Is the S&W 442/642 the perfect pocket gun?

chaim

As others have already pointed out, the Hogue Monogrip is very easy to put on a revolver. The clip set-up is easy to install and provides for a nice snug fit on the grip frame. This Monogrip (Cocobolo with finger grooves and checkering), which I installed on my wife's Model 34 is the standard full size grip. Very comfortable to use but may be a little too long for concealed carry. If that's the case, then you can go with Hogue's smaller Bantam style grip. Available in their OverMolded Rubber, Extreme G10 Series, or Exotic Wood, prices range from $29.95 to $124.95, depending of course on the material you select for the grip.
Fe03C1a.jpg
sQwhrlM.jpg
 
Diamondback said:
View attachment 1147822

I have a factory bobbed 37-2 which is a close second cousin to the 442. I have let the factory grips be, but that is because I still have a bunch of easy shooting 125gr. Nyclads that I stocked up on years ago. When I eventually run out and step up to the short barrel Gold Dots or the FBI load for carry I will need to consider changing grips or just go with target wadcutters and call it good. Honestly, at my age I don't enjoy shooting much +p out of the airweights. Couple of cylinders full at the end of the range day and that's it for me.
Click to expand...
The grips on that revolver and most of the older J frames were based on a design buy Altmont which was licensed by Uncle Mike's. They were in turn sold to S&W.
Unfortunately they let the agreement laps and the new boot grips are nowhere as good.

The very day they announced they were parting ways I went on the S&W site and bought spare boot grips and the slightly longer style grips for J frames. I also bought a few grips for the K/L frame. Soon after the inventory was gone. They are very good grips and I can see why you left them on your J frame.
 
Poper said:
You have identified multiple types of grips that you believe might work for you and your CC methodology.
I see that you have multiple handguns that fit your CC pocket carry needs. However, it appears from reading your posts that the cost of grips is a primary concern.
Now, if'n I was in your shoes (I am not), I would buy one of each of the grip types and try each one out on my primary CC choice, in both carry condition and range training/practice, and see which grips best fit the bill for what I am wanting them to do. It will cost me some money but a bit less than one of the revolvers.
When we are discussing a possibly life saving decision, what's a couple hundred bucks between friends? :scrutiny:
Click to expand...
The cost is partially a concern. I'm neither rich nor poor. If I knew they'd work and the pair of grips that would do exactly what I wanted would cost $200, I'd pay it happily. If a pair that would mostly do what I want ran $100-150, I'd pay it happily. However, I don't have enough money to waste it, so I don't want to buy a couple sets that don't do anything better than what I already have.
 
chaim said:
I've thought about the Hogues, but without a grip screw, putting them on and taking them off the gun seems to be more involved than with the others. If I knew they'd work for me and I wouldn't need to remove them, I would have had them on my list. While I normally prefer wood on a revolver, a 442 is more utilitarian to me so I can do rubber. Though, sometimes rubber can grip your clothing and either make the draw more difficult, or make it obvious you have a gun. Has that been an issue with your Hogues?
Click to expand...

The Bantams just slip on and off. Ive had them on and off mine at least 3-4 times without issue. Pocket carrying, the rubber is a non-issue. IWB carry is a non-issue with your shirt tucked in. With your shirt un-tucked, it might grab a little bit but I've never had much of a problem with it.
 
I have made a decision on the grips. Of course, I may revisit in the future, but for now...

Even my more pleasant to shoot Taurus 856UL (hand filling rubber boot grips, an ounce or ounce and a half heavier), isn't comfortable to shoot. I can shoot a box or two of practice ammo out of it without trouble, but I don't enjoy it. I don't like shooting more than a couple cylinders of defensive ammo at a time.

So, instead of chasing something that may not be there (relative comfort out of a lightweight snub), I may go for maximizing its main strength... pocket and other deep concealed carry. So, for occasional range use, I'll keep the Pachmayrs, and put the Eagle Secret Service Boot grips back on to maximize concealment.

I may buy a pair of cheap Asian made wood boot grips to see if another design has enough extra material to make a difference. I may also buy the Hogue Bantam grips since they run $20-30 to see how they work... but, I'm no longer looking for the "best" choice.

