SW 442 over the 642 [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : SW 442 over the 642


DonB
04-03-2008, 21:34
I've noticed that more people seem to prefer the 442 over the 642. Is there a reason for this? I'm surprised really because the stainless finish is more durable for deep concealment. It even seems that the prices for the 442 are actually more than the 642. Is the trigger better on the blued guns or what? I'm asking because I'm going to buy one or the other. Was going to get the 638 for the single action capability but realized that in a defense situation I probably won't have time to cock the hammer for that "precise shot" that they always talk about.

What? Me worry?
04-03-2008, 21:52
I chose the 442 over the 642 for cosmetic reasons only. I just think the matte blue finish looked better than the stainless.

alank2
04-03-2008, 21:58
Hi,

I went with the 442. It *used to be* that S&W had aggressive pricing on the 642 only and the 442 was about $100 more, but a year or two ago they dropped the 442 to the same price as the 642. I think the people who go with the 442 prefer the black look instead of the stainless. I like that the black and dark aluminum match better on the 442 than the stainless and light aluminum match on the 642. 642 has more corrosion resistance but I've never had any corrosion issues with the 442 and I don't really baby it.

Good luck,

Alan

glockess56
04-03-2008, 22:25
I have a 638 and the 442. The 638 you can shoot double action, or cock the hammer (hidden hammer) if you want single action. If you want a 638, shoot it double action if you prefer. You can do it either or. I got the feeling you think you can only shoot the 638 by cocking the hammer and that's not the case. Which ever snubby you pick of these three, I don't think you will go wrong in any way.

jdeere_man
04-04-2008, 10:44
I think they sell more of the 642 than they do the 442. The decision of one or the other is generally based on your desires in finish.

joestokes
04-04-2008, 15:01
I got the 442 only because of the color. I like that the frame and cylinder matched better. If i could of bought a 642 for 100 bucks cheaper though...I would be the owner of a 642 :)

jdeere_man
04-04-2008, 17:37
They were actually the same price when I bought mine. I actually wanted the 442, even though I had heard problems of the black finish coming off, but when I got to the gun dealer we got it out and the cylinder wouldn't budge, so I took a 642 he had instead. Color doesn't really matter to me in the end though because it's always in my pocket.

GOOFA
04-12-2008, 15:33
If I'm not mistaken, I believe I read that the S&W 642 is the #1gun purchased by LE personnel today.

Berto
04-12-2008, 17:21
Either one is just as good, I like the black sights.

Lazlo
04-12-2008, 17:58
My next snubbie will be a 442 just because I already have a 637 and want my other one to look different.

bluelineman
04-13-2008, 09:14
I chose the 442 over the 642 for cosmetic reasons only. I just think the matte blue finish looked better than the stainless.

+1

I didn't like the sights though so I put a CT LG405 laser grip on it. You get the benefit of reduced recoil (padded backstrap) + laser sight.

fowler
04-14-2008, 19:36
Yes I prefer the 642 over the weaker finish blued 442. And allso find DA only is the way to go for a defensive wheelgun. No mistake in court of a cocked hammer going off. Good combat shooters with wheelguns never use the SA mode. Learn to shoot combat DA only. With practice its easy to put 5 shots center in the head DA at 7yds with slow DA fire. Just like the greats did like Bill Jordan. Its a art that easy to learn . The 642 is atop seller for selfdefence today.

Lazlo
04-14-2008, 20:20
Is the 442's finish really that much more susceptible to wear as opposed to the clearcoat finish on the 642, or just more noticeable?

alank2
04-14-2008, 21:15
Hi,

I've got a 442 and the finish has held up wonderfully. I don't baby it either, it sees lots of unholster/reholster action. The barrel/cylinder are blued steel and the aluminum frame is some sort of painted or anodized surface, I'm not sure what.

Good luck,

Alan

G33
04-14-2008, 22:04
Black is beautiful?
Drew told me so.
:supergrin::supergrin:

G26S239
04-18-2008, 03:51
I actually liked the 442 better. But my friend bought the one they had left at a store during a Smith & Wesson Days sale. So I bought the 642, I like it a lot. You won't go wrong with either.

Ulysses
04-19-2008, 16:43
In the days BEFORE the clear coat finish over aluminum the 642 might have been a better choice.

If you go over to S&W Forum and search this sight you hear stories of the clear coat finish coming off with various cleaners on the 642's.

The blued (black IMHO) finish on the 442 and former 37 models looks fairly nice and seems durable based on used guns I see.

I have OLDER aluminum J-Frames pre-lock with good finish and moderate amount of use.

I am sure my guns are anodized well. I wonder WHY the clear coat finish is used today? Is it because the S&W stainless aluminum guns have a cheaper annodizing process which is less durable?

operator81
04-19-2008, 17:40
I chose the 442 over the 642. I feel the look of a worn black gun is far prettier than a scratched up stainless colored one. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I had heard the cylinder and barrel on the 442's are stainless with a black finish applied over top, similar to the MP Autos. Not sure if thats correct or not.

I got the same LEO price on the 442 as the 642, but I prefer black to stainless, unless its nickel, which is just sexy on a revolver, not to mention durable to boot.

mo.glocker
03-23-2010, 08:17
I chose the 442 over the 642. I feel the look of a worn black gun is far prettier than a scratched up stainless colored one. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I had heard the cylinder and barrel on the 442's are stainless with a black finish applied over top, similar to the MP Autos. Not sure if thats correct or not.

I got the same LEO price on the 442 as the 642, but I prefer black to stainless, unless its nickel, which is just sexy on a revolver, not to mention durable to boot.
yes and the 642 is not stainless at all,its the same aluminium as the 442 ,it just has the added aggrivation of the clear powdercoat comming off!:whistling:

Free Radical
03-23-2010, 08:19
If I'm not mistaken, I believe I read that the S&W 642 is the #1gun purchased by LE personnel today.



The 642 is S&W's largest seller.

operator81
03-23-2010, 08:42
yes and the 642 is not stainless at all,its the same aluminium as the 442 ,it just has the added aggrivation of the clear powdercoat comming off!:whistling:

WOW! How many pages did you have to go back to resurrect this nearly 2 year-old thread?

Maine
04-11-2015, 21:42
WOW! How many pages did you have to go back to resurrect this nearly 2 year-old thread?
Just thought I'd bring back this 5 year old thread! :tongueout:

I prefer the 442 myself. I just like black/blued guns better. I do kinda miss the nickel 442 I had though.

Chup
04-12-2015, 13:49
When I worked at Gun Shops we sent 642s back for finish problems. The 442 held up much better. I like the looks of the 442 finish better. The 642 is the best seller, or was.

fran m
04-12-2015, 14:39
I have a 1997 vintage 642. Qualified with it and shot a 291/300.

I have not had finish problems as far as peeling. I do have some wear on the cylinder from a Blackhawk holster.


Up until I started using that holster, the gun looked brand new. Does anyone know weather a gun of this vintage has the clearcoat finish that peels?

Maine
04-13-2015, 21:32
I have a 1997 vintage 642. Qualified with it and shot a 291/300.

I have not had finish problems as far as peeling. I do have some wear on the cylinder from a Blackhawk holster.


Up until I started using that holster, the gun looked brand new. Does anyone know weather a gun of this vintage has the clearcoat finish that peels?
Good shooting! You should be fine if it hasn't had any peeling issues in almost 20 years. S&W will refinish it for free if it ever does start though. :thumbsup:

rock_castle
04-13-2015, 21:49
I chose the 442 over the 642 for cosmetic reasons only. I just think the matte blue finish looked better than the stainless.

Me too. However, I would have no issue carrying a 642. In fact, I may end up getting a 642 too.

fran m
04-14-2015, 15:03
Good shooting! You should be fine if it hasn't had any peeling issues in almost 20 years. S&W will refinish it for free if it ever does start though. :thumbsup:

I don't know if it has a painted on finish. I would like to know. I shoot +P out of it and that's what I qualified with. Stout for sure. I did blacken the front sight with a sharpie, no contrast with the blue and grayish target.

ruffterrain
04-14-2015, 18:53
Just thought I'd bring back this 5 year old thread! :tongueout:

I prefer the 442 myself. I just like black/blued guns better. I do kinda miss the nickel 442 I had though.

Thanks for digging it up!

I have a 642 from back in the day---not rated for +P. Fortunately I somehow managed to hold onto about 2 or 3 boxes of Federal Nyclad 125 gr HP (in the old blue boxes) that shoot to point-of-aim in that little sweetie!

Maine
04-15-2015, 16:45
Thanks for digging it up!

I have a 642 from back in the day---not rated for +P. Fortunately I somehow managed to hold onto about 2 or 3 boxes of Federal Nyclad 125 gr HP (in the old blue boxes) that shoot to point-of-aim in that little sweetie!
No problem :wavey:
I like the Nyclads too. I wish there were easier to find.

Maine
04-15-2015, 16:51
I don't know if it has a painted on finish. I would like to know. I shoot +P out of it and that's what I qualified with. Stout for sure. I did blacken the front sight with a sharpie, no contrast with the blue and grayish target.
Maybe if you post a picture of the gun someone here with more knowledge about the effected finishes would be able to tell. A call to S&W customer service might be helpful too.

yz9890
04-15-2015, 20:03
I just don't like stainless carry guns so I got the 442.

It does appear that my 442 barrel is painted black and there is some wear or paint coming off. And I don't care. Mostly black is still better than stainless IMO.

HOTHEAD
04-15-2015, 20:15
How does the 442 hold up to kydex?
I had a 642 I carried in a comp-tac 2 o'clock for about 2 years, and it put one hell of a rub mark on the frame.

fran m
04-16-2015, 16:07
How does the 442 hold up to kydex?
I had a 642 I carried in a comp-tac 2 o'clock for about 2 years, and it put one hell of a rub mark on the frame.

I don't know if its really kydex but mine has some very shiny marks on the cylinder. These were not there before I started using the Blackhawk.

halfmoonclip
04-23-2015, 17:00
If sheer durability is the goal, use a SS 640; if really light weight, then the 340. But it's hard to top a Centennial as a defense gun; only one control to worry about.
Moon

Pawatch
04-23-2015, 20:22
I liked the darker finish for CCW. That's why I got the 442.
Don't think you could go wrong with either one. Just a matter of preference.

Lt Scott 14
05-05-2015, 10:55
My 442 is almost 20 yrs old. Holding up well, carried almost as much as my wallet.
It is Brushed Nickel, and only has gotten shiny spots on the barrel, and cylinder face.
Not +P rated, but has had a few. Usually shoot non +P, carry +P for defense only.
Gold Dots are my favorite.

nikerret
05-05-2015, 20:51
442, it's what was in the case, when I went to buy it. Both were the same, at the time. If they had both been in the case, I would have still taken the 442. Reason: slight edge to the pretty factor and I know people who have a 642, but no one else has a 442. I would most likely be just as happy with the 642.