SW 642 vs 637

I faced the same decision a few years ago and I split the difference and went with the 638. I really love my 638 and gives me the best of both worlds.
 
I can only speak about the 637. The hammer poses no problem for me both in the pocket or IWB carry. Plus I have the option of SA/DA. I open mine up @ 300-500 rounds for a complete cleaning and lube. Never found any lint or food crumbs:) Do any 642 owners ever take the side plate off for cleaning/lube?
I think it's a personal choice as to which one you like.I've never had a problem or misfire, always goes bang. Love the light weight and size.

J
 
I've had my side plate off more out of curiousness than any other reason, all good. Always really liked shooting it and shoot it well. Does anyone carry a G-26 in a pocket holster? The 642 is very comfortable in a pocket holster, why I got it.
 
642, and other short barreled j frame revolvers are harder to shoot accurately. If you want a nightstand / safe home protection gun look at a 4" barreled 686 or 686 plus. An L frame revolver is going to be easier to shoot well and much more pleasant for practice.

The 642 and 637 shine for pocket carry IMHO.

I Carried my model 36 with the exposed hammer in a pocket holster for 15 years before I bought a 642. I carry the 642 off and on. The key to pocket carrying one of these little snubs is a good pocket holster that draws easily but maintains the gun in a stable position. I recommend the Krammer. Also practice drawing is as important as firing and should be done regularly at home with an empty gun. Yo should also buy pants that have large pockets and are loose fitting.

Dryfire draw and fire practice will strengthen your finger and improve your results on the range. When I carried the 36 I had practiced drawing it with my thumb on the hammer so snagging was not a problem. Most likely should you ever need it in a self defense situation it will be at less than 10 feet distance. Practice drawing and firing at that distance. The heavier 36 was slightly more pleasant to shoot because of the extra weight.

It really isn't necessary to remove the side plate on a Smith revolver frequently to clean inside, the tightly fitted parts don't allow dirt to get inside even pocket lint. when I removed the side-plate on my 36 after 5 years of daily carry it was clean as a whistle inside. Occasionally lube in front of the hammer with a drop of CLP (light oil) and you will be good. Too much oil or grease attracts dust and moisture.

The cylinder and barrel are more exposed and they will accumulate dust and lint and should be cleaned out/ dusted once a week.

Teflon based Dry lube also works great on pocket carried guns and only need be applied a couple times a year or after shooting and cleaning.

Lower velocity rounds with 158 grain bullets will be easier to practice with and are quite effective, light high velocity rounds may be more effective but are going to be less pleasant to fire in practice.
 
Last edited:
I have both, or I have the 642 and bought the wife the 637.

I pocket carry my 642 but my wife, like most girls couldn't get a bullet in their pocket let alone a revolver, so the exposed hammer is no problem for her.

Any gun, revolver or pistol, in no better then the person shooting it. So practice and rounds down range is the key.

I shoot my 642 a heck of a lot. Besides SD, I use it for plinking instead of 22s. I save my 22 RF Ammo for competition. I can shoot 38s for about $2 a box of 50 ver. $5-6 per box of 50 22s now days. I cast bullets, so the primer is the most expensive part of the round. When I'm too lazy to cast/lube, I trade lead for pre-cast/lubed bullets.

Bang for the buck you wont find more cheaper ammo then 38s so why not use them for plinking? And if its your SD revolver, it makes sense to do move of your pistol/revolver shooting with it.

Shooting is about 90% mental, confidence plays a big part of the mental game. The more practice, the more confidence you gain in your revolver (regardless of the length of the barrel.

Its a tool, used for other purposes then self defense. For example, we went antelope hunting, we got 5, 3 of which had to "finished off", its a simple matter to pull the little revolver from your pocket and put the critter out of its misery. I've used it when I needed to put down one of my horses that had been hamstrung by a pack of wild dogs. I have lost count of the rattlers I've killed in my yard or pasture.

Depend on how you carry, both the 642/637 are excellent little revolvers, and can be very accurate IF YOU PRATACE.

Regardless of what revolver or pistol you have, if you arn't willing to practice with it, you should leave it home. It wont matter whether it has an exposed hammer or not.
 
Excellent response - we've found that folks consistently ask about hardware trivia and show little inclination to engage in the necessary practice to use a firearm well. That's so important.
 
I have a 637 with hammer spur removed, I bought it new that way. I love the 642, but the with the spur removed on the 637 and not having the slight hump, it is a little smoother to draw from the pocket. Not a lot, but still a little smoother. I would not pocket carry a revolver with a hammer spur, it would be carried on the belt either IWB or OWB.
 
I have carried a 637 for years and never had the hammer "catch" on anything, regardless of how it was carried. I also like and want the option to shoot it single action, even tho I mainly practice shooting it DA. That said, one needs to carry what they are most comfortable and most proficient with, not what others carry.
 
I also like and want the option to shoot it single action, even tho I mainly practice shooting it DA
Click to expand...

I like this option as well. I have a 4 inch medium frame revolver and I shoot both ways and I like the option...but I am leaning towards the 642 because its been on my list of guns I want for years now.

I assume there is no difference in reliability with the hammer hidden?
 
So having the option is wonderful. But, once again, you need more realistic snubby shooting than the square range. In a crisis situation, will you have time to think about - OH, now I will shoot SA?

Let's hear the training plan for carrying a snubby for real world interactions.
 
I carry the 638 0n a regular basis and I think that it is really the best option out there. I usually carry it in a pocket holster that makes it virtually undetectable even when wearing shorts. It has NEVER snagged when withdrawn from the pocket.

My late brother carried the 637 as an off duty weapon and as a daily CCW after he retired as a deputy sheriff. He favored the exposed hammer for a reason I could never figure out.

My wife never liked the 2" and shorter barrels on the traditional snubbies, so she carries a 3" model 37.

I just don't think you can go wrong with ANY "J" Frame S&W.:)
 
I assume there is no difference in reliability with the hammer hidden?
Click to expand...

If anything, the 642 may be slightly more reliable than other designs. I discussed the reason for this in a post earlier in this thread. However, the difference is very slight, and is unlikely to make a practical difference.

And despite my comments about slight hardware differences between J-frames, I agree with Glenn E. Meyer that the most important factor is having a practical training plan and learning to use the gun effectively.

All Smith & Wesson airweight J-frames are very reliable and concealable. And due to their small size, light weight weight, and full power chambering, they are quite difficult to shoot. If you are going to spend money on a J-frame, then it is worth spending some time to understand the differences between the models. But you should also be aware that any lightweight J-frame requires substantial training to use it effectively.
 
So having the option is wonderful. But, once again, you need more realistic snubby shooting than the square range. In a crisis situation, will you have time to think about - OH, now I will shoot SA?

Let's hear the training plan for carrying a snubby for real world interactions.
Click to expand...

For me, real world interactions with my 637 snubbie include the threat of dogs running at large when walking my dog or riding bicycle with my wife, and the occasional coyote, porcupine or other pesky varmint that come into range when I am bow hunting or turkey hunting and I don't want to waste a $10 broadhead on it.:rolleyes:

In a real world interaction, one can and does use their airweight J-Frame for more than just SD against other humans. In many of these scenarios, the use of SA makes for more accuracy at the longer distances encountered and the option of a quicker shot that is more accurate. That does not mean one with a snubbie with the capabilities of both SA/DA only practices with it in SA. This seems to be an automatic conclusion far too many folks jump to whenever they hear someone is using a SA/DA revolver for SD. "OMG!:eek: You'l' never practice in DA with it!".....how realistic is that, eh?

Since the majority of folks that carry everyday will never use their CWC weapon against another human, why can't we consider using it for something else since we have it on us....all the time. Or is that not realistic enough?

As if anyone in the real world is going to take an extraordinary amount of time to ponder over whether or not they should use their revolver in SA or DA in a true SD scenario. Someone needs to get real here, but it ain't me........
 
A light compact revolver has been my favorite sidearm when going hunting (der, hog, etc...) for some time now. They have many uses to me other than self defense. I have been seriously considering adding either a 638 or 637 to my stash for more out door type use.
 
I got my wife the 642-2ct for her purse and although she probably won't need the laser it's nice to have just in case...
She likes it better than the LCR she had...:D
 
When i was 43 I carried a Kel-Tec P11 9mm.

Now I am 65 and I carry an S&W 642-2 38 special.
Click to expand...

How time flies. I didn't realize they'd made the P-11 that long, but Wikipedia (the font of all wisdom) says introduced 1995.

My 642 is my most frequently carried handgun.
 
OK so just my opinion. Were talking about snub nosed revolvers. Snub nosed revolvers are NOT made to be accurate. Someone may master on into good accuracy at distance, but that is not what they are made for. That is not when they shine. Snub nosed revolvers are best for an up close down and dirty surprise defense.

As snub nosed revolvers go, the internal hammer is IMO the cats meow for self defense.
 
"Were talking about snub nosed revolvers. Snub nosed revolvers are NOT made to be accurate" Mine accidentally are pretty darn accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top