Goodbye little Smith! The 642 is gone.
- Thread starter Targa
- Start date
Each individual has to consider their choices, their reason(s) for their choices, and any likely (or realized) consequences for their choices ... in order to make their best informed decision.
Good for you to think it through for you.
I only carried steel J's for many years before finally thinking to try an Airweight. It was when the 642-1 was first rated for a steady diet of +P that I finally tried my first Airweight. It involved a little bit of a learning curve, meaning the first couple of cases of +P loads used. The standard pressure loads made it easier, but I was carrying +P so I decided to include more +P for quals and frequent range use.
I also had the opportunity to grab an early production 640 from the training safe (the older one chambered in .38SPL but laser marked as approved for use with +P+ on the frame window) and run some cases of some older 110gr +P+ duty ammo we'd inherited from another agency. That made shooting even +P in the 642-1 seem comparatively pleasant.
Once I was hooked on the lighter pocket holster carry weight of the Airweight (compared to a 36 and 649 .38SPL), I was hooked.
I presently own a pair of 642-1's, a pair of M&P 340's (with and w/o ILS) and one of those 37-2DAO's that were released on the commercial amrket from a canceled overseas order (made on the older short Airweight frame using older machined carbon steel parts). All of them run within 13.8oz-15oz on a scale, empty.
I only run standard pressure loads in the 37-2, but have usually run one or another of my regular +P loads in the others. I have, however, started to also use that nifty Hornady 110gr standard pressure CD load using their FTX JHP in one of my 642 or M&P 340's now and again. It has a rather mild recoil and it's shown itself to be a tack-driver in my snubs, in my hands. It's a nice alternative to the heavy recoil of my usual +P's, and the even harsher recoil of the .357MAG loads I've previously run in my 340's.
Using my typical range of +P's in my 642's has usually meant the trigger guard has beaten up the distal knuckle of my trigger finger after as little as 50 rounds, and 100-150 rounds of +P during a single range session is about the point where further rounds are going to start degrading my shooting sessions.
And this is being said by someone who used to think that 400-500 rounds of stoutly loaded .357 or .44MAG loads made for a pleasant and enjoyable afternoon, using heavy steel revolvers.
The years of continually working with managing that sort of heavier recoil effect eventually takes its toll, though. Hands, wrists, elbows and shoulders can eventually express their displeasure and start to complain about it.
I remember during my DAO/revolver armorer class for S&W J-frames, listening to a younger, large and strapping young man from another agency enthusiastically tell everyone how he'd fired more than 500 full-power Magnum rounds through his 340PD, and how he planned to exclusively shoot Magnum ammo through a M&P 340 he was going to order. I didn't voice it, but my unspoken reaction was pretty much, "More power to you, dude. Enjoy subjecting yourself to that brutal recoil shooting magnum loads through that 11.8oz pocket mule while you're young and consider it an enjoyable challenge."
Age brings wear & tear to us all, no matter our strength of will and desire.
Personally, age, experience and time in service has resulted in me looking increasingly more toward the critical influences of being able to produce accuracy and effective "placement" of hits, than only relying on some of the "more effective" short barrel loads.
Don't mistake my meaning, as the modern better JHP's that can offer some hope for expansion from short tubes, albeit seemingly realistically more on the shorter testing for penetration range (10-11") are great options, especially for secondary and off-duty roles. It's just that I no longer see "penetration" of just under the FBI's minimum 12" requirement for duty calibers to necessarily affect my own choice of suitable retirement loads for my needs.
Also, when it comes to the average person shooting a lightweight snub for defensive purpose, there's still something to be said for them to be able to make controllable and accurate hits, as a sufficiently rapid pace (if need be), even using some mild recoiling load like a 148gr target wadcutter. A nice flat, wide-for-caliber meplat, with a "edge", and a long bullet shape that might yaw and present a long surface traveling through an anatomical medium, might still be something of merit.
A 158gr RNL, or a 130gr RN Ball? Probably not so much. A LSWC that doesn't significantly deform or expand? Possible better than the RNL or the 130gr ball load.
Kinda might depend on whether it involves a CNS hit, though, too.
