I grew up shooting revolvers in a time when autos required lots of tuning to be somewhat reliable, and I still love a beautiful K-frame. The S&W 642UC caught my eye because of the sights, upgraded grip and lack of internal lock. Then I started to think about it (I know that's a mistake).

The 642 is longer and thicker than a P365. It is only a couple ounces lighter. The penalty for that is half the ammo capacity with each round delivering 2/3 the energy of a 9mm (Speer GD short barrel loads).

Other than a sense of nostalgia, I'm not quite getting the niche for the 642UC. Are there some states where revolvers are less prone to legal obstacles than revolvers? In the age of the P365, what is the attraction of a modernized J-frame?

I’ve had that exact conversation in my own head, and with both new shooters as well as experienced shooters.
The debate goes around in circles comparing size, weight, and capacity. And with the handy HandgunHero website comparing side by side models is easy.

The 642UC models are the next generation of Airweight Centennials that really address the issue of Jframe sights perfectly.
My M&P340 has only the large front sight, and sometimes I wish I waited for the UC models to come out.

The upside to the Airweights is the simplicity of the revolver action, light weight, and ease of concealment in a pocket or ankle. And in my experience a Centennial is the most concealable platform for ankle carry. Compared to a 365, Hellcat, or similar auto pistol the profile of the 642 type guns disappear under the leg of your slacks much better.

When comparing the 642 vs 365 or other micro pistols I’d ask what is the specific intended use?
If it’s for my wife to have as a home protection gun, then the Jframe and its simple manual of arms make sense for her since she is far from proficient with semi autos. If it’s for me as a deep concealment ankle gun under a business suit with fitted slacks then it makes sense.

But if I’m looking to carry a firearm in a waist carry the 365 size pistols benefits of capacity and longer range hit potential are the clear winners.

It’s nice to have options, buy both!

It depends what you're looking for.

I've been carrying a 642UC as a backup in my pocket daily for the past year and a half. Before that, it was a 640Pro.

When you compare it to a P365, it holds fewer rounds, is slower to reload, is wider, and is probably less shootable at speed.

On the other hand, even though I always carry with a pocket holster in an otherwise empty pocket, I am totally uncomfortable with putting a gun with a light, short trigger and fully-cocked action in my pocket. Or inside my vest, or in a chest rig. Pretty much anywhere that it's pointed at critical body parts. I spend a lot more time carrying it than I do shooting it, and in my experience the unforseen consequences of daily life will eventually catch up with me. That long, heavy DA trigger on the revolver and unloaded springs makes me feel a lot better about carrying a J-frame than a P365 in that capacity.

Now that's discussing a backup to another gun, or maybe just around the house or out jogging. For normal around town carry I'll take an auto on the belt any day over a J-Frame in the pocket. It all depends what you're doing and how you're carrying.

Actually, this is something that I've been working on this week in preparation for some backup training that I'm wanting to do. I did a little "performance" shooting the other day on a silhouette (I used an Indiana LE Qual target and made up my own scoring rubric for the existing scoring zones) at 7 yards with hit factor scoring (score divided by time) to compare how I shot with a full-size auto, a subcompact auto, and my 642. The results of a simple 5-round string (shot from the low-ready to take draw times out of the equation) were kind of interesting. I shot it several times with each, these are the best scores:

P320 Full-Size with an optic: 2.27 Seconds, 21/25 points for a hit factor of 9.25

P320 Subcompact with iron sights: 2.81 Seconds, 17/25 points for a hit factor of 7.8

S&W 642UC: 3.32 Seconds, 23/25 points for a hit factor of 6.93

Yes, the snubby revolver gave up some performance to the small auto, but for it's intended purpose I don't think a tenth per round is too much, and my accuracy was actually better.

quote:

In the age of the P365, what is the attraction of a modernized J-frame

My reasons for the j frame are
1. It shoots the 357 magnum a well known first shot manstopper with lots of history behind it and
2. It holds a round of snake shot for the sneaky rattlesnakes here in central Texas

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

quote:

In the age of the P365, what is the attraction of a modernized J-frame

My reasons for the j frame are
1. It shoots the 357 magnum a well known first shot manstopper with lots of history behind it and
2. It hold a round of snake shot for the sneaky rattlesnakes here in central Texas

I’m pretty sure the 642 is 38SPL only.

