View Full Version : great, another revolver thread from skyugo... 638 vs 642
hi again..
so i have been google searching the crap out of the 638 vs 642 thing, and quite frankly this is the only forum whose opinion i hold in esteem on the issue of defensive firearms. So yall pretty much have the final word.
i want a little revolver. pocket carryable. smith j-frames seem to be the go-to.
i went to a local shop and looked at the 642. as an afterthought i asked to see a 638. hmm.. 638 has a much better DA trigger as well as a super light SA option. still looks pretty dang snag free too. :eek:
so:
638 pros:
possible SA use for longer shots-probably not a defensive feature, but definitely a fun thing for range use, and may help me get a good idea of my point of impact and accuracy potential, which will lead to more use of the gun, and hence greater familiarity and proficiency.
638 cons:
maybe more possibility of dust getting into it?
I've finally gotten a bit more comfortable with my 642. Talk about a learning curve! With that in mind, I also own an older 649-1 bodyguard in .38 spl (the ones with the shrouded hammer). The single action was fun at the range, but I saw no other use for it. And to be honest, even at the range, I only tolerated running about a box and a half of ammo before either guns would beat up the web of my hand. I actually prefer the 642 a lot more now. For the purpose of a defensive pocketgun, it's super light, and very anti-snag. With the APEX trigger kit and what has been weekly practice, I've gotten fairly proficient with it.
Also, with ammo prices nowadays, I really don't miss the single action since it would really not be realistic to practice it anyway. I'd rather spend the extra rounds honing a skill that would actually be practical in a 2 way range situation.
Either one is a fine pocket revolver.
I carried a M38 Airweight Bodyguard for a while, and yes, you get lint and dust in the hammer channel.
Take a qtip and clean it out occasionally.
I currently own a M642, have for a little over a decade, and it works great as well.
I'd be happy with either one.
So will you.
The shape of the frame of the 642 allows the fitting of Craig Spegel boot grips in the "high horn" configuration. Basically the grips come to the top of the frame. This allows you to grip the gun higher. The grips are also thicker than the bare frame at the top and spread the recoil out over a larger area of your hand. Better control and less felt recoil. Besides, other than the range can you think of a time you would fire a snubby single action?
A few pics of my 642 that has been worked over by Don Williams of The Action Works
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae322/strangler366/Guns%204%20Sale/DSCN1323.jpg
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae322/strangler366/Guns%204%20Sale/DSCN1329.jpg
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae322/strangler366/Guns%204%20Sale/DSCN1322.jpg
hi again..
so i have been google searching the crap out of the 638 vs 642 thing, and quite frankly this is the only forum whose opinion i hold in esteem on the issue of defensive firearms. So yall pretty much have the final word.
i want a little revolver. pocket carryable. smith j-frames seem to be the go-to.
i went to a local shop and looked at the 642. as an afterthought i asked to see a 638. hmm.. 638 has a much better DA trigger as well as a super light SA option. still looks pretty dang snag free too. :eek:
so:
638 pros:
possible SA use for longer shots-probably not a defensive feature, but definitely a fun thing for range use, and may help me get a good idea of my point of impact and accuracy potential, which will lead to more use of the gun, and hence greater familiarity and proficiency.
638 cons:
maybe more possibility of dust getting into it?
As a card-carrying J-frame junkie, the obvious answer is you need them both. ;)
The single action "advantage" of the 638 is negligible, as with practice--and if you're going to carry a five-shot snubbie, you damn well better practice--you can shoot as accurately (at least for any practical purposes) double action as single action. It *does* however, allow you to check for high primers or trash under the ejector star (both of which can tie up the action) by slightly cocking the hammer and rotating the cylinder.
Some will say that the shrouded hammer is a disadvantage, particularly for pocket carry as it's possible to get a coin or something similar trapped behind the hammer, rendering the gun inoperable. But you shouldn't be carrying anything else in any pocket that contains a gun.
I own every possible J-frame configuration, and I like them all, but FWIW my daily carry revolver is a 642.
