< Back to the Main Site
« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock  (Read 7438 times)

Offline bigmountainskiercfg

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 82
s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock
« on: July 09, 2012, 07:23:36 PM »
What is the difference between these two guns?  I know both are double action, but still confused... can anyone explain.  I am looking at getting a J frame revolver for carry and its between the 442 or body guard but there are a couple different models and not sure what the differences are.   
Logged

Offline bk09

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2011
  • Posts: 488
Re: s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2012, 09:06:51 PM »
First off might I suggest a 642. I have a 642 and would recommend a stainless if you want to carry, just one less thing you have to worry about. And I have a 642 with the "Hillary Hole", thought it would be the end of the world at first but it isn't a big deal. If you ever want to lock the gun then you have the option, but I prefer to lock my entire gun in a safe instead of internally locking it. The only difference between these guns is one can be locked with a little key to keep the trigger from moving.
Logged

Offline bigmountainskiercfg

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 82
Re: s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2012, 09:59:46 PM »
They go in the safe for me too if they are not on me.  Why would you go with the 642 over the 442?  what is the difference.  I've only held a 442 in the stores and their website isn't that clear. 
Logged

Offline bk09

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2011
  • Posts: 488
Re: s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2012, 10:03:00 PM »
The 642 is stainless and the 442 is a matte black. As far as I can recall the 442 is not completely rust proof (somebody else may be able to chime in with this).
Logged

Offline bkoenig

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 3677
  • Aspiring cranky old gun nut
Re: s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2012, 10:06:09 PM »
I have a no-lock 642.  I wanted one without the lawyer lock because I figured it's one more thing to go wrong.  I second the 642 ocver the 442.  Carry guns get exposed to a lot of sweat.  Both guns have an aluminum frame but the 642 has a stainless cylinder and barrel.
Logged

Offline bigmountainskiercfg

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 82
Re: s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2012, 10:28:07 PM »
Alright, I really appreciate the advice.  I think the moon version of the 442 is the same as the 642 models.  Does that look the same for you?  I like the black vs the silver, thats why i am asking. 


 http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_766343_-1_757767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y 

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_766181_-1_757912_757910_757787_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
Logged

Offline bkoenig

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 3677
  • Aspiring cranky old gun nut
Re: s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2012, 11:03:11 PM »
The moon one is cut for moon clips, which would be a really nice feature for quicker reloads.  Not all x42 models have that feature.  Overall the 642 and 442 are identical except for stainless vs blued.
Logged

Offline bigmountainskiercfg

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 82
Re: s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2012, 11:37:41 PM »
Awesome thanks I've never seen moon clips before.  Only the speed loaders. It's a cool concept. Ill take your advice and get a 642, now wood or rubber grip is the question. Appreciate all the knowledge and advice. 
Logged

Offline bk09

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2011
  • Posts: 488
Re: s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock
« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2012, 12:23:25 AM »
I bought the Talo edition (wood grip) and I like it. If you would use it as a pocket carry gun it could be harder to pull out of the pocket if it has a rubber grip. You get used to the snappy recoil with the wood grips, just takes a few hundred rounds and some tweaking of your grip.
Logged

Offline Platte River Jack

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2012
  • Posts: 6
Re: s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock
« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2012, 11:15:06 AM »
The S&W 442 is a great choice. I've been carrying one without the ILS for over three years without any rust issues. (Being a reactionary I don't want any lawyers involved in the guns I purchase).  I had  Ted Adomovich make custom wood grips and currently carry in a Galco pocket holster or Milt Sparks summer special.
Logged

Offline JimP

  • Steel Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 1310
Re: s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2012, 11:10:28 PM »
Quote
As far as I can recall the 442 is not completely rust proof

No gun made of steel, which is a ferrous metal, is rust proof.

Stainless just stains less.  Less rust, and less is better.

Stainless steel has other problems, though- galling is one.  Stainless steel likes to stick to stainless steel......
Logged
The Right to Keep and BEAR Arms is enshrined explicitly in both our State and Federal Constitutions, yet most of us are afraid to actually excercise that Right, for very good reason: there is a good chance of being arrested........ and  THAT is a damned shame.  III.

Offline bigmountainskiercfg

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 82
Re: s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock
« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2012, 10:34:48 PM »
For those of you that have the 442/642/bodyguard?  How bad is the recoil? I have yet to shoot one?  I shoot on a pretty regular basis a s&W 686 .357 but its a 3 inch barrel?  I keep going back and forth between 642 or maybe a pm9, xds or similar semi auto.
Logged

Offline bk09

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2011
  • Posts: 488
Re: s&w 442 with internal lock vs. s&w 442 no internal lock
« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2012, 11:34:57 PM »
Quote from: bigmountainskiercfg on July 23, 2012, 10:34:48 PM
For those of you that have the 442/642/bodyguard?  How bad is the recoil? I have yet to shoot one?  I shoot on a pretty regular basis a s&W 686 .357 but its a 3 inch barrel?  I keep going back and forth between 642 or maybe a pm9, xds or similar semi auto.

The first 2 hundred rounds I had to keep tweaking my grip. The first 100 I cut up my thumb pretty good on the cylinder release button, and the next 100 or so I was still getting used to the recoil. Now I load 125gr Pb flat point bullets with any range of titegroup powder. They all feel the same recoil-wise to me. Shoot it a lot and get used to it(as you should with a ccw) and it actually becomes controllable and is pretty accurate. I have held a lot of the small ccw's like the Kahr CW40s, LCP, LC9 and similar sized guns and much prefer the feel of the 642. With the J frame I actually mount my thumb securely to the frame to help keep a grip, which would be much harder with a semi-auto that has a slide that has to move. The only gun I want to look into now that is meant for just CC is the s&w Shield. Chances are I won't like the feel since I haven't liked the feel of any other tiny semi auto, but it's worth a shot.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »