Small revolver (J-Frame/ T85UL/ LRC)

[99zhuggerz99]

I have never been the revolver kind of guy, but I want one. My dad advocates the S&W 642. But I do not want to just jump in. I have been looking online at the Taurus Ultralights, and the new Ruger LCR, as well as S&W. I am concerned about weight and the hammer. I want either hammerless or shrouded; im not concerned about SA. Having not shot anything other than the 642, and carried none of them (CC is a G23 IWB) so any feedback at all if you have shot one or more of these would be great.

 

[22lr]

Out of the S&W v Taurus. I have shot both and the S&W is a better gun. That said you can save a few buck and buy a Taurus, if brand names dont mean that much to you, and it will work just as good. Only thing is that I have a preference to the S&W trigger.

The ruger looks cool but its a plastic revolver, .

 

[Crystalship1]

The ruger looks cool but its a plastic revolver, .

Yeah!! Polymer gun parts..... that's crazy talk!!!

 

[Mgderf]

I have never been the revolver kind of guy, but I want one. My dad advocates the S&W 642. But I do not want to just jump in. I have been looking online at the Taurus Ultralights, and the new Ruger LCR, as well as S&W. I am concerned about weight and the hammer. I want either hammerless or shrouded; im not concerned about SA. Having not shot anything other than the 642, and carried none of them (CC is a G23 IWB) so any feedback at all if you have shot one or more of these would be great.

I have two of the small "snubbies", both Taurus, one a model 5306 in .327 federal magnum 2" 6-shot, and a model 605 in .357 magnum total Titanium 2" 5-shot.
GREAT little carry pieces both! If you don't hit them with the round, you can FRY them with the muzzle flash!

 

[Steve]

LCR all the way. If you can find both an LCR and a S&W 642 at a dealer, handle them both side by side. The answer will be obvious.

 

[jamstutz]

Compare before you buy

Anyone in the market for a small frame revolver owes it to themselves to try the Ruger LCR before they commit to buying anything else. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Hiram2005]

Yeah, plastic revolvers!!!! What's next?? Plastic semi-autos? What would you call 'em? Glocks? XDM's? M+P's?


Oh yeah, almost forgot....I have an LCR. It's a great piece!

 

[BE Mike]

All I can say is that your father is one wise man. I've been carrying a S&W 642 for over a decade. I have had Crimson Trace grips on mine for a few years. I can't recommend it highly enough, if you take the time to learn to shoot it well.

 

[Dryden]

642s with Crimson laser grips on mine and on my wife's. I pocket carry on a Galco pocket holster.....all the time. The 642 is very accurate out to 35 feet with practice (with or without the laser).

 

[dice dealer]

Carry a 442 S&W everywhere ... that and the LCP

 

[Bubba]

All I can say is that your father is one wise man. I've been carrying a S&W 642 for over a decade. I have had Crimson Trace grips on mine for a few years. I can't recommend it highly enough, if you take the time to learn to shoot it well.

I can't claim a decade, but I've had my 642 for a few years, and carry it either as a BUG with my G23, or pocket carry around town. Mine's bone stock still with the factory intalled Uncle Mikes plastic grips, and is pretty accurate.

 

[win87]

I carry a 442 with a super tuned action very smooth trigger pull.

 

[Jeffrey]

638

Like you, I carried a g23 for a long time until I picked up a 638. Not the most attractive gun in the world, but the shrouded hammer is a nice feature to have. Amazingly accurate for what it is. Great carry gun too. I have always been a smith guy, but ruger makes solid stuff. My advice would be to check them both out and shoot them if at all possible. Don't really think you would go wrong either way.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I have a Taurus .38 Ultralight, I think the 851CIA model. It still has a hammer but there is no spur to the hammer, only a friction pad to cock the hammer back.