With all that said, it boils down to which gun *you* like best. If you prefer the trigger on this particular 638, by all means get that one.
dirt_diver
07-08-11, 22:31
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae322/strangler366/Guns%204%20Sale/DSCN1323.jpg
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae322/strangler366/Guns%204%20Sale/DSCN1329.jpg
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae322/strangler366/Guns%204%20Sale/DSCN1322.jpg[/QUOTE]
Hol-ee smokes that's a nice looking piece.
As a card-carrying J-frame junkie, the obvious answer is you need them both. ;)
The single action "advantage" of the 638 is negligible, as with practice--and if you're going to carry a five-shot snubbie, you damn well better practice--you can shoot as accurately (at least for any practical purposes) double action as single action. It *does* however, allow you to check for high primers or trash under the ejector star (both of which can tie up the action) by slightly cocking the hammer and rotating the cylinder.
Some will say that the shrouded hammer is a disadvantage, particularly for pocket carry as it's possible to get a coin or something similar trapped behind the hammer, rendering the gun inoperable. But you shouldn't be carrying anything else in any pocket that contains a gun.
I own every possible J-frame configuration, and I like them all, but FWIW my daily carry revolver is a 642.
With all that said, it boils down to which gun *you* like best. If you prefer the trigger on this particular 638, by all means get that one.
fairly sold on the 642 (mostly due to those cool grips) I'll have to fondle a few more and see if the trigger thing was just an anomaly. :confused:
All J-frame triggers suck from the factory, you should either get a good smith to clean it up, or one of the Apex kits.
When I started looking at J-frames, my initial thought was a Bodyguard, due to the single action option. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that would be trying to make it do something it is ill-suited to do. A J-frame is a last-ditch, close-range weapon that is fired fairly rapidly. The 642 is great in that role, and doesn't let pocket lint in through the hammer slot. I highly recommend a set of Crimson Trace LG-405 grips. In addition to the laser, which I consider mandatory on a J-frame, they are also the most comfortable concealment grips I've used.
All J-frame triggers suck from the factory, you should either get a good smith to clean it up, or one of the Apex kits...
No, they don't "all suck."
J frame triggers (as a group) are certainly *different* than K-frame triggers (ditto) due to the different springs (coil vs. flat) and different geometry due to frame sizes, but the statement that they "all suck" and/or need work is an Internet myth.
Do *some* of them suck? Of course. But none of the triggers on my many J-frames do, because if I don't like the trigger on a gun I'm thinking of purchasing I hand it back to the seller and move along. All they all as good as a great K-frame trigger? Nope, but then again I ain't shooting bullseye with them.
As an aside, I've always wondered why anyone who immediately sends a newly-purchased gun off to a smith to "fix" bought that gun in the first place.
Just my opinion. Others' mileage may vary.
titsonritz
07-08-11, 23:20
I like them both, but if had to pick only one it would have to the 642. Get one without the stupid key lock.
+1 on Spegel grips.
I like them both, but if had to pick only one it would have to the 642. Get one without the stupid key lock.
+1 on Spegel grips.
Craig's grips are *very* nice, but I personally have a difficult time justifying spending $150+ for grips on a daily carry gun. I typically use the Uncle Mike's rubber clones or a DeSantis Clip Grip
I came *this* close to buying a set of Spegels (and even went as far as calling Craig to discuss specific options) when I finally found my 2" Model 63 (a "grail gun" for me), but in the final analysis I ended up sticking with...the original Uncle Mike's. :(
PA PATRIOT
07-08-11, 23:34
I enjoy my Smith & Wesson 337 AirLite Ti .38spl which is still the lightest .38spl ever made and while its been discontinued by S&W there are still a lot of 337's on the used market.
titsonritz
07-09-11, 00:59
Craig's grips are *very* nice, but I personally have a difficult time justifying spending $150+ for grips on a daily carry gun. I typically use the Uncle Mike's rubber clones or a DeSantis Clip Grip
Not sure what material you were looking at, but my standard cocobolo was I believe $90. Personally I’m not into rubber grips on CCW guns, hunters OK.