Still gotta be able to put the hits where they're going to be the most effective. That may not mean a +P for many average folks.
Some knowledge and considered thought into such things might help provide the basis for someone's individual informed choice.
Me? Well, I've been wearing a belt gun for the last couple of days (a 9 and then a .45), but tonight I'm going to pocket (holster) one of my J's that might be loaded with Speer GDHP 135gr +P, or one that might be loaded with the Hornady 110gr CD/FTX at standard pressure. I'll decide when I reach into the safe. It just means I'll probably grab a speedstrip of matching ammo to pocket, unless another speedstrip of the other load may be closer at hand.
Good for you to think it through for you.
I only carried steel J's for many years before finally thinking to try an Airweight. It was when the 642-1 was first rated for a steady diet of +P that I finally tried my first Airweight. It involved a little bit of a learning curve, meaning the first couple of cases of +P loads used. The standard pressure loads made it easier, but I was carrying +P so I decided to include more +P for quals and frequent range use.
I also had the opportunity to grab an early production 640 from the training safe (the older one chambered in .38SPL but laser marked as approved for use with +P+ on the frame window) and run some cases of some older 110gr +P+ duty ammo we'd inherited from another agency. That made shooting even +P in the 642-1 seem comparatively pleasant.
Once I was hooked on the lighter pocket holster carry weight of the Airweight (compared to a 36 and 649 .38SPL), I was hooked.
I presently own a pair of 642-1's, a pair of M&P 340's (with and w/o ILS) and one of those 37-2DAO's that were released on the commercial amrket from a canceled overseas order (made on the older short Airweight frame using older machined carbon steel parts). All of them run within 13.8oz-15oz on a scale, empty.
I only run standard pressure loads in the 37-2, but have usually run one or another of my regular +P loads in the others. I have, however, started to also use that nifty Hornady 110gr standard pressure CD load using their FTX JHP in one of my 642 or M&P 340's now and again. It has a rather mild recoil and it's shown itself to be a tack-driver in my snubs, in my hands. It's a nice alternative to the heavy recoil of my usual +P's, and the even harsher recoil of the .357MAG loads I've previously run in my 340's.
Using my typical range of +P's in my 642's has usually meant the trigger guard has beaten up the distal knuckle of my trigger finger after as little as 50 rounds, and 100-150 rounds of +P during a single range session is about the point where further rounds are going to start degrading my shooting sessions.
And this is being said by someone who used to think that 400-500 rounds of stoutly loaded .357 or .44MAG loads made for a pleasant and enjoyable afternoon, using heavy steel revolvers.
The years of continually working with managing that sort of heavier recoil effect eventually takes its toll, though. Hands, wrists, elbows and shoulders can eventually express their displeasure and start to complain about it. I remember during my DAO/revolver armorer class for S&W J-frames, listening to a younger, large and strapping young man from another agency enthusiastically tell everyone how he'd fired more than 500 full-power Magnum rounds through his 340PD, and how he planned to exclusively shoot Magnum ammo through a M&P 340 he was going to order. I didn't voice it, but my unspoken reaction was pretty much, "More power to you, dude. Enjoy subjecting yourself to that brutal recoil shooting magnum loads through that 11.8oz pocket mule while you're young and consider it an enjoyable challenge."
Age brings wear & tear to us all, no matter our strength of will and desire.
Personally, age, experience and time in service has resulted in me looking increasingly more toward the critical influences of being able to produce accuracy and effective "placement" of hits, than only relying on some of the "more effective" short barrel loads.
Don't mistake my meaning, as the modern better JHP's that can offer some hope for expansion from short tubes, albeit seemingly realistically more on the shorter testing for penetration range (10-11") are great options, especially for secondary and off-duty roles. It's just that I no longer see "penetration" of just under the FBI's minimum 12" requirement for duty calibers to necessarily affect my own choice of suitable retirement loads for my needs.
Also, when it comes to the average person shooting a lightweight snub for defensive purpose, there's still something to be said for them to be able to make controllable and accurate hits, as a sufficiently rapid pace (if need be), even using some mild recoiling load like a 148gr target wadcutter. A nice flat, wide-for-caliber meplat, with a "edge", and a long bullet shape that might yaw and present a long surface traveling through an anatomical medium, might still be something of merit.
