Smith Wesson 642 vs 442

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

ghh3rd

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
84
I've been trying to get hold of a Smith and Wesson 642 "No Lock" without success. It's listed in the Smith and Wesson web site as SKU 103810, but I've been told by more than one gun dealer that it's not available.

I was told that the 442 is the exact same gun, but without the lock, and the finish is blued. I really hoped to get the aluminum/stainless finish. It seems that they are about the same price for either finish.

Has anyone had experience with the 442? I'm concerned about how the finish would hold up, especially with concealed carry (sweat, etc).

I'm almost ready to break down and get the 642 with the internal lock, but that would really #$#@!!.

Thanks,

Randy
 
I have a 442. It has shiney lines showing through on the high spots but it looks like honest wear not from neglect or abuse.

You can see what I mean here, sorta'. The pistol is now about a year old and I frequently carry it in a lether Alessi IWB holster. I don't care much about it's looks so it's always been a utilitarian carry or toss on the seat kind of gun.
LewHORTON_M27andson.gif

I've seen a lot of people asking about repainting their 642's. Apparently it's not a finished metal surface but is painted silver. And it must look worse than mine does if the amount of upset that some owners have displayed about it is any measure. I've never seen a worn 642.
 
I have a 442 & 642. They are identical except for color.

Both have the lock. It doesn't bother me.
 
First let me say that I think you made a good choice in canceling your order for the 642, given that it was going to be a IL model. Given the choice, I would choose the no-lock every time.

I have a 642-1 and the finish is going the way of the Wookie after a year and a half of almost daily pocket carry. The chances of me ever getting it refinished are '0'. It's a self defense tool, not a showpiece.

I was looking for a no-lock 442 when I found my 642. I like the darker finish myself. The backstrap has less of a chance of drawing attention if it ever peeks out of the top of the pocket - especially with black or dark grips. Keep the 442 clean, carry it in a Mika pocket holster that won't wick sweat and enjoy!

rd
 
ghh3rd - If you still want a 642 I know a dealer that has a couple without the lock...or at least he did last week. PM me for details.
 
ghh3rd, Check out the 642 Club here on the forum alot of good info on both the 642 and the 442. orchidhunter
 
I went with the 442 because I'm not a shiny type of guy when it comes to my carry pieces. My main concern was rusting because I've always had a problem with that in my neck of the woods. I've had rust show up on Kimbers, Colts, Smiths, Sigs etc. Followed some advice to pick up some CLP and treat the guns once every month or two or while cleaning. I haven't had a spec of rust since. That stuff is a godsend.

So anyway. The carbon steel parts are really the only difference and that, IMHO, isn't an issue. The 442 is a great gun and so far the finish has been as durable as one could reasonably expect.
 
Internal locking

I just purchased the model 642 with the Internal locking and I was wondering why this was not a good thing.

Also, if anyone out there can tell me; I have read that the finish on the 642, being made of an aluminum alloy, can be tarnished quite quickly and be unsightly. Is there any special care or cleaning techniques that should be used? I know this cosmetic issue doesn't affect the performance of the weapon. BUT with enough corrosion, it could hamper the turning of the cylinder...
 
River Rat 564 said:

I just purchased the model 642 with the Internal locking and I was wondering why this was not a good thing.
Click to expand...

Turn the question around, what is the advantage of having the lock? Those of us that hate the lock hate it primarily because it introduces parts into the gun that are unnecessary for operation and create an additional chance of parts failure that make the gun unable to fire. The S&W lock in particular is known for failing and causing the gun to lock during firing.

That, and the fact that it is unsightly make it a bad combination.
 
Landric quote-"The S&W lock in particular is known for failing and causing the gun to lock during firing."

Lots of questions regarding locks, here goes. Let me say I do not want to hi-jack this thread, so if responses by private messages are prefered, that is fine with me.

Is this only a problem with the 642? Could you please provide some sort of ducumentation? Not saying it can't happen, but I've seen similar statements by others before and no documentation. Has anyone posted on this site who has experienced this failure first hand? Is there a link to a report or story someone can provide to substantiate that in fact my new 642 has a potential to fail because of the internal lock?
I don't need to rehash the Clinton era gun politics and why we don't like S&W's decision to offer locks.

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, I genuinely want to see it in black and white. I recently bought a 642 with the lock. There was no other choice for me locally, and I bought the gun in spite of the lock, not because of it. I wanted a 642 and I bought it.
Also, can anyone tell me if the lock design has been altered if early models failed? Anyone know WHY there were failures?
Thank you.
 
I've only owned a 642, but the finish on that is by no means durable. The "clearcoat" has been coming off in chips under my fingernail. I actually PREFER my carry guns to be beat up and ugly, but I'd just get the first one that you can get, the 442 or 642, so long as it's sans lock.
 
IMHO the finish on the 442 is better wearing than the 642. My son has the 642 and I have the 442, his shows what looks like "chipping", maybe of a clearcoat finish. My 442 has been carried at least as much and shows only the smallest indication of it on the sharp edges. I use the 442 when I am not carrying my 940 as BUG to my BHP. I like the 442 a lot, I would even get one if it had to have the lock.
 
Resto Guy Said:

Lots of questions regarding locks, here goes. Let me say I do not want to hi-jack this thread, so if responses by private messages are prefered, that is fine with me.

Is this only a problem with the 642? Could you please provide some sort of ducumentation? Not saying it can't happen, but I've seen similar statements by others before and no documentation. Has anyone posted on this site who has experienced this failure first hand? Is there a link to a report or story someone can provide to substantiate that in fact my new 642 has a potential to fail because of the internal lock?
I don't need to rehash the Clinton era gun politics and why we don't like S&W's decision to offer locks.

