S&W 442/642 standard or Pro model, haven't decided. I'm going to need a good reliable pocket gun when the warmer weather comes. Not impressed with any of the toyish plasticy little .380's out there.
Take a look at a Ruger LCR, I traded off my 642 for one about a year and a half ago. Better trigger and changing the front sight is much easier. SoCo Kydex make a great IWB holster for the LCR that I'd suggest a look at too.
Thanks, but no thanks. The Ruger LCR is bulkier and it's fat sticky rubber grip doesn't bode well for pocket carry, and unlike the 642, there are no grip options available that I like. I also dislike finger grooves on my grips, and internal lock mechanisms. Better trigger? True, but it's also easier to lock up if not reset correctly, and a good trigger job on a 642 can even things out.
The S&W J-Frames remain the finest discreet carry piece ever produced, bar none. They just get everything right on so many levels.
I have to politely disagree, S&W J-frames were one of the best, but most current models seem to have very poor fit and finish. A model 60 pro made 3 trips back to S&W for timing problems and a bent crane. It was sold off after being returned for the third time in under a year. After the poor service and failures to get the repairs correct I doubt I'd ever buy another new S&W revolver. I have an 25 to 30 year old model 19 and a 20 plus year old model 57 that I'll keep until I can't shoot anymore, then give them to my son or grand sons.
I've never had a reset or lock up issue with my LCR, but had that problem regularly with the 642 I had.
The Bantam/boot grip for the LCR makes it every bit as compact as a 442/642, and for me anyway much more comfortable to shoot.
The main issue with the LCR is it's bulk and grip, making it unsuitable for pocket carry as far as myself is concerned. Might be no problem for a bigger guy, but not for me. I tried pocketing both the LCR and the 642. The 642 slipped right in and out of my pocket like it was a part of my body, and felt perfectly comfortable in an inexpensive BlackHawk pocket holster. The LCR did not, and produced a noticeably larger profile in my pocket. It also did not fit into some pocket holsters that otherwise fit the 642, even though the manufacturer claimed it would. The LCR's large, bulky sticky rubber grip with it's aggressive finger grooves made drawing out of my pocket a challenge.
I took turns staging and working the triggers of both and the LCR's was much easier to lock up. I had to put more effort into locking up the 642's. I've seen a video where a guy shooting one had his LCR lock up also as he tried to fire it as fast as possible. Not good. I guess there's a price to pay for that unique cam trigger action. Maybe Ruger has worked out this bug by now? I don't know.
That Bantam boot grip helps but it's still sticky rubber and provides a poorer grip, not to mention being ugly as sin. Which is another issue... not one of function but of form. The LCR is an ugly duckling compared to the pretty J-Frame. Just an opinion but I'm the one that always has to look at the darn thing. Add that with the other more important issues and the 642's infinite choice in grips and accessories and it's stellar track record throughout the years and it's not hard for me to decide which one I'd choose.
Reliably issues? I haven't heard many complaints in terms of reliably issues with the 642 other then a few about it's finish wearing off. The 442 doesn't seem to have this problem, although I've never seen either one with an abnormally worn finish. However, I have heard of complaints of the above mentioned reset/lock-up issue with the LCR, and flame cutting near the upper barrel on the aluminum framed LCR's, and seen evidence of it as well.
Fit and finish? The S&W J-frames I've handled looked fine to me. Sure, they aren't really nice stainless or blued anymore but how many guns at that price point are these days? They certainly exhibited a finer finish and workmanship then the Charter Arms and Taurus J-Frame knock-offs I've handled.