A 158gr RNL, or a 130gr RN Ball? Probably not so much. A LSWC that doesn't significantly deform or expand? Possible better than the RNL or the 130gr ball load.
Kinda might depend on whether it involves a CNS hit, though, too.
Still gotta be able to put the hits where they're going to be the most effective. That may not mean a +P for many average folks.
Some knowledge and considered thought into such things might help provide the basis for someone's individual informed choice.
Me? Well, I've been wearing a belt gun for the last couple of days (a 9 and then a .45), but tonight I'm going to pocket (holster) one of my J's that might be loaded with Speer GDHP 135gr +P, or one that might be loaded with the Hornady 110gr CD/FTX at standard pressure. I'll decide when I reach into the safe. It just means I'll probably grab a speedstrip of matching ammo to pocket, unless another speedstrip of the other load may be closer at hand.
deputy tom
New member
Sorry to hear the 642 wasn't meant to be your EDC. It is my favorite CCW gun and I'm recoil sensitive. tom. 
I wish it worked out too Deputy Tom, it really is a neat little gun. As for being recoil sensitive, I never thought I was but that little thing sure tells a different story.... My hands really are freakishly large and they pretty much swallowed the standard grips, larger grips could have helped with that but that wasn't an option for me.
. My hands really are freakishly large and they pretty much swallowed the standard grips, larger grips could have helped with that but that wasn't an option for me.deadcoyote
New member
Love my 642! With plus P ammo it hurts but with burner range ammo the recoil doesn’t seem bad. Carried it as a back up gun for years, sold it, bought it back after a year, and it’s been with me ever since. Thought about getting a second one and just going the New York reload route, but probably will never cross that bridge.
Never were truer words written.
Since this has drifted into general J-frame discussion, I'll toss my 49 (a REAL Bodyguard ) into the mix. I used to have an Airweight Centennial, but decided I wanted a shrouded SA capability. I swapped, and never regretted it. I pocket carry the little steel blaster without difficulty, but that may be mostly due to my size.
To preserve the classic look, I have the tiny wood 'lemon peel' grips on it, with a Tyler T-Grip. With hot loads it stings a bit, but it hits what I aim at--I've even hit a torso-size steel plate at 100yd repeatedly during one session when everything fell into place!
) into the mix. I used to have an Airweight Centennial, but decided I wanted a shrouded SA capability. I swapped, and never regretted it. I pocket carry the little steel blaster without difficulty, but that may be mostly due to my size. To preserve the classic look, I have the tiny wood 'lemon peel' grips on it, with a Tyler T-Grip. With hot loads it stings a bit, but it hits what I aim at--I've even hit a torso-size steel plate at 100yd repeatedly during one session when everything fell into place!
I have a 442 (basically the same gun) which I've never really liked for the same reasons. I'm a good enough shot with larger and heavier guns, but I don't like shooting the 442 so I never get really good enough to trust using it in public (though I sometimes do on the theory that it is a very close quarters "get off me" gun).
I have put larger, hand filling, Pachmayr wood laminate "Renegade" grips on it. I haven't shot it yet with them (even though I bought them about a year ago, did I mention I don't like shooting the 442?), but it should help. However, they are pretty bulky so, while it may allow more range time, I may not be able to use them when pocket carrying (the only time I ever use my 442).
I'm trying other options that will allow me to practice in the same configuration that I would carry it to see if they help.
I will probably replace the grips again. My 442 came with the super thin Eagle Secret Service grips, so regular S&W rubber grips will probably be a little more comfortable while still being fully concealable. If it helps enough, it will save the gun for me.
I'm trying lower recoil ammo. I usually go with a +P defensive ammo in .38 (though not in other calibers), so I may try a few regular velocity loads to see how much they help. I haven't tried the Speer GD 135gr short barrel load and the Speer GD loadings in other calibers (other than the 125gr .38 and .357) tend to feel lower recoil than many other defensive options. Even though Hydra-Shok is older tech and not usually my first choice, their 110gr option is pretty low recoil and might help. I have bought a box of the Hornady Critical Defense Lite to try (though at 90gr, I'm concerned that it might make it perform like a .380 where JHPs are usually not the best choice due to low penetration, and most ballistics gel tests I've seen back up that concern). Finally, I may try target ammo in SWC, going with the old pre-modern JHP mindset that you get the full caliber sharp shoulder round doing more damage than other non-expanding ammo to better stop an attack, and get the light recoil of a target round.
