S&W 442 vs competition

[Mr. Mosin]

New to the forum. Hello all. As the title says. S&W 442 vs Ruger LCR, Charter Arms Undercover. Budget is irrelevant between the three. Is S&W still king of the hill ? Also in regards to the 442, what is it’s lifespan looking like with 50 rounds down the tube a week ? I’m concerned with the aluminum frame stretching and warping.

 

[mrmike7189]

I had a 642 . identical gun in stainless and I cracked the frame shooting reloads that were obviously +P loaded? S&W replaced it for free .
I would not worry about shooting a lot of rounds through the 442. It is rated for +P so it is alot tougher than my 642 that was not +P rated.

 

[labnoti]

642 is not stainless, but grey-anodized aluminum instead of black-anodized aluminum. The current production of 642 and 442 are both +P rated, but past models of either may not have been. Nominally, the only difference between the two is the color.

The 640 is the stainless steel "Centennial" (concealed hammer) J frame. The Model 60 is the exposed hammer stainless steel J frame.

Because the OP is inquiring about ultralight snubnosed revolvers, I won't go into the 640, 60, SP101, K6S and other little snubnoses that can be almost twice the weight, but it should be noted they have substantial advantages.

The Ruger LCR is, like a lot of Ruger products, very innovative. I have not owned one but based on everything I know about it, I think it is worth considering.

I have owned a recent make 442/642. It's a fine firearm, but when buying a new revolver one should take care to examine it carefully because flaws and problems are commonplace regardless of who the manufacturer is. On my S&W which I purchased new, a person at the factory scratched the anodizing when they hammered the pin into the ejector rod detent on the barrel, and the barrel to cylinder gap was 0.013" (about twice what it should be). S&W did fix both.

It is my opinion that the 442/642 or the .357 version, the 340 are still the best revolvers of this type. But, I would much rather have a steel revolver, and a larger one.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

New to the forum. Hello all. As the title says. S&W 442 vs Ruger LCR, Charter Arms Undercover. Budget is irrelevant between the three. Is S&W still king of the hill ? Also in regards to the 442, what is it’s lifespan looking like with 50 rounds down the tube a week ? I’m concerned with the aluminum frame stretching and warping.

Welcome to the forum!

No more Airweight J-frames for me......





Yes, S&W will fix them free, but IMO, this is an unacceptable design weakness.

Ill take a 36 or 60 any day, though.

 

[WheelGunMan]

I own 3 LCR's that I've shot the snot out of. They're a tough breed that are fun to shoot too!

 

[Hale]

In my opinion, you just can't beat a S&W. It may be from years of familiarity, but the action and smoothness of pull on a Smith is vastly superior to all others.

My daily carry is a 642 (same revolver, different finish), and I've put over 5,000 rounds through it with no issues whatsoever. The vast majority were 125gr LRN over 5.3gr Trail Boss. Checking the charts this shows 952FPS/13,400psi, which is technically +P. Not a sign of any cracks, but I do keep a close watch.

 

[paulsj]

New to the forum. Hello all. As the title says. S&W 442 vs Ruger LCR, Charter Arms Undercover. Budget is irrelevant between the three. Is S&W still king of the hill ? Also in regards to the 442, what is it’s lifespan looking like with 50 rounds down the tube a week ? I’m concerned with the aluminum frame stretching and warping.

I would look for 342Ti. It was made for about six years. It had lightened alloy magnum J-frame frame, titanium cylinder and two piece barrel (steel with alloy shroud). These are nice and sell for less than the ones with Sc alloy frame.

 

[paulsj]

Welcome to the forum!

No more Airweight J-frames for me......
View attachment 847763
View attachment 847764
View attachment 847765
View attachment 847766

Yes, S&W will fix them free, but IMO, this is an unacceptable design weakness.

Ill take a 36 or 60 any day, though.

More advanced design is two-piece barrel with alloy shroud. I bought that because it's likely less stress from torque on the frame, therefore, no cracking.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

More advanced design is two-piece barrel with alloy shroud. I bought that because it's likely less stress from torque on the frame, therefore, no cracking.

I have yet to see any pictoral or testimonial evidence of any pinned-barrel Airweight frames cracking either, but of course, these are rare as hens teeth too!

 

[Mr. Mosin]

@labnoti wasn’t the Mdl 40 the original Centennial ? Also- I have looked at a Ruger SP101 w/ the three inch barrel chambered in .357 Magnum- loved it. As to the Kimber... I can’t justify 1k for a new production revolver that isn’t stamped Colt, Ruger or S&W. I can’t financially justify the 1k for any of them either, lol. The Ruger LCR has an internal lock (which I’m trying to avoid) and a polymer frame. Frankly, I don’t trust polymer in a wheelgun.

 

[SteadyD]

None of my LCRs have an internal lock.

 

[tubeshooter]

Many regard the 642/442 as the gold standard as far as lightweight and pocketable .38 snubs.
The LCR seems to be a good product as well.

I own a 642 and have not had any problems. Then again, I intentionally don't put a lot of rounds through it - even before I had started hearing about cracked frames. It's not like it's a fun gun to shoot...

I heard you could short-stroke the LCR trigger and it could be a problem.


To be honest - if I owned either, I'd be aware and keep an eye out but would not worry about either issue. That being said, if I was going to shoot the gun a whole bunch I would definitely go all steel. Which does not have to be SP101-level of heavy, but will be heavier and probably too much for most pockets.

 

[Zendude]

My Charter Undercover has a steel frame and only 1 oz heavier than a 442. It fits in the same holster as a j frame too.

 

[38riverrat]

I carry a M442 in my pocket, with a Mika holster. I practice with light 125 gr plated reloads, due to old hands. I carry Federal HST micro plus P, with BB 158gr hard cast SWC plus P, in speed strip.
I carry a Kimber 2 inch K6S DAO, in an OWB holster, when clothing permits, with same ammo.

Best,
Rick

 

[Hale]

My Charter Undercover has a steel frame and only 1 oz heavier than a 442. It fits in the same holster as a j frame too.

Thanks for mentioning this, I didn't realize Charter Arms was still in business. I always liked their 44 Bulldog, but haven't owned one - yet!

 

[Tallball]

I own or have owned most of the mainstream snub 38's/357's:

Charter Arms (various models)
Ruger LCR
Ruger SP101
S&W 642
Taurus 85

and also a Rossi, a Miroku, and probably some others I'm forgetting.

My preferred carry piece is a snub revolver, in the cargo pocket of my shorts if possible.

Of all of the snubs I've owned, I prefer to carry the Ruger LCR.

Of all of the snubs I've ever shot, it's the lightest, and has the best DA trigger. The 38 version has an aluminum subframe. The 357 has a steel subframe and is roughly four ounces heavier (and thus easier to control). My friend has the 357. I have the 38. It goes to the store with me while the other sit at home. Other than being snagless and having a great trigger, I like that it's so light that it doesn't weigh my pocket down. A steel snubby makes my pocket wag around like there's an anchor in it.

The Charter Arms have a pretty good, a little rough and "toy-like" but pretty good, trigger. I have four. One that I bought used had problems, and CA fixed it for free. They are pretty light.

I've had two SP101's. Their triggers are/were horrible, though my friend has one that's decent. They're a bit bigger and heavier than a j-frame.

The S&W snubs I've shot have been nice revolvers. I got a used 642 recently that has a nice trigger. It's had some light strikes, which I need to address. It's obviously a quality piece.

All three of my Taurus 85's went bang every time. I had a steel SA/DA with a great trigger, an aluminum SA/DA with an okay trigger, and a steel DAO with a horrible trigger. The first was stolen, the second I gave to my FiL because he needed a carry piece, the third I traded away.

So, my favorite 38 snub to carry is easily my LCR. My favorite 38 snub to shoot, and the one I shoot the best, is a 2" S&W Model 10. It's bigger and heavier than I care to lug around, but it's a sweet shooter.