I enjoy my Smith & Wesson 337 AirLite Ti .38spl which is still the lightest .38spl ever made and while its been discontinued by S&W there are still a lot of 337's on the used market.
I had a 342 Ti-Lite, damn that thing bucked so hard it was a bullet puller with certain loads.
Like most have already said, go with the 642. So you don't have the temptation to use the fiddly hard to decock single action option on the 638. And I -think- though I haven't taken the side plate off on one, that the lint that builds up in the hammer channel can go into the frame and get in the internals.
I have had a 642 for 10 years and a 340M&P for 4 years which I carried occasionally until I tried an LCR a few months ago.
My 642 had an awful trigger before it received a "duty" action job with stock weight springs, but that '02 or '03. Will a J ever possess the sweet trigger that a propperly masssaged K or L frame is capable of? Probably not due to the geometry inside the tiny little frame. Haven't tried the APEX kit, looks promising though. Real Craig Spegel boot grips are pricey. Expect to pay around $125 for them. They are so worth it once you feel them. BTW Craig did the design work for Uncle Mike's on their grips. Craig does his pricing based on how nice they come out and what material he used. Novak's Sights have quite a few pairs right now. The "Centernial" (Wayne's misspelling not mine) are the style you want. I would choose one of the newer 340/342's with steel cylinder over the 642 though for the pinned front sight.
skyugo-Shooting a revolver DA is a lost art. It takes a bit of instruction and lots of practice. It is a skill worth mastering though. I'd suggest The Snubby Revolver by Ed Lovette, Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting by Ed McGivern and No Second Place Winner by Bill Jordan. Also Jerry Miculeks DVD ULTIMATE Advanced Revolver.
dirt_diver-thanks for the kind words. Don radiused and polished the trigger, chamfered the charge holes, stippled the backstrap, performed a "duty" action job, fitted the Spegels, milled off the original front sight and replaced with a custom night sight regulated to my chosen load-Federal 38G 158gr +P LSWCHP. I shot it better than my issued Glock 21. If you think that is fancy you should see my 681PC Quad-Port with 4" barrel fitted with Miculek stocks. It was my duty weapon back in the day.
I like them both, but if had to pick only one it would have to the 642. Get one without the stupid key lock.
+1 on Spegel grips.
i was kinda hoping to buy new... I haven't seen a no-lock for sale locally, but it seems they are easy to obtain online. I guess i may as well do that, i suspect the resale value will hold much stronger, plus they look better.
titsonritz
07-09-11, 12:04
You should be able to find one new online or talk to your FFL his suppliers may have them. They are one of the few S&W is producing w/o the lock.
I have the cousin to the 642:
A 442 with Eagle Secret Service stocks
http://i829.photobucket.com/albums/zz218/zacii/Smith%20and%20Wesson%20442/100_0435.jpg
Rosco Benson
07-09-11, 17:53
The Spegel stocks are nice. Also nice are the Desantis "Clip Grip" stocks. These offer the functionality of the old Barami Hip-Grip while being shaped like the modern "boot grips", which are better for shooting. The stocks allow the user to stuff a J-frame into his waistband, sans holster, and have it stay there...fairly securely. This allows one to be discreetly armed on very short notice.
http://www.desantisholster.com/store/SEARCH-BY-GUN-MANUFACTURER/SW/J-38-40-42-49-638-649-2-14/INSIDE-THE-WAIST-BAND-HOLSTERS/clip-grip
I'll chime in that the Apex J-frame kits are very nice too.
Either a 638 or a 642 will do fine. I prefer the 642.
Rosco
No, they don't "all suck."
J frame triggers (as a group) are certainly *different* than K-frame triggers (ditto) due to the different springs (coil vs. flat) and different geometry due to frame sizes, but the statement that they "all suck" and/or need work is an Internet myth.
Do *some* of them suck? Of course. But none of the triggers on my many J-frames do, because if I don't like the trigger on a gun I'm thinking of purchasing I hand it back to the seller and move along. All they all as good as a great K-frame trigger? Nope, but then again I ain't shooting bullseye with them.
As an aside, I've always wondered why anyone who immediately sends a newly-purchased gun off to a smith to "fix" bought that gun in the first place.
Just my opinion. Others' mileage may vary.
I've yet to see one that didn't need work. But like you said, mileage may vary :)
You should be able to find one new online or talk to your FFL his suppliers may have them. They are one of the few S&W is producing w/o the lock.
wait, so is the no lock thing NOT a limited edition on the 642? :eek:
teh kid at the gun shop told me it was.... They seem to be plentiful online (budsgunshop has em, along with others)
titsonritz
07-10-11, 00:00
wait, so is the no lock thing NOT a limited edition on the 642? :eek:
teh kid at the gun shop told me it was.... They seem to be plentiful online (budsgunshop has em, along with others)
He’s full of shit. (This doesn’t surprise me there are plenty of gun store guys that know a whole lot less than they think they do about the products they sell.) S&W has been doing for a few years now so I wouldn’t call that “limited”. Personally I hope S&W gives into shooters demand and does away with them altogher or at least offers more models without the lock.
With lock
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_764961_-1_757768_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
w/o lock
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_766181_-1_757768_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
I would choose one of the newer 340/342's with steel cylinder over the 642 though for the pinned front sight.
The 342 had a titanium cylinder and is no longer made. While a pinned front sight is a nice option, the 340 is .357 and I never liked the little bent plate between the top of the barrel and the frame on the .357s. They may or may not be an issue; it just never filled me with confidence. Either way running 357s is these units are just insane; I’d stick with 38s in them. But at least the 340 is one of the few models available w/o a key lock.
is there anything in the smith x42 range that's more corrosion resistant than the 642? I didn't note any rust issues in a brief google search of 642 rust, so are they pretty good?
is there anything in the smith x42 range that's more corrosion resistant than the 642? I didn't note any rust issues in a brief google search of 642 rust, so are they pretty good?
I guess the Ti models are more corrosion-resistant, but they come with their own issues.
The 642 is aluminum and stainless steel. I carry mine IWB appendix all the time, and it's never given me a problem. If that's not sufficiently corrosion-resistant for you, you could always get it DuraCoated, I suppose.
I guess the Ti models are more corrosion-resistant, but they come with their own issues.
The 642 is aluminum and stainless steel. I carry mine IWB appendix all the time, and it's never given me a problem. If that's not sufficiently corrosion-resistant for you, you could always get it DuraCoated, I suppose.
I'll give it a go... a lot of the reason i'm buying a revolver is my HK p7 is not corrosion resistant enough for summertime smartcarry use. granted this is a blued carbon steel gun, not sure what i expected. :o the amount of oil and maintenance needed to keep that gun in good condition is simply unreasonable for that use.
sounds like the smith will be fine.
642 + Crimson Trace Grips +/- Apex DCAK = reliable pocket gun.
RagweedZulu
07-12-11, 06:33
is there anything in the smith x42 range that's more corrosion resistant than the 642? I didn't note any rust issues in a brief google search of 642 rust, so are they pretty good?
I wear my 642 on my vest as a backup, pretty much under my right armpit. It gets pretty humid in this region and anything under my uniform shirt is in hostile territory. The 642 has been with me for 11+ years, rarely cleaned and not a spot of rust.
goodoleboy
07-12-11, 07:04
I can't speak for either of the two models you are asking about, but several years ago I owned a 342 with the titanium cylinder. It was the most concealable pistol I ever owned, however, I ran into problems with it when I shot +p rounds in it. The recoil was so sharp on that light frame that it pulled the bullets out of the other rounds in the cylinder just past the end of the cylinder, preventing the cylinder from rotating. I first thought it was faulty ammo, but after trying several manufacturers the bullets in the cylinder still became unseated.
