S&W 442, 642 or ruger 327

[TallPrairie]

I agree with the drift of this thread. The 642 and 442 are great pocket carries but I can't feel comfortable recommending one with the internal lock. The Ruger SP101 is an excellent all steel design in .357/.38, but ammo cost and availability will be a concern if you buy one chambered in .327 Federal. (I like the idea of the .327.)

You said you want "a small revolver for self-defense" -- does that include licensed concealed carry?

If you are going to carry it, then get a 642 or 442 if you can find one without a lock. And practice with it. They are challenging little guns but can be mastered.

If this is more of a home defense gun, there's no point in something as small as a 642. Get a Ruger SP101 in .357 (not .327) with the 3" barrel. Fine nightstand piece that is also carryable with a proper belt holster.

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

In my humble opinion, the lock is a non-issue. Yes, there have been a few documented cases of lock failure in some of the large, hard recoiling S&W revolvers, but I have never seen a documented lock failure in a .38 Airweight. Heck, there are a few documented cases of Glocks blowing up, so does that mean no one should own a Glock? If the lock makes you nervous, don't buy one with a lock. If you feel it is an "anti-gun" measure, don't buy one with a lock. If you don't like the look of it, don't buy one with a lock. But please don't go around telling everyone not to buy one based on something that is really not an issue. Again, just my opinion, YMMV.

 

[TallPrairie]

The Smith & Wesson Forum used to have a big sticky thread where people could post their experiences with failures of the internal lock in S&W revolvers.

As I recall, they accumulated about 20 failures over a period of several years. That is not an overwhelming number, but I find it hard to brush aside. The failures tended to be more common with lightweight revolvers (like the Airweight J-frames bobed is considering) and with hard-kicking magnum chamberings. Guns like the 329 and the 340PD, which combine both of these features, seemed to be the most problematic.

I wish I could still point you to the S&W Forum thread, but it got lost when that forum did some updating a while ago (if I were conspiracy minded, I would be suspicious ... ).

TV host Michael Bane (Shooting Gallery, The Best Defense) has had at least two different internal lock failures shooting S&W 329 revolvers in .44 Magnum.

http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2009/07/mo-guns.html
http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2007/08/s-revolver-safety-failure.html

True, .38 Special +P doesn't kick as hard as .357 or .44 magnum, but it still recoils a fair amount in a 15 ounce gun. I stand by what I said: I, personally, would be uncomfortable recommending that someone purchase a lightweight gun, for life or death use, like the 642/442, that has the S&W internal lock. YMMV.

 

[MadDogs]

Ruger LCR with the Crimson Trace grips. From what I have read, solid gun and less money than the S&W's.

 

[m.rehme]

Only time I had bullets jump crimp were in my Charter arms bulldog with some pretty hefty reloads, chucked up the crimp die in a lathe trimmed off the bottom of the die so I could set the crimp deeper into the bullet - that solved my problem.

 

[BigBoreOkie]

Well, I own a LCR and a SP101. I would HIGHLY recommend either one. As far as the SW go, when my mom and step father were looking at getting a concealed carry weapon I advised them to get the 642. They did end up getting it and they love it. This was pre LCR.

So, the real question would be does the lock bother you? If it does, the LCR is an excellent piece. I can't praise it enough. If you want to shoot 357 then get the sp101 and you have the choice between the bobbed or non bobbed.

 

[4wheelphil]

I like the trigger pull on the LCR better than the 642 but both are excellent pocket guns...