642 vs. 342 (S&W)

M

MatthewVanitas

New member
Having polled the assembly on S&W vs. Taurus, one final narrow-down.

Is it worth the extra $100-200 to save the quarter-pound of weight between the 642 and 342? (Man, 4oz. sounds like a lot more when you call it a "1/4 pound")

Two main factors come to mind besides weight: controllability and durability.

-Does the lesser weight of the 342 push the 38+P into the "pain and innacuracy" level? Will I achieve substantially greater control with the added weight of the 642?

-Do both use the same quality of alumnium frame? Does the titanium cylinder have any effects, + or -, on longevity?

Either of these models seems exactly what I'm looking for: a no frills, medium-bore, durable little pocket piece, which does not rely on the "boing-boing" recoil-spring concept of operation. The 642 seems to have quite a following as a pocket-revo, many folks out there favor the 342 hands-down?
 
this is an interesting question .. one i am asking myself actually.

they are essentially the same gun ..the 642 has a steel cylinder ... the 342 titanium.

the weight difference is appreciable in pocket carry.

titanium cylinders are a pain to clean though. i have found that the lighter weight will effect accuracy in my hand ... yours may be different.

i like the finish of the 342pd much better ...

still have not decided

:p
 
Having had and carried both (well, actually a 442 instead of 642) and currently carrying a Model 38, here's my opinion (YMMV):

For carry, I never really notice the weight difference in the pocket (either front pocket of my jeans or inside pocket of my jacket--but I normally drop a speedloader or a couple of speed strips in my offside jacket pocket). BTW, the current S&W catalog shows the 342 at 12.0 ounces and the 642 at 15.0 ounces--a mere 3 ounce difference. You'd have to be really good to tell any difference between a fully loaded 342 versus a 642 in the pocket of regular weight clothing (dockers, jeans, etc.)--empty it might be a little more noticable on a good day, but 3 ounces isn't much (except at the $50 an ounce difference in price between the two).

For shooting, however, the missing three ounces is very noticable in the form of both pain and accuracy/speed. Two factors in addition to the weight difference could have played a part: (1) the "hollowed-out" backstrap on the 342 might "focus" the recoil more instead of spreading it out; (2) I add wooden grips (Spiegel Boot Grips) on it--rubber might have been softer, but I don't like rubber for pocket carry--it's too soft and grabby, and slows the draw. (For background, I regularly shoot .357, .41 and .44 Magnums as well as .45 automatics so I'm no stranger to heavy recoling firearms.) Bottom line, after two cylinders of standard pressure 158-grain lead bullets (my regular plinking/practice load) and one cylind of standard pressure 125-grain grain Nyclads, I had to stop shooting (should have quit sooner), and the palm of my hand hurt for over a week.

If I were ever going to carry the 342 (or any "AirLite Ti"), the stoutest load I would put in it would be standard pressure 148-grain wadcutters (which would also negate any potential problems with the bullets backing out under recoil and tying up the revolver).

My recommendation, FWIW, would be to buy the 642 (or even better 638), 1000 rounds of ammo from Georgia Arms, and keep the change. You'd be better off (and better shot).
 
I would (and did) go for the 642. It only shoots .38 Special +P, it weighs three ounces more, but it has no issues with shooting ammo loose like the 342 with some Magnum loads. It is also much more pleasant to shoot, even with +P ammo, and it's on average $150 cheaper in most places. The slight extra weight of the 642 makes it much more easy and pleasant to shoot and control than the Ti and Sc snubbies, and it's still light enough for pocket carry.
 
JC: S&W 38?

Quick question for JC re: the S&W 38. What makes you reccommend the 38 over the 642? The only difference I notice is the "humpback" hammer-guard. Does that profile permit a more effective hammer stroker? Does it increase reliability?

I'd always assumed that the "humpback" models were an obsolete precursor to the centennial models. Assumed since they looked like the early Smiths with the after-market hammer-shield bolted on. But is there some inherent advantage to that form?
 
