Dear Jay,I hope this e-mail finds you well. I read your blog every day, and I have a quick question if you don't mind. I am considering the purchase of a S&W.38 snub-nosed revolver, either the 442 or the 642. Evidently, the 642 has a stainless cylinder/barrel with an aluminum frame, while the 442 has a blued cylinder/barrel with an aluminum frame. Evidently, the clear-coat over the aluminum on the 642 may be prone to chipping. Have you heard anything about this? If carried, will a blued gun such as the 442 rust? Are their any other factors that should influence my decision?
I prefaced my response with the proviso that I prefer blued guns to stainless off the bat. However, I have seen several (4-6) S&W model 637s or 642s that have had significant wear imparted to them in relatively short amounts of time; whereas I've had my 360 for six years now and, aside from minor scorch marks on the ends of the cylinders, have not noticed any wear from carrying it in a variety of holsters. I haven't seen rust on the 360 or my blued 38, both of which spend a fair amount of time in my pocket on hot summer days.
But I don't have a 442 (although I've thought about getting one for pocket carry). Anyone out there have one of these models (or the 438/432/etc) and noticed any rust/discoloration/pitting/etc.? The only time I've seen rust on a S&W revolver it's because the gun was stored for long periods of time in a leather holster; other than that I haven't seen much other than holster wear on blued guns. The 637/638/642 stainless guns, though, have shown enough discoloration - although not rust or other functional issues - that finish may be an issue (assuming one cares about the appearance of a carry gun, which I'm not particularly picky about myself).
Really, then, it comes down to the very simple question of "Blued vs. stainless: Which finish is best?"
That is all.
13 comments:
I have the 642, and I don't notice any wear on it at all. Two years of carry in my purse (though in its own compartment) I've managed to keep it free of purse crumbs and wodgy bits of lipstick, but I haven't noticed any wear on it. I probably should shoot it more often, and have rarely carried it in a holster, but that's my take on the subject.
Plus I'd say if you have a gun preference, so long as the wear is cosmetic only, I wouldn't leat fears of how long it stays purty put me off choosing a particular one. Sometimes a banged-up old pickup truck that's seen a lot of miles is the handsomest one on the road.
If the price is the same, I'd go with Stainless every time. As I update/upgrade my Armory, Stainless will be a major factor due to the local Environmental conditions (4 seasons, Lake Erie and Humidity in my neighborhood, etc), sweat from my body, all make it easier to keep them clean and rust free. YMMV, of course.
I've had a 442 for 18 months now and there's no rust on it. Heck, I leave it in a leather holster for weeks on end sometimes. Especially in the summer when I'm more likely to carry it than one of my larger pistols.
If the 442 rusted easily I'd have probably spotted some by now. Lord knows I've found it on some of my other guns.
I have a 432PD (whatever S&W's black "PD" finish is) and haven't noticed any bad wear on it. Then again I usually carry it in a Nemesis pocket holster so I wouldn't expect to see wear.
I have beaten the ever loving snot out of my 642...its still kickin' ass and taking names.
Overall in the 642 v 442...buy whatever is cheaper! Spend the savings on ammo, as an airweight snub is probably one of the most difficult guns to learn to shoot well.
I have a 442 and a 642, and carry both in rotation. I've not found any noticeable difference in wear between them, except that the areas that grow shiny due to friction are a bit more noticeable on the 442 than the 642. I'd buy either again in a heartbeat, and wouldn't particularly worry which one I bought - price would be the determining factor.
WV 'hotee' - they've got your number, JayG! :-)
I have a 642 with about 800 rounds through it and that I carry regularly during the summer. So far it's not showing any wear.
That being said, I don't think you can go wrong with either a 442 or 642.
I have a 642 that is my daily carry gun. The clearcoat does nick/scratch if you abuse it. There's a scratch forward of the cylinder from the clip on my holster. A ding on the butt from being dropped on the gravel driveway. A few mystery marks here and there.
The clearcoat has discolored where it touches my holster as well - it's picked up a faint orange-brown tint.
None of this bothers me in the least - it's a concealed carry gun, not a safe queen. I consider it "character".
Re: 642 finish wear...
I've carried a 642 for 2+ years and the finish does exhibit wear. Pics at http://sdo1.blogspot.com/2010/10/sw-642-finish-wear.html
The wear is all on the backstrap area, nothing anywhere else.
I've carried my 637 in my pocket before I got a good holster, and I've got some finish blemishes on the top of the frame. (It's the only reason I haven't tried to sell it and get a 642 (hammerless model)). I'll try and take some pix and email them to you, Jay.
Don't let your gun rust and it won't rust.
I'd say it's a personal decision.
For me it depends on the gun.
My single actions are all blued, my S&Ws are stainless (629, 500) but my Ruger GP-100 is blued.
If I was getting some small, hideout gun, I would probably get blued.
The purpose is to be unobtrusive. Shiny stainless stands.
Just for argument's sake, here is a picture of the 642 today. Note the slight orange hue to the top strap and underneath the crane. Also, a slight scrape on the frame over the barrel.
It's character.
My BUG is a 432, and before that was a 442, and I never had a problem with rust.
The "finish wear" thing on the 642 has a story behind it:
When they first introduced the 642, people griped because the bead-blasted stainless cylinder did not match the alloy frame. So they started clear-coating the frame to make it more closely match the barrel and cylinder.
Folks would use harsh solvents to clean them, and the clear-coat would discolor, or even flake. And then folks would gripe about that.
Personally, I can't understand why anybody would worry that the carpet didn't match the drapes on a gun that was destined to dwell in a pocket or purse... ;)
Post a Comment