I put the slightly longer grip on my LCR to accommodate my enormous hands. It doesn't interfere with my preferred carry style.

EDC

• Tallball
• Feb 10, 2019

 

[gotboostvr]

I'd handle a 642 and a LCR. I'd be willing to bet you can find one of each at a gunstore near you.

I'd concentrate on things like sight picture, trigger pull, cylinder release etc. and remember that those awful factory grips S&W makes now can be replaced with approximately a million aftermarket options.
There's a couple options for the Ruger and their rubber grips feel better than S&W's hard plastic. The trigger is reportedly a little better on the Ruger as well. But the S&W's can be improved upon with a little elbow grease.

I'm personally more familiar with the Smith's but can't say that they're objectively better.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I have a no lock M442 since the week it was released, it replaced a M642 because I like a black gun better. I have shot it almost weekly since I got it and there are no signs of damage to the gun. I have not shot the corners so I can't comment on them, sorry.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

Thanks all, for your input and advice.

 

[fireman 9731]

I'm partial to Smith and Wesson. The biggest preference for me is the cylinder release. I like the push of the Smith vs. the pull of the Ruger or Colt. I just cant get past the difference.
If I could do it all over again, I would buy a 642 instead of my 442. I prefer the looks of the 442 but the rusty cylinder is about to drive me nuts.

 

[mcb]

I have a 442 Moonclip (without internal lock) and I like it quite a bit.

One thing with the 642 and 442. Both the 642 and 442 use the same stainless steel barrel The 642 also uses a stainless steel. 442 currently uses carbon steel cylinder in the regular version but there are a fair number of 442, 442 Pro and 442 Moonclip guns out there that have stainless steel cylinders that have been PVD blacked like the barrel. I beleive min has the stainless cylinder but its hard to tell since the stainless steel S&W uses in their revolvers is magnetic.


Yes those are some super ugly grips but they tame the +P ammo like no other grip I have tried.

 

[Barry loyd]

I have a 442 Moonclip (without internal lock) and I like it quite a bit.

One thing with the 642 and 442. Both the 642 and 442 use the same stainless steel barrel The 642 also uses a stainless steel. 442 currently uses carbon steel cylinder in the regular version but there are a fair number of 442, 442 Pro and 442 Moonclip guns out there that have stainless steel cylinders that have been PVD blacked like the barrel. I beleive min has the stainless cylinder but its hard to tell since the stainless steel S&W uses in their revolvers is magnetic.

View attachment 847840
Yes those are some super ugly grips but they tame the +P ammo like no other grip I have tried.

I like those grips. Who makes them?

 

[Pat Riot]

I believe that is an ERGO Delta Grip. I would love to try a set of these out.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

I love the size and weight of the 642. Love the way it shoots and carries. However, I shoot my LCR9mm for training. It can handle a lot of rounds down range without any worry of cracking and ammo is cheap. I do not train much with the 642 because of some many crack complaints. Actually no need to. I also train with the LCR22. Just a ton of fun and cheap shooting.
I did hear of the cracking issues a lot time ago, but thought, hey so much time has passed that Smith would have fixed that issue by now. It is unacceptable that this still happens. So I guess the Smith falls into that category of shoot less carry often and train with a solid gun.

Any one know which model of Smith comes close to the LCR? In 357 or 9mm type strength?

 

[The Evangelist Cowboy]

I prefer the taurus 85/856/605, they make the revolver with the best hammer profile that will not snag on jeans or pants when you pull it out and they make the best STANDARD grips currently that fit like a glove in my hand. That's not to say that the other offerings are not good and serviceable but if you truly notice what's going around Taurus has been making great strides lately they're the ones making new things to compete. Ruger has to. But neither Smith or Ruger came out with a J frame size 6 shot .38 to compete with the new Colt Cobra , Taurus came out with the 856, only taurus taurus came out with a .357/9mm revolver DA that isn't going to cost you your first born.