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, I genuinely want to see it in black and white. I recently bought a 642 with the lock. There was no other choice for me locally, and I bought the gun in spite of the lock, not because of it. I wanted a 642 and I bought it.
Also, can anyone tell me if the lock design has been altered if early models failed? Anyone know WHY there were failures?
Click to expand...

There was a thread on the S&W forum that ran quite a few pages of posts by members who had personally experienced a S&W IL failure. I'm not sure if its still there or not.

I am one of them, I experienced a lock failure while shooting standard pressure .45ACP 230 grain hardball in a new model 22-4 1917 "Classic". The lock engaged during recoil and prevented me for firing the next round until the revolver was unlocked.

I can't tell you why it happens, other than to say it must be a bad design. I doubt the majority of IL equipped guns have problems, but enough do that I'll never own one for serious (outside the range) use.
 
:banghead:Lock :banghead:Lock :banghead:Lock
I wish it and all the arguing about it would go away.

To the OP, like the others have said, the M642 and M442 ARE the same exact revolver except for the finish. I happen to like the M442 better but when I was in the market only the M642 was available so that's what I bought. Both weigh the same, feel the same and the felt recoil is the same with both. (because they are the same)

If you want a no-lock revolver, buy one. If it doesn't bother you, buy a ILS gun. It's a choice only you can make and those who ridicule either end of the discussion are wrong. I happen to choose to use only no-lock guns but I really don't care if someone likes a ILS gun and carries one. (unless it's a family member)
 
The apparent difference is the finish but as has been mentioned, I believe that also the steel parts (barrel, cylinder, etc) are carbon
(442) and stainless (642).
As most folks do, I prefer the no-lock model but I also have lock models.
 
As the lock is an issue for you (as it is for me for political, practical and marketing reasons as well as loyalty) I would consider looking to the used market.
 
I was looking for a 642 no lock a few months ago. I found one in a local store. While looking it over I asked if he had a no lock 442. Sure did. It was even $30.00 less. No clue why except that maybe they figured more folks wanted the 642 so price it higher. I love the look of stainless revolvers and have an older 60 and 66. But the 442 just hit me right so I went with it. The price difference wasn't considered but at least it was in my favor. I wondered if I would regret my decision even as I drove home. NOPE! I wouldn't have regretted the 642 either. If I was looking for another I would just grab the first NO LOCK I found. They seem to be getting very hard to find.
 
S&W has both the 642 no lock:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...angId=-1&parent_category_rn=15704&isFirearm=Y

and the 442 no-lock:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...angId=-1&parent_category_rn=15704&isFirearm=Y

Listed on the website as currently available. Even if the supply seems to be dry right now, hopefully that means there will be additional runs in the future. We will see I suppose. I'd really like to see a 340PD no-lock run. Rumor is that the no-lock offerings are going to be expanded this year. Hopefully those rumors are accurate.

I'm firmly anti-lock on any sort of serious gun. It doesn't offend me when others choose a gun with an IL for defense. I just hope it doesn't fail them when they need it. I'd rather not own any S&W with an IL, but I just purchased a 21-4 Thunder Ranch .44 Special. The original 21 .44 Special is scarce and expensive. I have a thing for fixed sight revolvers. There is no way I could afford a "real" 21, so I went with the 21-4. Its going to be strictly for the range, but I'll probably disable the IL anyway. For $550 NIB it was hard to pass up.
 
Ironically I just asked this question about IL on another thread "640 question" and have a locking up problem when loaded and firing 357. Not all the time but occasionally. I was advised it could be a dirty gun issue but the lock seems to be very suspicious. I want to in the worst way remove it or disengage it.
 
I have a 642 with the lock I removed the lock flag after carrying it with the lock for 2 years. I have fired about 2000 +p rounds in it in practice while it had the lock and it never caused a problem. I removed the lock because you cant see the flag on a 642, and the lock serves no purpose for me.

The finish is wearing on mine after 3 years of daily pocket carry with a Kramer pocket holster. It will not tarnish but get shiney where the finish wears. Its no different than any carry gun, you get wear if you carry it.
Even the bead blast stainless cylinder has shiney wear spots from rubbing against the holster, yes the clear coat and paint are also wearing in contact spots.
Its a carry gun.
 
I fell in like w/ a buddy's no lock 442 -- i looked & shopped for several months but being in CA, the no locks were tough to find & I ended up w/ a lock'd version -- several 100 rounds later, i'm okay w/ the lock --
 
Masterblaster, how do you remove the lock mechanism? And can you do it without disassembling the whole gun? I've had this several years and don't remember seeing a key for it. Besides, it must be pretty small because the hole looks round like a key doesn't even fit it.
 
Masterblaster, how do you remove the lock mechanism? And can you do it without disassembling the whole gun?
Click to expand...


You have to take off the sideplate, and remove the hammer, the lock flag is under it, it then can be lifted out.

You have to capture the spring on a J frame with a paper clip.

If you have never done this a copy of Kuhnhausen's shop manual for S&W revolvers is a good idea, and a proper hollow ground screw driver.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Looking to buy A S&W 642 or 442
Replies
12
Views
514
TimeIsRunninOut
T
B
  • Locked
S&W 642 vs. 442
Replies
19
Views
9K
mavracer
mavracer
M
  • Locked
442 Owners--How does the finish hold up?
Replies
6
Views
835
MK11
M
F
  • Locked
Is a new S&W 442 worth $100 more than a new 642?
Replies
7
Views
873
Ala Dan
A
S
  • Locked
Difference between Smith 642 & 442?
Replies
18
Views
2K
E357
E
Back
Top