Warning: This design is hard on the thumb if you will be shooting it all day, and I have not had good luck even using thin gloves to cock the hammer. You also lose a lot of leverage by not having the hammer spur, so my 12 y.o. son has A LOT (did I say A LOT?) of trouble cocking it and my wife hates the whole gun. She cannot cock the gun, either because of carpel tunnel problems in her wrists.

I do not notice much weight difference with the model I own compared to a S&W with a similar frame, but I'm sure there IS a bit less weight with this ultralight Taurus.

The biggest thing that I like about it is that it is a low profile firearm that my wife says does not print at all when I pull my tshirt hem over it (I'm 5'10, 220 lbs., "large boned"). I have a fitted OWB holster for it with no retention strap, but it stays right where it should be, even when I am wrestling with my son on the floor. I don't notice the weight while wearing it, and even "forget" that I am wearing it until taking my belt off at bed time or using the restroom and such.

I have the fake rubber grips for mine, the down side being that I can't fit a speedloader on it to reload. The grips stick out a bit too far and the speedloader won't line up straight enough to insert the ammunition into the gun. I could change grips, but I have physical problems with my hands that the rubber grips help.

Is that any help?

 

[theweakerbrother]

Even better than the 642 is the 640-2. .357 that can shoot .38 specials. The 640-2 is also a pre-lock Smith, so you don't have to worry about fooling with stupid frame locks on a gun.

 

[LPMan59]

i had a 642 and sold it to fund a 1911. but last week i had to scratch my revolver itch and picked up a taurus 605. i like it because it's small like 642, but can fire the .357 if needs be.

 

[cosermann]

Here's my take on the hammer issue: There's a desire to do "something" with the hammer due to the snag issue created by the way these little snubbies are often carried (i.e. in the pocket). Four potential solutions: 1. draw the gun with your thumb over the hammer (creating a shroud with your hand), 2. bob the hammer, 3. shroud the hammer, 4. enclose the hammer.

The first potential solution has the disadvantage of necessitating a draw with something other than a proper firing grip.

The second solution fixes the snag profile problem, but makes it difficult (if not impossible, depending on how it's executed, to manually cock the hammer), and does nothing to keep lint and debris from working it's way around the hammer into the action.

The third solution fixes the profile problem, and allows manual cocking, but makes cleaning more difficult, imo, as it's hard to get to the junk in that channel between the shrouds.

The fourth solution fixes the snag problem and the enclosed action keeps lint and other debris out of the action better. Therefore it's the solution I prefer. These tiny revolvers, while capable of more accuracy than one might think, are rarely used by first cocking the hammer.

Imo, the 640 is a completely different pistol than the 442/642 because it weighs half a pound more (23 vs 15 oz). If I'm going to carry a gun that weighs 23 oz, is isn't going to be a 5-shot revolver.

The thing that makes these small revolvers attractive to me is the power to weight ratio. Anything that disturbs that balance, like going to steel construction or .357 mag. makes them less attractive to me. Additionally, .357 mag in these little things creates a significant amount of blast and recoil that makes follow-up shots difficult (and may temporarily blind you in a reduced light situation). So, I stay with the alloy frames and +p .38 which is enough for me for what these things are.

 

[Django]

Ruger LCR [38Spl +p][$500]

S&W 642 [38spl +p][$600]

S&W M&P 340 [357][$750]

LCR isn't bad, 642 is better.. I just like the M&P (357 helps )
Note: J-frames OK for light carry, but I usually go for the autos.
Not a matter of which is better, just preference.

--edit--
@cosermann:
Not like you HAVE to shoot 357 out of a 357, just nice to know it's there and that you can should the need arise. ::shrug::

 

[BE Mike]

Django...the second photo you posted is not of a S&W model 642, but of a 638.

theweakerbrother...actually Smith & Wesson currently has a no-lock model 642 cataloged.
Product: Model 642 - No Internal Lock

 

[cosermann]

And the 442. I just haven't seen any of the "no lock" models in the distribution channel for a bit. Between runs maybe?

Product: Model 442 Revolver - No Internal Lock