As someone else said, a Crimson Trace laser will aid accuracy. I know I'll never practice as much with my 442 as I do with other guns. At least with the laser I'll be safer for bystanders, and more accurate at any distance (especially those beyond "get off me" distances).
I may go with a combo of the above options.
Finally, I may just go with a steel frame J-frame when I go with a J-frame (I have a Taurus 85CH). Most of the time (i.e. when not in dress slacks which I don't wear much), it is just as pocketable as the 15oz aluminum 442. However, I usually like to go with larger guns. I rarely CCW a J-frame and when I do it is for very specialized reasons (I need to pocket carry and I need to wear dress pants, I can't carry here in MD but it is the once or twice a year something odd is happening near my apt and I have to go out anyway so I take a risk, I choose to carry a backup instead of a reload, etc.). So, while rare, when I do carry the 442, I really do kind of need something light and discrete (it is even more rare for me since I live in a state where it is near impossible to get a permit so I only carry a couple times a month when out of state on a UT non-res permit, no dropping it in a pocket on my way to the store- if I lived where I could carry I might find more use for it).
So, you could try the same options I'm considering (though I'm sure you have)... try new grips, use a laser, use it with lower recoil ammo (not just for practice, but also for actual carry), or a combo of these. You could replace it with a steel J-frame if it will work with your pockets. Finally, you could get a similar steel J-frame for practice (maybe a 640 or used Taurus 850 for as similar a configuration as possible, maybe a regular S&W 36 or Taurus 85) and use the same grips that you use on your 442. The practice will be as close to the same as possible, and hopefully the practice will mostly transfer to the very similar 442, while at the same time you can practice longer due to the heavier steel revolver.
I have put larger, hand filling, Pachmayr wood laminate "Renegade" grips on it. I haven't shot it yet with them (even though I bought them about a year ago, did I mention I don't like shooting the 442?), but it should help. However, they are pretty bulky so, while it may allow more range time, I may not be able to use them when pocket carrying (the only time I ever use my 442).
I'm trying other options that will allow me to practice in the same configuration that I would carry it to see if they help.
I will probably replace the grips again. My 442 came with the super thin Eagle Secret Service grips, so regular S&W rubber grips will probably be a little more comfortable while still being fully concealable. If it helps enough, it will save the gun for me.
I'm trying lower recoil ammo. I usually go with a +P defensive ammo in .38 (though not in other calibers), so I may try a few regular velocity loads to see how much they help. I haven't tried the Speer GD 135gr short barrel load and the Speer GD loadings in other calibers (other than the 125gr .38 and .357) tend to feel lower recoil than many other defensive options. Even though Hydra-Shok is older tech and not usually my first choice, their 110gr option is pretty low recoil and might help. I have bought a box of the Hornady Critical Defense Lite to try (though at 90gr, I'm concerned that it might make it perform like a .380 where JHPs are usually not the best choice due to low penetration, and most ballistics gel tests I've seen back up that concern). Finally, I may try target ammo in SWC, going with the old pre-modern JHP mindset that you get the full caliber sharp shoulder round doing more damage than other non-expanding ammo to better stop an attack, and get the light recoil of a target round.
As someone else said, a Crimson Trace laser will aid accuracy. I know I'll never practice as much with my 442 as I do with other guns. At least with the laser I'll be safer for bystanders, and more accurate at any distance (especially those beyond "get off me" distances).
I may go with a combo of the above options.
