This is a discussion on Ruger SP101 vs S&W 640 which one? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by ICTsnub
I own both, prefer the Smith, but really it's just another Coke/Pepsi argument to me.
Smith has enclosed hammer, one less ...
I own both, prefer the Smith, but really it's just another Coke/Pepsi argument to me.
Smith has enclosed hammer, one less entry for lint, Ruger has an easier feild strip.
I agree with the coke/pepsi statement, but I did own a S&W 442 once upon a time - it was easy to carry, felt like a dream to handle, pointed beautifully, and I couldn't hit the broad side of a mountain with it. Besides that, it hurt like Hell to shoot. I have shot an SP 101 and if I had to chose, I'd take the SP 101. (But then, I like Coke better then Pepsi).
I am trying to decide between the 2. I have seen lots rave reviews on the Ruger but have not found any on the S&W. I am liking the 640 better because it is a little thinner, especially the handle is thinner. I wonder shootability wise how they compare. How does the S&W 640 feels at the range. Any suggestions or comments will be appreciated.
Before you decide, take a look at the S&W 649. Same as the 640 but has a shrouded hammer rather than hammer-less.
I have a 638 and sometimes it is nice to be able to cock for the SA trigger.
I own a 640, 649 and an SP-101 with a factory-bobbed hammer. You can carry any of them in a front pocket if you wear the right kind of pants. I actually find the 640 a little less punishing with medium-powered magnums like the Golden Saber or Corbon DPX. I think it has to do with the bore axis being a bit lower. I have Hogue Bantams and the Smiths and they help a lot. The are all good guns and you can't go wrong.
I did own a S&W 442 once upon a time - it was easy to carry, felt like a dream to handle, pointed beautifully, and I couldn't hit the broad side of a mountain with it. Besides that, it hurt like Hell to shoot. I have shot an SP 101 and if I had to chose, I'd take the SP 101. (But then, I like Coke better then Pepsi).
The S&W 442 is an Airweight, the 640 is all steel and about 50% heavier. So not a Coke/Pepsi comparison. And if Airweights hurt like hell (), what do the AirLights hurt like?
The S&W 442 is an Airweight, the 640 is all steel and about 50% heavier. So not a Coke/Pepsi comparison. And if Airweights hurt like hell (), what do the AirLights hurt like?
Yep. Plus I thought the 442 series centennial was made to chamber .38 special, with newer models rated for +P ammo. I didn't think they made the 442 in .357 Magnum.. (?)
I have a pre-lock 640-1 and the 3, 1/16" SP101; both great period. Get rid of the longer gip on the 640 and you have the one that's the most concealable. 640 is still heavy for a pocket carry. More grip options for the 640, fewer options for the SP101. Not as much difference in recoil between the two as you might think but the back strap on the Ruger OEM grips is more friendly to the web between thumb and index finger than the 640 is. Both have pinned front sights allowing easier changes down the road. I'd take a Ruger over a 640 with a lock but would likely take a no-lock over the Ruger and eventually, they both belong in a modest collection of revolvers.
Gideon
The comment by Pointblank about the bore axis being lower was interesting. That was one of the things I was looking for when comparing the 2 side by side at the gun store. It makes a lot of sense to me. Los chart shows this difference clearly. I am liking the 649 idea as suggested by gig. I am planning to use medium to lower power .357 or high power .38 +P with it, somewhere in that range. This is going to be my only revolver, and I want it to be easier to carry than my Sig P239; I am sure it will be. Now with the summer coming up, it is all t-shirts and cargo shorts here in FL. I can't wait to get it.