SW 642 vs 637
- Thread starter adamBomb
- Start date
lee n. field
New member
yes.
In my case the LCP ended up sitting unused in the safe. The LCP is specialized, to be a gun that can be carried when nothing else can be. The 642 is more broadly useful. And easier to shoot well.
I suppose in theory it’s safer, but doubt the hammer would ever be a real safety issue. The reason I choose the S&W 442 without the hammer is ease of pocket carry. Basically no hammer means one less thing to snag on clothing or other items during a stressful situation.
Overall very pleased with the gun and use it a good bit for pocket carry. It does take some practice to get comfortable with the double action only, but in reality any new gun demands some practice.
Overall very pleased with the gun and use it a good bit for pocket carry. It does take some practice to get comfortable with the double action only, but in reality any new gun demands some practice.
I have a couple of 642's and had a couple of 637's. Nothing wrong with the 637's, just didnt see the point in keeping them, since I shoot everything DAO anyway. The 642's are more pocket friendly too.
If youre going to carry them with minimal grips, which realistically make them a lot more concealable, or even with the larger grips (never understood the thinking here), Id highly suggest you try one out with ammo you would likely carry in them before you commit to one. They really are not very pleasant to shoot, which tends to discourage practice, and limit proficiency.
I still shoot mine a couple of times a month, but normally quit at a box of fifty, as my hand starts to rebel, and is usually sore for a few days after. You do need to practice regularly with them to stay on top of them.
If youre going to carry them with minimal grips, which realistically make them a lot more concealable, or even with the larger grips (never understood the thinking here), Id highly suggest you try one out with ammo you would likely carry in them before you commit to one. They really are not very pleasant to shoot, which tends to discourage practice, and limit proficiency.
I still shoot mine a couple of times a month, but normally quit at a box of fifty, as my hand starts to rebel, and is usually sore for a few days after. You do need to practice regularly with them to stay on top of them.
Kreyzhorse
New member
I honestly don't think either gun is a safer than the other. My first CCW was a 637 which my wife now carries. Never had an issue with it. My sister in law carries a 642 with no issues either.
I suppose an internal hammer might make the gun more reliable theoretically and no issues with the hammer snagging on a pocket but neither of those make one gun safer than the other.
I suppose an internal hammer might make the gun more reliable theoretically and no issues with the hammer snagging on a pocket but neither of those make one gun safer than the other.
Thanks. I'm going to go check them out this weekend. I am leaning towards the 642 so I am glad to see that everyone also agreed with that for CCW. I have a 4 inch 357 so I am used to the trigger and actually like them a lot. The only handguns I shot growing up were revolvers as thats what my dad had...I guess its one of the reasons I want one as an option for CCW. I have been eyeing the 642 for like 10 years now but wasn't quite sure if I wanted the hammer or not.
I picked up a 637 a couple years ago for a song. I dehorned the hammer because it resides in my pocket at times and the hammer makes drawing from the pocket very difficult at times.
Great little revolver, but the trigger pull is horrid. Heavier than anything I've ever shot before. I'm actually dropping it at the gunsmith today to work on the trigger.
Great little revolver, but the trigger pull is horrid. Heavier than anything I've ever shot before. I'm actually dropping it at the gunsmith today to work on the trigger.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Snubbies are not intrinsically easy to shoot well. One needs to train up and practice with them. Yes, they can be successful close up one opponent deterrents but to use them well, it takes effort.
Just buying guns and shooting them at the square range doesn't make you proficient. One might argue that one shouldn't carry one unless you are trained up as well as many experts. However, that is hubris and I won't go there.
I just want to point out that they are not the easiest gun to master.
Just buying guns and shooting them at the square range doesn't make you proficient. One might argue that one shouldn't carry one unless you are trained up as well as many experts. However, that is hubris and I won't go there.
I just want to point out that they are not the easiest gun to master.
straightshooterjake
New member
I generally recommend the 642 for several reasons that have already been given in this thread.
But I will offer a couple more thoughts. Smith & Wesson revolvers with enclosed hammers do not have the internal hammer block safety. It is not needed since these revolvers cannot be dropped on their hammer. So the 642 has one less part than the 637. This is a very minor difference, but less parts means less opportunity for failure.
And the 642 is available in a no-lock version which does not have the internal lock. So the no-lock 642 has the least parts of any S&W revolver. For this reason the no-lock 642 is one of my favorite models. Having less parts will not make a big difference in reliability, but even a small advantage is worthwhile if you do not have to give up anything you care about to get it.
I should note that I am generally not bothered by the S&W internal lock system on their revolvers. If I wanted a model which was only available with the lock, then I would buy it. But if you don't plan to use the lock, then leaving it out is preferable.
I also want to comment further on Glenn E. Meyer's note about snub nose revolvers being difficult to shoot. Snub revolvers absolutely require a lot of training to use them effectively. But this is generally true of all pocket sized guns. I am not sure that very small guns chambered for 380 or 9mm are any easier to use effectively. But if you do not have a lot of experience with double action revolvers, then you definitely will need training time to become accustomed to the 642.