^yes the model quoted in the OP is a 38 special only, I was citing why I chose the j frame. 92FS cities the other reasons, weight, pocket size, it’s a perfect backup, perfect for short trips to the (insert place here). And he also said he normally Carrys a semiautomatic for reasons, but explained the use it the j frame.

The answer for me is weight. As much as I like my P365, it's just too heavy unless I'm wearing proper pants\shorts with a belt. If I'm wearing something as light as swim trunks my scandium J frame carries very well without printing or sagging.

quote:

Originally posted by GCE61:
I’ve had that exact conversation in my own head, and with both new shooters as well as experienced shooters.
The debate goes around in circles comparing size, weight, and capacity. And with the handy HandgunHero website comparing side by side models is easy.

The 642UC models are the next generation of Airweight Centennials that really address the issue of Jframe sights perfectly.
My M&P340 has only the large front sight, and sometimes I wish I waited for the UC models to come out.

The upside to the Airweights is the simplicity of the revolver action, light weight, and ease of concealment in a pocket or ankle. And in my experience a Centennial is the most concealable platform for ankle carry. Compared to a 365, Hellcat, or similar auto pistol the profile of the 642 type guns disappear under the leg of your slacks much better.

When comparing the 642 vs 365 or other micro pistols I’d ask what is the specific intended use?
If it’s for my wife to have as a home protection gun, then the Jframe and its simple manual of arms make sense for her since she is far from proficient with semi autos. If it’s for me as a deep concealment ankle gun under a business suit with fitted slacks then it makes sense.

But if I’m looking to carry a firearm in a waist carry the 365 size pistols benefits of capacity and longer range hit potential are the clear winners.

It’s nice to have options, buy both!

Some interesting thoughts here. FWIW, I’m perfectly happy with my M&P 340 and didn’t really see the need for me to get a 642UC when they came out. One thing that really works well (for me) with regards to sights is that I use a Crimson Trace LG405 grip. While I’m not typically a big fan of lasers, they make a J frame super quick to get on target compared to any other sights I’ve personally used.

As for the comparison to the P365, the Centennial J frame still has two major advantages to it for pocket carry: one, it weighs significantly less and therefore rides much better in a pocket, and two, with its truncated top rear corner, it draws from the pocket much easier and faster.

YMMV

I’m all for carrying as much gun as one can, and will opt for something substantial on the belt whenever possible (for me, that currently translates into a SIG P226 or P229 or an N-Frame S&W on the order of a Model 27 or 28).

That said, a J-frame (standard Model 642) in a pocket holster and a discrete 2x2x2 pouch of spare JHP is with me, regardless. Often, the 642 is an “only” gun for me. It will literally travel anywhere if I have pockets to accommodate it.

Beyond gunleather, the only tweak I’ve made to the gun is switching to a Hogue rubber grip.

You might want to consider the S&W ultimate carry 432. Six rounds of 32 caliber H&R magnum in a J-frame.

For me it’s the simplicity, safety (throw in a pocket, no holster needed), reliability and ammo flexibility (low power, high power, snake shot…)

I use my G-34X with Shield mags for about 99% of my off duty stuff.
Small, reliable 9mm with lots of rounds? Count me in! Maybe one of these days, I might get a Sig 365…

My 340PD isn’t going anywhere! Nice to toss in a baggie front pocket in jeans or sweats.
The 340PD and the 6/442’s that are hammerless are also GREAT for tossing in a jacket pocket- nothing will snag on any fabric inside the pocket.
Put your hand in the pocket, no one knows that you have your paw on a pistol.
5 quick rounds through the jacket at a bad guy before he knows it. “Surprise, surprise, surprise” in my best Gomer Pile voice.
A semi-auto, not so much. The slide has a tendency not to cycle in a pocket. Too much shit to snag on, pushing the front of the slide against the pocket will also cause it to go out of battery.
Gun no go bang = no good.

While at work, that snubbie wheel gun is a back up, and I’ll have something else that’s bigger and with more rounds.

