S&W 642 and 442 with Mag-Na-Ported-Barrel
S&W have made a special run of S&W 642 and 442 revolvers with ported barrels. These must make one heck of a bang when the trigger is pulled! Both are chambered in .38 Special.
Model 642
Model 442
10 Responses to “S&W 642 and 442 with Mag-Na-Ported-Barrel”
Sort The Responses Below: |
-
Crystalwrote on August 03rd, 2009 at 7:47 pm Link To Comment |
That’s interesting. I’ve never seen a revolver without a hammer. hm!
Tom… “real men” don’t get out shot by women despite what kind of gun regardless of caliber they’re given.
Please rate this comment:
0 
0-
Steveresponded to Crystal on August 03rd, 2009 at 7:53 pm Link To Comment |
Crystal, it sure does have a hammer, it is just hidden away!
hmmm … a hammerless revolver (striker fired aka. glock) would be a very interesting idea!
Please rate this comment: 0 0
-
-
Earlwrote on September 07th, 2009 at 12:24 pm Link To Comment |
Hey Tom … .38 outdated? So you’re OK standing in front of that itty-bitty gun while someone fires an obsolete ol’ .38 at your hiney?
I’ve seen enough folks die on the receiving end. Decent ammo and a decent shooter … I don’t think you’d be too disappointed in the performance. We’re lazy shooters today. LOTS of bullets … shoot ‘em full of holes. As old Bill Jordan said, “Accuracy is final.” (No offense intended my friend. I am happy to carry modern handguns and long-guns with improved ammo. But I am fine carrying my old .38 Chief as well)Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Mr. Xwrote on January 07th, 2010 at 4:00 am Link To Comment |
S&W has made a sweet B.U.G in the 642. Can be carried in so many ways on the body. .38+P hollow points makes a terrific back-up option on the ankle.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Tomwrote on August 02nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm Link To Comment |
Real Men don`t shoot .38 Specials. May be ok for a woman. This round is obsolete in my opinion.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
War Wolfwrote on August 01st, 2009 at 8:30 am Link To Comment |
I never thought much of ported EDC guns. Too much flash, especially in the dark.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Tom Stonewrote on August 01st, 2009 at 12:17 pm Link To Comment |
I own a ported 442.Neither the blast or flash is significantly worse than an unported pistol.The recoil is much more “straight back” and it is much easier to get a second accurate shot off quickly.With a barrel longer than 17/8 the increased flash and blast might not be worth the tradeoff,but it definitely is for me with this pistol,especially with hot loads.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Crystalwrote on August 01st, 2009 at 10:45 pm Link To Comment |
Where’s the hammer on these things??
Please rate this comment: 0 0-
Steveresponded to Crystal on August 01st, 2009 at 10:49 pm Link To Comment |
Crystal, it is inside the frame. It double action only, you cannot cock the hammer manually. The advantage of this is that there is no hammer get snagged on clothing when drawing it.
Please rate this comment: 0 0
-
-
Daniel E. Watterswrote on July 31st, 2009 at 11:52 pm Link To Comment |
How much of a bigger bang can they have given they already have ~2″ barrels? It amazes me that people can freak out about the dangers of porting a revolver barrel when it already has a gap between the cylinder and barrel that can vent gas, powder, and lead.
Please rate this comment: 0 0
Leave a Comment
-
Twitter
-
Email Subscription
-
Facebook
Top Posts
-
Categories
S&W has made a sweet B.U.G in the 642. Can be carried in so many ways on the body. .38+P hollow points makes a terrific back-up option on the ankle.
Hey Tom … .38 outdated? So you’re OK standing in front of that itty-bitty gun while someone fires an obsolete ol’ .38 at your hiney?
I’ve seen enough folks die on the receiving end. Decent ammo and a decent shooter … I don’t think you’d be too disappointed in the performance. We’re lazy shooters today. LOTS of bullets … shoot ‘em full of holes. As old Bill Jordan said, “Accuracy is final.” (No offense intended my friend. I am happy to carry modern handguns and long-guns with improved ammo. But I am fine carrying my old .38 Chief as well)
That’s interesting. I’ve never seen a revolver without a hammer. hm!
Tom… “real men” don’t get out shot by women despite what kind of gun regardless of caliber they’re given.
Crystal, it sure does have a hammer, it is just hidden away!
hmmm … a hammerless revolver (striker fired aka. glock) would be a very interesting idea!
Real Men don`t shoot .38 Specials. May be ok for a woman. This round is obsolete in my opinion.
Where’s the hammer on these things??
Crystal, it is inside the frame. It double action only, you cannot cock the hammer manually. The advantage of this is that there is no hammer get snagged on clothing when drawing it.
I own a ported 442.Neither the blast or flash is significantly worse than an unported pistol.The recoil is much more “straight back” and it is much easier to get a second accurate shot off quickly.With a barrel longer than 17/8 the increased flash and blast might not be worth the tradeoff,but it definitely is for me with this pistol,especially with hot loads.
I never thought much of ported EDC guns. Too much flash, especially in the dark.
How much of a bigger bang can they have given they already have ~2″ barrels? It amazes me that people can freak out about the dangers of porting a revolver barrel when it already has a gap between the cylinder and barrel that can vent gas, powder, and lead.