA only, but not a big deal.
Love mine.
Gazzmann is offline  
Old November 28, 2009, 11:47 PM   #10
zappadragon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2005
Location: Virginia Beach , Va.
Posts: 248
I was in the same boat as you. Narrowed it down to the 442 or 642 and for me I went with the 642 just because I like the way it looks better than the 442. Not sure you can go wrong either way with these two guns.
__________________
====================
Bersa 380 | S&W 317 | S&W 642 | Walther P22 | Firestorm FS22 | Ruger GP 100 4'' SS
====================
zappadragon is offline  
Old November 29, 2009, 01:25 AM   #11
Tony C
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 176
642 As Well

I chose the 642 and probably for no good reason. I decided on that due to the fact that when I wear it IWB without a shirt between me and it, the stainless won't react as fast to the sweat.

Probably wouldn't make any difference at all, but who knows? Either are quality, get one of each!

Good luck,
Tony
NW Oregon
Tony C is offline  
Old November 29, 2009, 06:55 AM   #12
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,495
The difference between the two really comes down to weight. If this is a primary CCW, the weight difference is where I'd make my decision and go with the 642.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old November 29, 2009, 07:58 AM   #13
Yankee Doodle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 575
Opted for the best of both worlds. Have a 642 that had bad problems with the anodizing. Wearing off, and looking like hell. Sent the gun to Birdsong, and had them do their "Black-T" finish on it. Came back looking great, and I now have a black 642.
Like I said, the best of both worlds.
__________________
God Bless America
Y.D.
Yankee Doodle is offline  
Old November 29, 2009, 10:09 AM   #14
whip1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 330
According to the S&W website, the 442 and 642 both weigh 15oz.
whip1 is offline  
Old November 29, 2009, 10:21 AM   #15
qwik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2004
Location: nc
Posts: 151
I wanted the 442 (just looks) after several calls to dealers, around these parts the 442 was 100$ more , got a 642
__________________
havejeepwilltravel [0lllllll0]
qwik is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09526 seconds with 7 queries