But I will offer a couple more thoughts. Smith & Wesson revolvers with enclosed hammers do not have the internal hammer block safety. It is not needed since these revolvers cannot be dropped on their hammer. So the 642 has one less part than the 637. This is a very minor difference, but less parts means less opportunity for failure.
And the 642 is available in a no-lock version which does not have the internal lock. So the no-lock 642 has the least parts of any S&W revolver. For this reason the no-lock 642 is one of my favorite models. Having less parts will not make a big difference in reliability, but even a small advantage is worthwhile if you do not have to give up anything you care about to get it.
I should note that I am generally not bothered by the S&W internal lock system on their revolvers. If I wanted a model which was only available with the lock, then I would buy it. But if you don't plan to use the lock, then leaving it out is preferable.
I also want to comment further on Glenn E. Meyer's note about snub nose revolvers being difficult to shoot. Snub revolvers absolutely require a lot of training to use them effectively. But this is generally true of all pocket sized guns. I am not sure that very small guns chambered for 380 or 9mm are any easier to use effectively. But if you do not have a lot of experience with double action revolvers, then you definitely will need training time to become accustomed to the 642.
^^Great information Jake.
If I might add, I have some meaty mitts and a quick grip on some small semi-autos can result in the slide raking across the web of my hand. This can range from irritating to painful and can affect the function of the weapon. This is never an issue with me and a small revolver.
If I might add, I have some meaty mitts and a quick grip on some small semi-autos can result in the slide raking across the web of my hand. This can range from irritating to painful and can affect the function of the weapon. This is never an issue with me and a small revolver.
2damnold4this
New member
While they aren't as easy to shoot well as my G26, I'm partial to the 642 and 342 revolvers that I have. The concealed hammer j frames are much easier to carry AIWB than the G26 but do give up capacity and shootability.
The .38 Special is easy to reload and it seems like the better a person gets with a lightweight DAO j frame, the better they get with handguns like the G26.
The .38 Special is easy to reload and it seems like the better a person gets with a lightweight DAO j frame, the better they get with handguns like the G26.
For me, the Glock 26 has replaced all the others, including my 642's. They are just easier to shoot well with, have double plus the capacity (and a hotter round to boot), better sights, and are basically the same size as the 642's, and are carried in the same places, so you really dont give anything up.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Second strike refers to the ability to pull the trigger again on a seemingly dud round. A DAO semi can do this. It is a debatable strategy as most folks would go for a tap, rack with a semi as who knows if the second strike will work.
With a revolver, a second pull just rotates the dud away.
As far as the G26 vs. the 642 - of course, YMMV but I don't find the 26 as easy to carry as the 642. A G42 is as easy. I also have a 432 - lighter and an extra round.
But as I said, I find the 26 much easier to shoot than the 642 - I've trained and practiced on both. The J's take effort and one could argue that one shouldn't carry one unless you are trained to peak shooting perfection (sly grin on this
).
With a revolver, a second pull just rotates the dud away.
As far as the G26 vs. the 642 - of course, YMMV but I don't find the 26 as easy to carry as the 642. A G42 is as easy. I also have a 432 - lighter and an extra round.
But as I said, I find the 26 much easier to shoot than the 642 - I've trained and practiced on both. The J's take effort and one could argue that one shouldn't carry one unless you are trained to peak shooting perfection (sly grin on this
).Unfortunately, I think this is a problem for the majority of carriers, but especially with the "little gun" crowd.But as I said, I find the 26 much easier to shoot than the 642 - I've trained and practiced on both. The J's take effort and one could argue that one shouldn't carry one unless you are trained to peak shooting perfection (sly grin on this
I rarely ever see anyone shooting them in any kind of realistic manner, yet they always will tell you, its better to have a little gun along, than the bigger gun you left at home. Never figured out that line of thinking, since I usually carry a full size (G17) as well as a back up(G26). But hey, whatever youve convinced yourself is or is not possible, you get to live with the choice.
Not being proficient and well practiced with whatever that might be, just seems like throwing gas on a smoldering fire.
shootniron
New member
I agree with others, the 642 IS NOT easy to shoot well. I read a lot of guys touting how well they shoot theirs...I have my doubts. I have been shooting guns a considerable amount for near 4 decades...seen a lot of good handgun shooters....I can count on one hand, those that can shoot a j-frame snub in DA mode, well.
However, the LCR is another matter. It is much easier for most people to shoot. Ergo design and better trigger make a big difference with it.
However, the LCR is another matter. It is much easier for most people to shoot. Ergo design and better trigger make a big difference with it.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
When I've tried the LCR trigger it is quite nice. However, unless the lots of money fairy visits, I'm sticking with the Js. I have taken J courses and shoot them in matches every once in awhile. I can do - I was surprised that I made a longer distance head shot once as mandated by the course of fire. It would have been easier with my G17 or 19.
Shooting a full match with a 642 and standard 38 SPL makes my hand a tad sore. Same match with a 1911 - nada.
Shooting a full match with a 642 and standard 38 SPL makes my hand a tad sore. Same match with a 1911 - nada.