On a reflective note, I think the 342 might have been a little lighter than the 638 and 642, but I'm not sure by how much. My only advice is that when choosing ammo, be cautious of the heavier +p loads, because those are the ones that gave me trouble.
titsonritz
07-12-11, 12:14
^^^FACT, I’ve had the same experience.
hi again.. so i have been google searching the crap out of the 638 vs 642 thing, and quite frankly this is the only forum whose opinion i hold in esteem on the issue of defensive firearms. So yall pretty much have the final word.
i want a little revolver. pocket carryable. smith j-frames seem to be the go-to. i went to a local shop and looked at the 642. as an afterthought i asked to see a 638. hmm.. 638 has a much better DA trigger as well as a super light SA option. still looks pretty dang snag free too. :eek:
The largest variable to consider isn't the DAO / DA-SA trigger, but the trigger lock. The 642 is available without it. Last I knew, all new production 638s have it. If you're carrying a J-frame for serious purposes, get one without a lock.
I like the 638 otherwise, and hope to see a no-lock variant one day. Debris in the shroud does occur, but it isn't as big an issue as many think. It can also be easily managed.
Having the option of a SA shot has merits. It has liabilities too.
All J-frame triggers suck from the factory, you should either get a good smith to clean it up, or one of the Apex kits.
I've yet to see one that didn't need work. But like you said, mileage may vary
I disagreed with your first post, but your second one is accurate. The rub is how we define "need work."
I've found that several hundred rounds of live fire or dry fire can work a J-frame trigger in nicely, or at least to a reasonable standard. There are those that may want an even more refined trigger, but the guns don't "need" it.
I have more than a thousand rounds through the J-frame Apex kit. While the Apex kit smooths the pull in spring interaction, byproducts of component machining are still present until they are smoothed via work. Two different variables.
I highly recommend a set of Crimson Trace LG-405 grips. In addition to the laser, which I consider mandatory on a J-frame, they are also the most comfortable concealment grips I've used.
A very nice grip indeed.
While the LaserGrips are a great tool I do not find them to be comfortable while shooting +P loads in an Airweight.
titsonritz
07-12-11, 13:46
While the LaserGrips are a great tool I do not find them to be comfortable while shooting +P loads in an Airweight.
I agree. IMO hand-to-weapon interface trumps the advantages of a laser.
I prefer the steel framed Bodyguard.
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn73/AKSU_album/IMG_1187.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn73/AKSU_album/IMG_1185.jpg
RagweedZulu
07-12-11, 19:02
Beautiful! Me likey!
I prefer the steel framed Bodyguard.
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn73/AKSU_album/IMG_1187.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn73/AKSU_album/IMG_1185.jpg
very nice.. bet it's a smooth shooter too.
titsonritz
07-13-11, 12:54
I prefer the steel framed Bodyguard.
I can understand why, that was my “back-in-the-day” preference.
I can understand why, that was my “back-in-the-day” preference.
I owned a 340PD when they were first released. While it was a joy to carry, it was no fun to shoot at all.
pinetree89
07-13-11, 16:48
I have both a 442 and 438, same as what you're looking at except in black.
They are both outstanding guns and you can't go wrong with either IMO. One thing that causes me to like the 442 just a hair more than the 438, is the fact that I can get a higher hold on the grip with the 442. It sounds totally trivial, but when you're shooting +P's through such a light gun, it really helps mitigate the recoil somewhat in my opinion.
An Airweight J frame is the ultimate pocket gun. They're really sooooo easy to take anywhere.
While the LaserGrips are a great tool I do not find them to be comfortable while shooting +P loads in an Airweight.
Recall that there are multiple types of LaserGrips for the J-frame. The earlier ones were all hard plastic, and I imagine not all that fun to shoot. The 405s have a soft rubber front and backstrap, with a cushion high on the backstrap, and hard checkered rubber sides. I shot a 400+ round 1-day class with my 642-1 with 405s, and it was the only thing that made it endurable, even with 148-gr standard-pressure wadcutters.
FWIW, I had Nelson Ford do my 642 trigger. He cleaned it up beautifully in terms of weight and pull, and on the advice of a friend, I also had him polish the face of the trigger. It was good advice. That silky-smooth trigger face really seems to help. I ended up in a shootout at the class for top student, and was able to make 15-yard headshots with it. Plus, Nelson's reasonable in terms of price. $160 for the whole package.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.