magnaport mod. 442

P

pocketman

New member
I'm looking at and very interested in a S&W 442 that my dealer has, The price is $400.00 out the door.

I would rate it in nearly nib condition, its magnaported with with a front nite site. box papers etc.

I have never fired a ported gun, but have heard and also given my unfounded recomendation that porting is not favorable for a ccw/pocket piece.

The more I think of it there will be more muzzel blast, but really how much?

Would a low flash load is really that different? :confused:

Should I go for this piece?
 
I have a magna-ported S&W PC 681 and a ported Taurus 617T-- the porting reduces the muzzle rise appreciably, while the porting "flash" is not bothersome to me in the least (don't forget, you already have a "flash gap" where the cylinder face meets the forcing cone). Porting, like many things in handgunning, is a compromise that one must decide for oneself.
 
We have several ported guns

and I find that most of the comments are rather un-informed. My wife has a ported 442 and I have a DAO 38 Super and a Firestar 40 that are ported. We have fired them all from inside a car with no ill effects (the headliner was not singed and the windshield was not blown out) and with a revolver I can't see any more flash than is visible with the cylinder gap.

My Ti Taurus 45LC has a fireball above the barrel whereas the older one has the same fireball in front of the barrel.

I have taken several courses in weapon retention and close quarters combat and have never had any ill effects from firing any of the ported guns. The results are not nearly as violent as many describe.
 
Marmy says:
My wife has a ported 442 and I have a DAO 38 Super and a Firestar 40 that are ported. We have fired them all from inside a car with no ill effects
Click to expand...
Hey! You guys sound like a fun couple.

Elliot
 
I sent my SP-101 off and had it Quad Ported when Mag Na Port was introducing it. It really reduces perceived recoil as far as muzzle rise goes ... I can fire it with full strength magnum ammunition as fast as I can cycle the trigger without it rising off the target. The recoil is just so much less while shooting standard .38 spl and .38 +P, though, than it is with .357 magnum, that I'm not sure if it's that much of an improvement with the standard rounds. I've never noticed a great difference when firing someone else's unported SP-101 using just .38 spl, compared to mine with the porting.

As far as the porting itself, it's only required me to slightly cant the revolver ports away to the side when shooting close combat scenario qualifications. And even this is only an issue with Winchester ammunition using their ball powder.

Just don't do what someone did with a ported weapon at the range once, and hold your hand several inches above the ports to see how much pressure the diverted gasses generate ... That person later admitted to me that he simply forgot jacket fragments could also be shaved off and diverted, as well. Nasty little splinters ...

I've never noticed the flash being excessive, unless I was firing magnum ammunition, or +P+ .38 JHP's, neither of which will be fired in the 442, should you buy it.

The front night sight is a plus, as the j-frame front sights are often hard to see in anything other than direct overhead light, or light from behind you.

If the 442 is in good shape, it should be a good little shooter for you. I wouldn't consider the porting to be a disadvantage for lawful concealed carry.
 
follow up.

I picked this piece up, and have absolutly no regrets.

Infact, I really like the magnaporting on it, and the front nightsite tube is a big improvement, green dot glow at night and the green dot has a silver ring arount it that contrasts nice with the black ramp and can be seen during the day.

I shoot better with this model than any j-frame i've owned over the years (2xmod. 36 3in,649,642,37,342)

There is virtually NO muzzel rise,very light recoil even with heavy rounds (158g swhp's) and accuracy is greatly improved.

When ever I have relied on a small j for defense one of the silly things that was always in my mind was the highly unlikely senero of a across the room 20-25ft head shot. My 649 was pretty accurate out to this distance but forget about my 642 and 342, groups were more like 12-15" at this distance.

Today I consistantly kept my shots in the center of a 9" paper plate (4-6") out to 20ft, and 12-15ft groups were very tight 2-4".

I was able to shoot up alot of 38spl ammo I had about 150 rds and there is no pain in my hand, I would compare the recoil of my magnaported 442 to my glock 26 with standard 9mm ammo.

Anyway, its found a new home tucked in a galco pocket holster in my RFP. ;)
 

Attachments

  • sw442u.jpg
    sw442u.jpg
    46.8 KB · Views: 66
Last edited:
My biggest concern with porting on a short barreled defensive revolver, one that I've raised a number of times before, is the possiblity of getting a face full of debris if you have to shoot from a high close retention position.

For that reason alone I've chosen not to have porting on my small defensive guns.
 
Mike, I had/have the exact same consern's and for that reason never recommeded a ported gun for defense to anyone that would ask for my humble opinion.

