S&W 442 vs 642

W

whip1

New member
I've been considering one of these guns. besides the finish, is there any other differences? Guy at LGS claimed the 442 has a high carbon steel barrel and are vulnerable to rust. I've heard of the 642 having problems with the clear coat wearing off. Are these legitimate concerns? What are your thoughts on the pro model? Are the moon clips worth the few extra dollars?
 
Last edited:
Carbon steel is subject to rust. I think the cylinder of the 442 is carbon steel, and the frame aluminium. I don't think the 642 has a clear coat. I think it has an Aluminium frame and a stainless steel cylinder. Maybe someone is thinking of the 360 with the scandium frame and titanium cylinder. As I understand it the cylinder has a coating to protect from erosion and abrasives can be a problem with cleaning the gun. I suppose solvents might be a concern also, but have no clue which ones might affect the coating.
 
I have a couple of 642's, my one buddy has a 442. All show wear, but the 642s just show it better.

My 642's have some sort of clear coat, or finish (on the frame), which has worn spots in it, but it isnt near as noticeable. The difference is, the black 442 shows "white" at the wear points, where the 642 shows the coating worn, but its still silver, and not as obvious.

The barrel and cylinder on my buddys 442, show typical carbon finish holster wear (worn along the muzzle and sides of the cylinder), but I dont remember ever seeing rust on his. Not that it couldnt or hasnt happened.
 
Liked the idea of 642 for rust protection, and 442 for appearance. Hate the look of a stainless revolver. Bought the 642 and sent it to Walter Birdsong to have them apply their "Black-T" finish to it. Now have the best of both worlds. Finish I like, and stainless for rust protection. In addition, the Black-T finish is also highly rust protective.
 
I like the looks of the 442, but I've carried a 642 for the past 6 years. I'd heard reports of the flaking clearcoat but haven't had any problems with it on my piece.
 
Have carried a 442 in my front pocket for over twenty five years and it shows some holster burn on the barrel.
 
Have carried both for many years and have leaned towards the 442 mostly in the last 6-7yrs. Primarily cause I prefer a darker ccw pistol. Both show normal holster wear as expected with any carry gun. Rust has never been an issue with either as whichever I've been carrying gets shot on the average of once a month and is cleaned frequently.
 
If rusting is an issue, your not maintaining 'em properly. I'd be looking for another shop. That guy is daft. ALL steel is vulnerable to rust.
 
I had a 642. Sent it back to S&W TWICE for refinishing. The clear coat was peeling off all over the place, but mostly the hump on the back, which is to expected. S&W told me to not clean the gun with ANYTHING other than regular gun oil. Gun oil to clean? Since when. If I can't use Hoppes #9, then I don't feel the gun is clean. I had a separate cleaning kit for it just so the hint of Hoppes wouldn't get near it, and used CLP only. Still peeled, but not as much. For S&W, a quality gun maker, to continue to use that finish when they know there's an issue, is just plain wrong. I haven't owned that 642 in like 6 years, and maybe it's better now, but if it isn't, it's unacceptable.

I know a guy who got tired of it and sprayed the whole gun down with Gunscrubber. Took the clear coat right off. That stuff will eat the clear coat away.
 
If rusting is an issue, your not maintaining 'em properly.
Click to expand...
Even when maintained constantly, it can still be an issue, especially when its 95+, 98% humidity, and youre sweating your butt off all day. :)

Until I found hard chrome and Tennifer, it was a constant chore keeping the rust at bay, and many times, it was a losing battle.
 
The alloy/aluminum frame on the 642 is painted and will show wear like any blued revolver. But along with the stainless cylinder are still highly corrosive resistant. Both the 442 and the 642 are just inexpensive, reliable, EDC guns. They are not collector guns or safe queens. The appearance is purely subjective to the buyer and make no difference in their performance or effectiveness.
 
Clear Coat on SW 642

What is the purpose of the clear coat on a 642? Is it cosmetic or does it actually protect the frame?
 
Originally posted by Seven High:

What is the purpose of the clear coat on a 642? Is it cosmetic or does it actually protect the frame?
Click to expand...

Again, it is not a clear coat, but silver paint. Probably cosmetic and offers a little protection. I assume it makes the frame match the finish of the stainless barrel and cylinder.
 
642 all the way!

I vote 642, all day, every day. Here is mine:

GD_Barami.jpg


With the 642 you get better corrosion resistance, no doubt about that one. You also get a more visible firearm. Night time is the most likely time when you will be forced to draw your handgun, and the silver appearance of the 642 stands out better in darkness. Why is this a benefit? Well for one, you can see the sights much better than the black sights on the 442 in low-light conditions. Also, I don't know about you but I want the person to see my gun. It serves as a deterent. They may very well see that shiny revolver and immediatly think twice about what they're doing. If I can avoid shooting someone, by God I will. I would MUCH rather have the turn tail and beat feet than have them dead with blood flowing at my feet. The black 442 model is difficult to see at night so may lose that deterent effect, and the sights pretty much disappear unless you're aiming at someone in a neon green hoody or something!

So the choice is clear for me: 642. "But wait! It's not tacti-black, it won't match my spec-ops MOLLE gear robo cop vest!"

Have no worries. In this case, black isn't better! :cool:
 
Thanks for the help. I was leaning towards the 442 because the black conceals better. I hadn't thought about the brighter gun being a deterrent when presented.
 
I hadn't thought about the brighter gun being a deterrent when presented.
Click to expand...

Just another line of thought...the flip side to the above is the brighter/flashy pistol could become a target. As far as the sights go, a high quality neon paint on the front sight goes a long way. And when using either pistol at night in total darkness you will be more apt to be point shooting as the sights will be of no use anyway. Unless you equip the pistol with a laser grip such as CT grips or are using a flashlight that enables you to see your sights.

While I 100% agree with Model12Win and would run from a situation if I could to keep from having to shoot someone, if I have to pull my pistol, I want every advantage I can get on my side. Having carried both and also considered the fact that a brighter gun may be a deterrent in a bad situation, I can always announce that I have a gun if the circumstances warrants such.
 
If you really want the 442, you could buy one then polish just the muzzle s bright silver color. That is an old cop trick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top