Finally, I may just go with a steel frame J-frame when I go with a J-frame (I have a Taurus 85CH). Most of the time (i.e. when not in dress slacks which I don't wear much), it is just as pocketable as the 15oz aluminum 442. However, I usually like to go with larger guns. I rarely CCW a J-frame and when I do it is for very specialized reasons (I need to pocket carry and I need to wear dress pants, I can't carry here in MD but it is the once or twice a year something odd is happening near my apt and I have to go out anyway so I take a risk, I choose to carry a backup instead of a reload, etc.). So, while rare, when I do carry the 442, I really do kind of need something light and discrete (it is even more rare for me since I live in a state where it is near impossible to get a permit so I only carry a couple times a month when out of state on a UT non-res permit, no dropping it in a pocket on my way to the store- if I lived where I could carry I might find more use for it).
So, you could try the same options I'm considering (though I'm sure you have)... try new grips, use a laser, use it with lower recoil ammo (not just for practice, but also for actual carry), or a combo of these. You could replace it with a steel J-frame if it will work with your pockets. Finally, you could get a similar steel J-frame for practice (maybe a 640 or used Taurus 850 for as similar a configuration as possible, maybe a regular S&W 36 or Taurus 85) and use the same grips that you use on your 442. The practice will be as close to the same as possible, and hopefully the practice will mostly transfer to the very similar 442, while at the same time you can practice longer due to the heavier steel revolver.
Nakanokalronin
New member
Having owned many lightweight snubs over the years, the only snub I own now is an older S&W 60-7. Much nicer to shoot than any aluminum or polymer snub nose. With the old classic type panels on there I can easily get all three finger on the grip and I wear XL gloves.
I think its more about expectations. We have been sold the .38 as "barely adequate" little brother for self defense for so long that we expect some anemic cartridge. Its not an anemic load and without all the springs and moving parts of an auto can be surprisingly crisp in the recoil department. I don't find it unpleasant but understand where it can be more than expected especially in a light revolver.
Targa you should have purchased the S&W Model 36 classic 38 Special revolver. It's all steel, +P rated and weigh's in a about 19 to 20 oz. Recoil is tame compared to the light weight revolvers and a real pleasure to shoot. The Model 36 shoots much better than the light weight framed revolvers. You get better control, follow-up shots, more accuracy because of less recoil. The bluing is absolutely beautiful and any round butt S&W J frame grips will fit, if you don't care for factory grips. My 36 has a Tyler Grip adapter and an older pair of J frame grips which I find just a bit thicker than the ones on the gun when purchased. I carry it in an ankle rig and find the small amount of weight is not a problem. The gun is a real pleasure to shoot. Price is high but well worth the money. Beautiful revolver!
truth.
What’s amazing is the 1000 times at a gun show or shop I’d see a salesman trying to sell to a woman, the “perfect” gun. A 642. I couldn’t take it one day. In a bad mood I guess. I said to the salesman, have you ever fired that gun? Anyways, he hadn’t. I told him that gun is for experienced shooters. The few women I knew that shot it as newbies were basically afraid to shoot the experience so bad. They don’t really bother me. But I can see why it would.
Much against my wishes I advised my wife not to buy the 642 airweight. Long story short she shot half a box of ammo and never touched it again. I put crimson trace grips on it aa I could not hit target at 3 yards. The grips allow for the pinkie finger to hold the gun as well.
This gun is definitely painful to shoot, more so than the 686 with 3" barrel that I carry and the 45/70 contender I have shot. Not a pleasant shooting gun at all.
This gun is definitely painful to shoot, more so than the 686 with 3" barrel that I carry and the 45/70 contender I have shot. Not a pleasant shooting gun at all.
Last edited:
It is. Remember for decades a small lightweight revolver was an alloy K frame. When fired from a steel framed revolver it is very tame. A light weight snubby is an experts gun.
Anything with smokeless powder that travels less than 1000 fps is anemic, my opinion worth every penny you paid for it.
Not so! Unloaded weights are: 17.8 oz for the P365 vs. 15.0 oz. for the 642. But I will agree with the poster, that a P365 is a bit much for pocket carry.
BTW, I have one, with a February foaling date, that's given me 975 rounds of absolutely malfunction free shooting. My wife & DIL both carry 637's with CT grips, but my day to day carry piece is now the P365.
Here's a 10 yd slow fire target shot from a Weaver Stance...yeah...it's got accuracy built in & recoil with those outstanding grips & 9mm ammunition is mild. YMMv Rod
Amen to that brother...I second that !