I've put about 200rds through this piece this week and today was the most extensive work i've done with it.

I did not put the barrel under my chin :eek:, but while doing draw/point shoot drills I have always tucked my right elbow against my right hip, although the ports were in my mind while doing this I did not feal any debrie or bast come towards my face.

I did feal some heat when I shot off 5 quick 130g+p starfire's, but nothing else with the win. clean jsp, win sthp. and fed. pd ammo I went through.

Who knows what goes through you mind in a defensive situation (unless you've been there), hopefully I will never know, But I think like anything the more I train with this ported piece those little blast holes will be in the back of my mind if I ever have to shoot from a high close retention position.

:eek:
 
One more little tidbit, not that its scientific or anything but while shooting one handed I held a paper plate on top of the gun with my right thumb.

I honestly expected a huge fireball to catch the plate on fire, I fired 3 rounds this way and looked at the plate, no fire but I expected major burn marks......I was very suprised to see no visable marks on the paper plate and only a very small about of powder specks.

I also expected to be able to see flames blasting out of the ports while shooting, but There was not. ( looked at the compt. glock ad to many times I guess.;) )
 
Pocket,

If you're willing to live with the POTENTIAL, and it's just that, POTENTIAL, not a certainty, that porting could cause (remember, in a defensive situation you may be holding the gun in ways you never imagined), then you're good to go.

Just remember, though, that that tiny speck of powder will likely feel like a baseball if it hits your eye.

And you never know when something larger, like a chunk of jacket fragment, could be expelled.

I've done the analysis, and for me, the the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
 
AWWww sh**, I think I've made ANOTHER mistake!

I turned down two pretty nice 442's at the last Kentucky show because of the "carbon steel" cylinder. It just seemed to me that a 642 (with the SS cylinder) would have been a better idea. Now, I'm wishing I hadn't passed up those black 442's.:( Same weight. Ah well, there's always the big September show. (3000 tables!!)

KR
 
Mike Irwin,

Since we're talking POTENTIALS and not certainties, you'd better ditch anything you own with a B/C gap; I've seen some nasty stuff come out of there before. ;) Heck, I once saw a guy shootin' a non-ported .357 snubby from a close retention position set his jacket a-smolder... :eek:
 
Tamara's got a point ...

While I always made it a point to cant my little SP-101 slightly off to the side when shooting very close combat, it didn't really provide the advantage I'd initially thought it would. Sure, that portion of the gases generated by the 125gr Magnum rounds vented through the ports was directed away from me ... but the blast of the gases from the cylinder/barrel gap were now directed up toward me. This wasn't a real problem unless I was using ammunition with ball powder.

Given a choice, for this reason I've always preferred Remington or Federal to Winchester in revolvers used for close combat scenario training. As long as the gun is held even slightly forward of the traditional "close combat" position, though, even this isn't a problem during training.

Regarding the difference in the 442 & 642's ... I passed up on a 442 for exactly the same reasoning, thinking the stainless cylinder & barrel would be an advantage in carrying. I used to slip my 649 inside my jeans between my t-shirt 7 outer shirt, held in place by the waistband of my jeans. The rubber grips generally held it in position, although the old trick of using a large rubber band around the top half of the grips made it even more secure. This wouldn't work except in "normal" activities, though, which is why I went to pocket carry.

Nowadays, I'm less concerned about blued carbon steel versus stainless, as pocket carry using a small holster of some kind just doesn't subject the gun to as much perspiration as I'd feared. The blued training 442 I use at the range for practice all the time only gets cleaned every month, or so, and except for all of the lead fouling it doesn't suffer much at all ... not even when it's damp from fog or light rain, and gets put away with barely a wipe off. I'd snap up a bargain priced 442 if I came across one again ...
 
No, Tamera doesn't have a point. With all due respect, it's something of a Chimera that's being thrown out as a point.

Yes, the cylinder gap is an avenue for particulate matter to escape. I fully realize that, and accept it. I've chosen to accept it because I'm more comfortable carrying a revolver than a semi-automatic.

What I'm not willing to accept, however, are slots or holes in the top of the barrel that are specifically DESIGNED to expell gas and particulate matter, especially at angles TOWARD the shooter.

Cylinder-gap splash with a revolver can be minimized by looking for those with gaps on the narrow end of what is acceptable. The smaller the gap, the less stuff that's going to come out.

Equally as important is making sure the timing on the gun is spot on on EVERY chamber. Good alignment means less of a chance of something being ejected from the cylinder gap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top