I may also run a timer on my follow up shots with the Eagle grips vs. the Pachmayr or the cheaper grips I get to see if there really is a difference in capability with the grips. While larger grips may make the gun more comfortable to shoot at the range, that doesn't necessarily equate to faster follow up shots and I should test that out. If there is a comfort difference but no real practical difference, I'll stick with the most concealable grips (the Eagle S. Service grips I already have), I already have a couple guns that can serve as trainers (the slightly more comfortable to shoot 856, my steel framed Taurus 85CH, and I wouldn't mind getting a steel M60 or M36 in the near future), mostly shoot lighter recoiling wadcutters out of the 442 for practice, and maybe run one or two cylinders of defensive ammo through it when I shoot the gun.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the Smith 442 and 642 are the perfect pocket guns indeed. I have their scandium brother the M&P340CT and it is my perfect pocket gun. The centennial J frames are my favorite for pocket carry and deep concealment roles.

I've always preferred revolvers, especially snub nosed revolvers for concealed carry. I think the reason the centennial J frame has stood the test of time because they are SO good at what they do and in that role even in this day and age of micro 9mm semiautos,the snub nose revolver is still in the game.

I remember reading somewhere that the 642 was A&W's best selling or one of their best selling handguns. Now it's was years ago that I read this,so I'm not sure if this is still the case. However it was the case for a long time. I really think a Smith 442/642 are great guns and fitted with crimson trace laser grips is a out as perfect a self defense gun for 99% of civilian CCW needs.

The only reason I have my M&P340CT is because I bought it used for a great price.I agree with another member here Dadams I believe called it an improved 442/642.: I consider it's night sight and scandium frame to be a bigger benefit than it's 357 magnum chambering. Although I do carry mine with Remington golden sabers or critical defense 357 magnum defensive ammo these are mid-range magnum loads that run great in the lightweight snubs in my experience.
 
megatronrules said:
........
........
........

The only reason I have my M&P340CT is because I bought it used for a great price.I agree with another member here Dadams I believe called it an improved 442/642.: I consider it's night sight and scandium frame to be a bigger benefit than it's 357 magnum chambering. Although I do carry mine with Remington golden sabers or critical defense 357 magnum defensive ammo these are mid-range magnum loads that run great in the lightweight snubs in my experience.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about buying the M&P 340PD but the price was prohibitive. I didn't want it to fire .357 ammo, I wanted it because it would probably stay tight much longer than the .38 Special like the M442 I carry shooting only .38 Spl +P ammo since it was designed to fire .357 Magnum ammo.

I did fire 3 rounds of Magnum ammo in one of those 12oz J frames, 3 rounds was quite enough. I didn't fire the remaining 2 rounds, I like my hand too much. I'm not recoil sensitive in the least but that was painful to me. I do own a M640 and fire that with full power magnum ammo but then again, it is almost twice the weight as the M340. (my M640 is amazingly accurate with Winchester 145gr Silvertip .357 Mag ammo)
 
Anchorite said:
Glad you posted. There’s a CM9 at my local hardware store I was admiring. But at $459 and ONE magazine, I’m hesitant. I think I will stick with my 442.
Click to expand...

My CM9 was junk. Wouldn't run with anything and the factory just kept telling me to to throw more and more ammo at it until it would fix itself. Spent more on ammo than I did on the gun and it never got any better.
 
The 442 is better for pocket carry than the 642 because its black frame does not show in the pocket opening so obviously as does the silver frame of the 642. In fact, I paid $100 on a trade in of my 642 to get a used 442. A 640 is slightly bigger and heavier so would handle recoil better and can shoot .357 Magnums. The ejection rod is longer too so your cases will clear the cylinder.
 
My answer to the OP question is NO! I bought a 642 and a pocket holster, then tried it out in my front jeans pocket. When I walked into the family room my wife pointed at my right leg and said, "Is that the new gun you just bought?"

At the range I found my large hands cannot get a consistent grip, particularly out of a pocket, to have any control. The little bugger is a pain in the butt to shoot accurately. Now the 642 resides in a hidden spot to be used in place of the proverbial 'sharp stick'.

