LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAny real difference between these two - besides looks?
Product: Model 442 Revolver
Product: Model 642 Revolver
Thinking about getting one for pocket / ankle carry.
This is a discussion on Difference between these two S&W Revolvers? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Any real difference between these two - besides looks? Product: Model 442 Revolver Product: Model 642 Revolver Thinking about getting one for pocket / ankle ...
Array
Any real difference between these two - besides looks?
Product: Model 442 Revolver
Product: Model 642 Revolver
Thinking about getting one for pocket / ankle carry.
For God, Family and Country!
Array
Not much except one is blued and the other is not. I own the non-blued version. I was told that it wouldn't rust since it wasn't coated, since you live near mobile and near the water I would prob go with the non-blued version. BTW I lived in mobile for 15 years.
S&W M&P15X | S&W 642CT
Mossberg 500 | Remington 700 .308
Kimber 45 Ultra Crimson Carry 2
XD 45 Compact | XD 9mm Sub Compact
Ruger LCP | Ruger 10/22 | Ruger SP101 357 Magnum
Array
Blued and SS, the only difference. My wife has the 642, loves it, except the recoil after 25 rounds or so bothers her hands, she is young (40) but has the beginnings of arthritis so the long revolver trigger pull coupled with the recoil can be a tad much. I bought her larger grips to try for "range grips" to see if it makes it more comfortable. Honestly, I think this gun fills a huge void for her and I. Great for purse carry, great for pocket carry and argueably the most failsafe form of weapon.Originally Posted by ArmyCop
"I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!" - Dorothy Parker
Array
Some of the 442s come without the lock.
Array
The Airweights are anodized aluminum and are not blued or stainless in a traditional sense. The difference between the two is the color only choice of a black or silver finish. I prefer the 442. The finish holds up pretty well and the black sights are easier to acquire.
I think the most important point, if possible, is to get a no internal lock model.
Training means learning the rules. Experience means learning the exceptions.
Array
I think you should get both and test them out.
Send me the one you like the lesser of the two.
No, seriously....I had a 442 and chose it over the 642 because it was easier to conceal, at least for me and the way I did things. I like black guns...they're easier to blend in, to make look like a shadow or something. Coming without the lock would be a bonus, too.
"...bad decisions that turn out well often make heroes."
Gary D. Mitchell, A Sniper's Journey: The Truth About the Man and the Rifle, P. 103, NAL Caliber books, 2006, 1st Ed.
Array
I spent my last couple computer sessions searching the difference of these same two revolvers. I'm going to the gun shop in 30 minutes or so to check them out myself.
My wife gave me the "go ahead" yesterday to purchase one or the other. Can't wait to check them out.
SCGunLover1
It's a matter of personal preference...I prefer the look of the 642, myself. OMO
"That I cannot do."
"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."
***********************************
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Array
The steel parts on the 442 is carbon steel (barrel, cylinder, latch). The same steel parts on the 642 is stainless steel.
Array
Bingo, the correct answer! The remainder of both guns is alloy.
Treat me good, I'll treat you better. Treat me bad, I'll treat you worse.
Array
FWIW, I got the 442 because I feel that a black gun is easier to conceal. I prefer to pocket carry and that dark pistol in a dark pocket made me feel more concealed. I guess all you would really see is the but end of the grip, but my mind makes me do funny things sometimes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote