Current evaluation of Smith 642

I have been considering a Smith 642, but am hesitant. Frankly, the only thing I really like about it is the fact that it is steel. Other than that, I prefer the LCR. Has anybody current information about the quality of the 642? It is no secret that Smith's quality has been lacking lately. Thanks.

I'm pretty sure the 642 is aluminum frame with a steel cylinder. I have one of the newer ones with no lock. No issues so far. It's Not an all day range plinking gun with +p or +p+. I usually run a cylinder or 3 of my +p HD load to keep myself familiar with the recoil. It and it's even lighter scandium and titataniun brothers are designed to be carried a lot and shot a little.

Harvey said:

...It is no secret that Smith's quality has been lacking lately. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Based upon what? I am hesitant to take others' opinions of their "problems" with new guns on the Internet as gospel as many are people totally unfamiliar with guns and blame manufacturers for their own shortcomings. S&W, as with any manuf., is going to have a lemon now & then. It's just the law of averages.

I have a "no lock" 442 bought in 2012 that is flawless and I have a friend that bought a "no lock" 642 this year and it is flawless as well. Both shoot dead nuts on.

I carry a 442 which is the same gun but black. Never had a problem with it. I also have other j frames that have been awesome. Never a problem with any of them. If you buy it new S&W has a lifetime warrantee, but I doubt you'll ever need it. Ed

I've had more quality control issues with Ruger products than S&W, but both companies have been top notch with me in the customer service area. I wouldn't have any fears about buying a new 642.

Thanks, everybody, for good information. I had not mentioned the "no lock," but that is the one that I plan to obtain. I prefer the LCR trigger, but I think the 642 has an edge overall.

Last time I went to a gun show, I spotted a pair of new, no-lock Smith .38 J-frames that had been cut for moonclips, one a 642 and the other a 638. IIRC, he had them both priced at $410 each, and if I'd had the money I'd have taken the 642 home with me.

FWIW, my 638 Airweight does have the lock, and I haven't had any issues with it.

I have a no lock 642 bought new last year. Have no problems with it. The trigger on my LCR 357 is better, but the 642's trigger is good also.

S&W J-frames are among the all-time great pocket pistols. Reliability combines with wonderfully regulated sights to elevate practicality of these revolvers. The aluminum frame M-442 (carbon steel barrel & cylinder), and the M-642 (stainless steel bbl & cyl) enjoy excellent service life when fed regular .38 Special. If you want to shoot hot loads or run qualifications, get the all stainless Model 640, which is a half-pound heavier. I do not see the point of +P and +P+ .38 in the aluminum J-frame. The minimal gain ion velocity from a 2" barrel hardly warrants beating the gun.

The Ruger 5-shot .38 is rugged, but on some the bullets may not find your Point of Aim.

Note: it is a piece of marketing mendacity to call an aluminum gun "scandium." Scandium is a mineral used in trace amounts to alloy aluminum in firearms manufacture.
David Bradshaw

I have the 642 but I recommend you get the 442 instead.

Reason being that the 442 is black anodized and the 642 is clear coated aluminum. I have read numerous reports and can confirm on my own 642 that the clear coat they use just is not durable and after a period of time and in particular if it's carried in humid or sweaty environments, you're going to see grey aluminum corrosion manifest itself on the backstrap and areas of high wear in general.

Some have returned their 642 to S&W to be recoated, but I would just as soon have a finish that is not susceptible to premature wear and corrosion to begin with.

Functionally, the revolver has been excellent and has never failed to perform. Its light weight is a big bonus for deep concealed carry.

I own a 642 with perfect and matching finish that wears cocobolo boots from Spegel. I also own a 442 with walnut boots from Spegel. That one rides a lot in a pocket as backup and it shows. Both shoot to point of aim with 158 grains and tighter groups than this type of gun needs. My needs are set but every time I see a 642 in the classifieds, I got to open it and do some financial math. I love these centennials!

Just get an older S&W, pre lock & MIM (1994 and before)...no worries then. Yes, most folks will never have trouble with the "lock" on the newer S&Ws, but why put up with something that may or may not fowl up and lock the gun up, whatever the low chance of it happening? Food for thought.

I carried an S&W 642 no lock for several years and really liked it. When the LCR came out I resisted but after getting a couple and trying them out, I decided I liked the Ruger better, guess I should say the trigger better. I could have lived with the Smith but a smooth trigger is a key element in good accuracy and over time I made the switch and sold the Smith.

Any gun that is carried all day every day is going to show some wear, I don't care what the finish is.

If you seriously feel the need to ask about this, you would probably be better satisfied with the LCR.

The 642 has a stellar reputation regardless of production date.

I never understood why folks that carry a firearm everyday, everywhere, expect it to look like new forever.

The 642 is what it is, if it stops working, throw it away and buy another.

The 38+P revolver is pretty useful for Ranch & Road.

I agree with some of the above, If you carry it, it will show wear. The black finish is more durable than the clear coat on the silver finish. The black finish is easy to touch up with a sharpy. Plus the all black gun conceals better. Even for pocket carry, if your pocket opens a little would you rather see a silver backstrap or a black shadow?

It is a $400 handgun, how long does it need to last to get your money's worth out of it? With minimal care it will last ten years easily, that is $40 a year!

A no lock 442 is a superior option at a bargain price, and the best value in CCW IMHO.

The lock normally doesn't bother me, but on a centennial it is a problem because the flag that normally pops up to tell you the gun is locked doesn't show. So it would be easy to be carrying a locked gun and not know it.

I still refuse to buy a S&W with the lock but have been carrying and shooting a no-lock 442 for a few months now. No complaints whatsoever. Black elephant by Eaglestroker.