Dave
 
Oh - you can shoot it just fine.

It's just so much easier to shoot a K frame .38 Special well/proficiently/to target grade satisfaction.


They're a lot harder to conceal, though. It's a compromise.
Kind of like the 5 shots is a compromise to begin with...
 
What I was getting at is, I keep hearing comments that they are for carry, and not the range, but if you cant shoot them regularly in practice at the range, so you can get good with them, where are you getting the experience and skill with them, to carry them?

Or isnt that important?

And Im with you there tubeshooter, the K frame snubbies are the sweet spot. :)
 
tubeshooter said:
Oh - you can shoot it just fine.

It's just so much easier to shoot a K frame .38 Special well/proficiently/to target grade satisfaction.


They're a lot harder to conceal, though. It's a compromise.
Kind of like the 5 shots is a compromise to begin with...
Click to expand...

trackskippy said:
What I was getting at is, I keep hearing comments that they are for carry, and not the range, but if you cant shoot them regularly in practice at the range, so you can get good with them, where are you getting the experience and skill with them, to carry them?

Or isnt that important?

And Im with you there tubeshooter, the K frame snubbies are the sweet spot. :)
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with you both, though it isn't only about getting good at the range. Part of the problem with the lightweight snubs is also quick follow up shots. I think the 442/642 is about the perfect pocket gun. However, a pocket pistol is always about compromise: in .25ACP, .32ACP or even .380 you are seriously compromising on power, even in .38spl it is a compromise since many JHP in .38 don't reliably expand out of a 2" barrel, and in a caliber with any power behind it (.38+P and 9mm) the recoil can be quite stout out of a small and light pocketable handgun. Even if you practice enough to be good at the range, that can be a serious issue in a self defense situation. However, I find a steel framed snub (whether a Taurus, S&W, or Colt) to be controllable even for quick follow up shots when shooting .38spl or +P, even within acceptable standards out of a 2" and all the more so out of a 3". Still, a 2 1/2" to 3" K-frame is still reasonably concealable IWB or OWB, the longer barrel will provide more reliable expansion (though still spottier than a 4"), and they can even make .357mag reasonable to shoot. I have a 2 1/2" K-frame sized Taurus .44spl (a 431) and the 65LS I mentioned earlier. I am on the casual lookout for a 2.5" S&W 66 or other 2.5-4" K-frame, Taurus 65/66 or Ruger GP100 (less likely due to weight)... casual lookout = probably will buy one within a year, whenever the money is available at the same time I see one at a reasonable price I will buy (I currently have a few of the Taurus on my watchlist on GB) and I'll start more seriously looking (scouring gun shows and gun shops instead of my more usual occasional check) if I don't find one before we get near the one year mark.

After a recent scary situation at home a few weeks ago (gunshots a few houses over), I want to maximize the advantages (within reason) of the type of gun I'm carrying, capacity (at least 10 rounds) in an auto, power (.357mag whenever possible) out of a revolver. The 442 shooting .38, while it may not expand, I can use LSWC-HP (or one of the rounds that have more reliable expansion out of a short barrel) to maximize the power I can get out of a pocket pistol. For belt carry (whether IWB or OWB), I may still carry .38+P when I'll be mostly indoors, but when I can I want to transition back to .357mag as much as possible.
 
Last edited:
I have both a 642 and a 442, the 642 came first and has had springs replaced once.

I like them for pocket carry.

I bought a 437 that had been machined for moon clips by the S&W Performance Center. I liked the concept so much that I had my 642 and 442 machined to accept moon clips as well.

To shoot the revolvers well, I've gone to larger rubber grips than what S&W usually puts on the guns. Not the best for concealment but it makes shooting more reliable.

Your mileage may and will vary on the choice of grips.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
  • Poll
Grips for the 642/337/340/360
Replies
12
Views
1K
brentfoto
B
J
  • Locked
  • Poll
LCR vs 442/642 vs SP101 for ccw
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
P5 Guy
P5 Guy
C
  • Locked
How to make my S&W 442 more civil?
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
HeavyDuty
H
C
Small framed revolvers
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
chaim
C
T
  • Locked
S&W 442 pocket carry ?
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
rayban
R
Back
Top