You can thumb-cock a "humpback" Bodyguard, and use the trigger in single-action mode. Centennials are double-action only. If you feel you need the capability to have an SA pull on occasion, then the Bodyguard configuration is better for you. A disadvantage of the Bodyguard design is the fact that lint and dirt can get into the action from above. A Centennial has a completely enclosed hammer.
 
I prefer the 342. I find that 3.oz does matter in summer shorts etc. and I find the recoil to be no big deal at all even with +P. I am more than use to it with standard loads. I carry 129 gr. +P Hydra-shoks. I have had a problem with "ammo shooting loose" only with lead which I no longer shoot, obviously.

I consider the cost diferential insignificant as I think of this as a "lifetime gun" so if I live another 40 years or more what does the extra 3 bucks a year matter?! (Even less if you consider inflation).

Speed? Controllability? I consider this soley a defensive piece and I can squeeze off 5 rounds quickly and accurately within the distances it would almost certainly be used, if ever.

I also sometimes wear it on the ankle and that's where I think you will really appreciate the difference in weight.

Just my opinion,

Thor
 
For pocket or ankle carry, every ounce matters...that being said, I wanted a 342 like my buddies had..then I shot one....love affair over...I'll lug around the extra few ounces as the price for faster follow up shots....none of my friend shoot their ti's in practice because of the beating on their hands...but my 442 is very manageable....and in a renegade holster, the 442 is almost unoticeable at 14.5 ounce (it's a little lighter with the hideout grips ove the uncle mike's)...as a side note, I also like the look of the all black 442 over the two tone ti's....
 
I too had a 342PD Ti. Yes, those 3 or 5 little oz. matter-bigtime. My current M38 is +P rated and I can actually tolerate shooting it quite a bit. The range time is key to optimum performance with these little snubs. I might get a titanium in the future, but it would have to be in .32HR. Get the airweight. Have fun.
 
M38 (or M638) over M642?

Originally posted by Matthew:

Quick question for JC re: the S&W 38. What makes you reccommend the 38 over the 642? The only difference I notice is the "humpback" hammer-guard. Does that profile permit a more effective hammer stroker? Does it increase reliability?
Click to expand...
Hello Matthew,

I see advantages that the M38, (or the more recently produced M638) Bodyguard models, have over the M642, or any of the other enclosed-hammer, Centennial models:

1) You can safely perform a cylinder-rotation check* after you load the revolver. You can't do that with the Centennial models.

2) You can cock the hammer for a longer-range, precision shot.

3) If the firing pin is stuck in the forward position, as may happen with a pierced primer, you can cock the hammer to free the firing pin.**

* Cylinder Rotation Check: I load the M638, and point it in a safe direction...... Then I cock and de-cock the hammer 6 times.
This tells me that the cylinder won't bind, as can happen with a high primer, or with unburned powder or debris under the extractor star, or with the extractor rod working loose.

** I don't believe that the currently-produced revolvers have this advantage, due to the new frame-mounted firing-pin.

I'd always assumed that the "humpback" models were an obsolete precursor to the centennial models. Assumed since they looked like the early Smiths with the after-market hammer-shield bolted on. But is there some inherent advantage to that form?
Click to expand...
Actually, the Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson, by Supica and Nahas, shows the Centennial starting production in 1952, ending in 1974, before returning again to production in 1990.

The Bodyguard started production in 1955, and has not gone out-of-production.
 
I've done cylinder rotation checks on my centennial...I just do them very carefully pointed down at the yellow pages...not really an issue too often since I only change out my carry ammo every couple of years....
 
If a gun is so light it'll yank the bullets clean out of the shells under recoil, it's TOO LIGHT.

Comfort is secondary to safety and reliability.
 
Originally posted by DSIM:

I've done cylinder rotation checks on my centennial...I just do them very carefully pointed down at the yellow pages....
Click to expand...
Hi DSIM,

You mean very, very carefully, don't you?!?!

Do you do this in your home?

...not really an issue too often since I only change out my carry ammo every couple of years..
Click to expand...
How often do you have to qualify with your M442?