I know the 340PD is capable of using a .357 Magnum round…
I made that mistake, then I did it again just to make sure.
Two things:

In the scandium frame 340, that gun is just wayyyy tooo light for a Magnum round. It jumps in your hand way too much to be accurate for follow-up shots. If anyone can handle blasting off 5 quick and accurate shots of .357, you’re a way better man than me! I just prefer the lighter weight of the 340PD over a 4/642.

In a snub nose pistol, and a .357 Magnum round, there’s a point of “diminishing returns”. The 2” - 2 1/2” barrel isn’t long enough for the round to reach Magnum velocity- so it’s more “bark” than “bite”.
I’ll toss +p or +p+ in there comfortably.

MNSIG- unload your 642, put on a winter jacket, and toss it in your front, strong side pocket, see for yourself.

I made the same 'mistake' in buying my 340PD. In the entire time I've owned it, I've never fired two complete cylinders of 357 through it at one time. 38+P is more than enough for me.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
I know the 340PD is capable of using a .357 Magnum round…
I made that mistake, then I did it again just to make sure.
Two things:

In the scandium frame 340, that gun is just wayyyy tooo light for a Magnum round. It jumps in your hand way too much to be accurate for follow-up shots. If anyone can handle blasting off 5 quick and accurate shots of .357, you’re a way better man than me! I just prefer the lighter weight of the 340PD over a 4/642.

In a snub nose pistol, and a .357 Magnum round, there’s a point of “diminishing returns”. The 2” - 2 1/2” barrel isn’t long enough for the round to reach Magnum velocity- so it’s more “bark” than “bite”.
I’ll toss +p or +p+ in there comfortably.

MNSIG- unload your 642, put on a winter jacket, and toss it in your front, strong side pocket, see for yourself.

I carry a Kimber K6XS often. Good trigger. Real sights. And, 6 rounds. Very close to the size and weight of my 642. That now lives in my safe. I carry appendix and load it with the Underwood 150 gr hardcast wadcutters.

I have a P365 also. But, I won’t carry a cocked pistol appendix. If they came out with a hammer fired DAO P365, I’d never carry another gun. But, they can’t. I get that.

Only other guns I’ll carry appendix is one of two
P239’s. Both DAK. One in 9mm. The other 357 SIG.

I had a 642 years ago, sold it when I bought my LCP for pocket carry.

I kinda missed having a J-Frame so last year I purchased a 442 and sent it to S&W for a Master Revolver Action Package.
That improved the trigger a bit.

I just liked the idea of having another option for a carry gun.
As previously stated, I feel more secure carrying it in a jacket pocket than a semiauto.

It is good to have options..

I just bought a Kimber K6XS. Pretty similar experience as Sgt 127. Mine could be better, trigger wise. But with more shooting it may improve. 6 round capacity too!

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
I just bought a Kimber K6XS. Pretty similar experience as Sgt 127. Mine could be better, trigger wise. But with more shooting it may improve. 6 round capacity too!

That two stage trigger kinda drives me nuts. I know some people claim it’s a benefit. They are wrong. It will get less noticeable though. Snap caps and range time. I really don’t have the energy to go in with stones and clean it up. It’s just a tool. And, works fine for it intended purpose.

Another 642 vote. My good old pre-lock 642-1 (shipped 12/1999) is still #1 for my daily CC. I have tried several others over the years with the LCP in 2012, and the 43X MOS right when they came out. Liked 'em all, but love the Airweight. All 3 with cat teasers and easy to use but I shoot the .38 (with Federal Personal Defense Low Recoil 110gr. JHP) better than the others.

I have the S&W ‘UC’ in 32 H&R mag. This is after already owning various J-Frame guns. With that, I really didn’t ‘need it’. About the same time I bought a Taurus Model 327 in 327 Federal, on extreme clearance.

With my loadings I figured out, the 32 H&R mag level is where I want to be in a lighter-weight revolver. I do have some 327 Fed cases, but for the most part, the step down to H&R is the sweet spot.

I do like the 6th shot option, not sure it will unseat my P238 as my most often carry gun.

quote:

Originally posted by stormin:
One thing that really works well (for me) with regards to sights is that I use a Crimson Trace LG405 grip. ... , they make a J frame super quick to get on target compared to any other sights I’ve personally used.

Bingo.