Do you practice with the M442 at other times?

Even if you don't shoot it, dirt could get into the mechanism, your lube could coagulate and harden, or your extractor rod could become bent or loose.

Any of these things could bind your cylinder.
 
Matthew -

I see your questions have pretty well been answered by others. The Bodyguard (Models 38/638/49/649) are probably a bit of an acquired taste. The advantages have been pretty well pointed out by others. Mine is an older model, and it has one of those particularly triggers, both DA and SA, that used to be "standard issue" with S&W. I do almost all my shooting DA, but you'd surprised how precise you can be with 38, if needed. Basically, it combines the advantages of the Chief Special series with the Centenial series and has been in S&W's line-up continuously for almost 50 years.

The Centenials was introduced first (Rex Applegate has been mentioned as factor in their introduction). Three years later, the Bodyguard was introduced (the only S&W to be introduced in a light weight configuration first) largely in response to the Colt offering their Detective Special with a shrouded hammer (largely in response to the Smith offering the Centenial--some things never change). Bodyguard sales took off, and Centennial sales languished, and it was eventually dropped. It was reentered the S&W line-up some 16 years later (1990).
 
I shot both a 642 and a 342 at a bowling pin shoot last week. I used the same ammunition in both -- 125 grain JHP+P. Neither I (owner of the 342) nor the fellow who owned the 642 could tell much difference in recoil or controllability between the two guns. The weight depends on the grips, but with the laminated wood grips that I have on my 342, the weight is about 11 oz. empty. The difference between 11 oz and 15 oz is about 25%, and that means a whale of a lot if you are carrying in a pocket. The 642, by the way, had rubber boot grips on it. I could not tell much practical difference in recoil between the wood and the rubber either. A boot grip is pretty small no matter what material it is made from.

Before you shy away from the Airlites because of what others say about recoil, shoot one and judge for yourself. I am a good bit more recoil tolerant than some people, apparently, and while I don't think the little guns are particularly fun to shoot a lot, I have absolutely no hangups about whether I would be well-served with one of them as a defensive weapon. I shoot mine well (4 of 5 pins most rounds), and I am confident with it.
 
I agree with Clemson on this one!

Smith& Wesson lists the 642 at 15.0 oz, and the 342 at 11.8 oz. I think the 4.2 oz. makes a big difference in weight when you carry in your pocket, and especially when in an ankle holster. I used to own a 337Ti, and now I own a 360 Chiefs Special, and 386PD. At 12 oz. I find my 360 to be a little tough on my hand with .357Magnum rounds, but with .38Special +P I have almost no problems. I also don't have too many problems with the bullets slipping out of the shells with .38sp. like I do with .357Mag. With my 360 w/ .38Sp. +P, I have no problems with quick, accurate followup shots.
I guess I also am more recoil tolerant than some people.

Matt, I agree with Clemson try them yourself, and be your own judge. ;)
 
The Ti/Sc Smith snubs are well worth the extra money.

The real point I don't think anybody has made is no matter who you are, I have never seen anybody shoot a snub regularly. If they shoot a box or two a year they are in the top 5%. If you are one of the hard core snub shooters, buy a steel clone of your model and fire away.

I have shot snubs quite a bit, but even I change to a full size gun for plinking (what most people do as opposed to formal target shooting).

Either the Colt or Smith makes a nice accurate snub but the lighter they are the better when you have to carry. They are not fun guns and anybody who thinks they are has proved to me they haven't shot one much, if at all.

:)
 
The real point I don't think anybody has made is no matter who you are, I have never seen anybody shoot a snub regularly.
Click to expand...
That's the real problem with snubs--most people do not practice with them, and they are a weapon that requires a great deal of practice to maintain even a modicum of precision. The nasty handling of the little featherweights can only excerbate the problem.

If you are going to carry a snub, you really need serious, regular practice with your carry load. It doesn't happen often enough with the heavier steel and aluminum framed weapons. I don't see the "AirLites" and various titatium/titanium mixes helping the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top