Based upon the advice that I got in another post, I decided against the Ruger LCR 9mm.

I'm now debating between the Ruger SP101, the S&W 640,and the S&W 642. (I would be carrying 38 not 357). I definitely do not want to have to use moon clips.

It would be for CCW.

If I go with the SP101, I am debating on if I should go hammer or hammerless.

Any feedback?

The Ruger is more robust and heavier. If you want to carry in your pocket I'd pick one of the S&Ws. For holster carry it will boil down to personal preference. The hammer on my SP-101 is pretty good at shredding my clothes but I have no experience with the hammerless SP-101.

I have a 640 Pro and 649, no locks. I would buy either one again.

The DAO SP101 actually does have a hammer. However its a spurless hammer.
And the hammer will be exposed when you pull the trigger. The top of the hammer comes back out of the frame when firing.
So it may not function well if fired from inside a pocket or other clothing.

No experience with either the 640 or 642, but aren't the hammers shrounded on the Smiths?
Or at least they stay inside the frame when firing?

The Ruger LCR does have an enclosed hammer. And it's much lighter than the SP101.

Hope this helps.

I have the SP101 2.25" spurless DAO. I do not like it much, not very good with it. My son has it for now until I get his guns to him next year; he's pretty good with it. It is heavy for a snubnose. The DAO trigger is a bit gritty. I have shot the 640 a number of times and I like it much better.

I am very fond of the 642 in 38. I often carry it in a pocket, especially in winter.

I have a spurless hammer SP 101 and a 640. I go back and forth. I also like the LCR in 38 special, so I do most of my practice with the SP101 and then a cylinder or two through the LCR. However, the 640 has a more definite lockup prior to firing, so it is possible to almost get a single action type of pull from that revolver. It depends on how you prefer to practice. To summarize, for me I would prefer the 640 if that were my only revolver, but I practice more with the SP101 because I carry the LCR.

If you're not going to carry .357 Magnum I would probably skip the SP101.

If you plan on including pocket and/or ankle carry as an option, I'd go with the 642-1 (no lock version).

Some people can pocket/ankle carry the steel-frame 640, but unless you have the opportunity to try it before you buy it you'll probably find the 642 a better option.

If you're only going to use IWB/OWB/shoulder-holster carry, then I would go with the 640 as the increased weight shouldn't make a difference while carrying but will help when shooting.

I only have the Ruger. Probably would make that .38 +P feel pretty tame. Not too bad to carry. Good weight imo.

I quite like the SP101, but for me it's strictly a belt-carry pistol. The 642 makes a great pocket pistol in a DeSantis pocket holster. My SP101 has a 3" bbl, so it wouldn't make a good pocket pistol anyway, and they're too heavy for that. In a good holster, the SP101 is excellent.

The 642 and other shrouded hammer revolvers make for great pocket and concealed carry, both due to weight, and their inherent slickness; they don't snag and can be fired close to the body if needed without a chance of a hammer (or anything else) hanging up on clothing or objects. While I don't recommend it, they can also be fired from inside clothing pockets. (If you've never tried it, don't: take my word for it. It burns).

The 642 will be more versatile in how you can comfortably carry it (pocket, ankle, belt) but much less fun to practice with due to the light weight. I would call 38 special +p uncomfortable to shoot but not painful. The SP101 will be the opposite. Trigger will most likely be a little better on the Smith’s and also can be improved even further by swapping out a few springs. I changed springs in both my 442 and 3 inch sp101 to improve the trigger pull and the Ruger’s trigger was sluggish to reset after firing due to grittiness. The Smith had no such issue.

I would say 438 best of both worlds...shrouded hammer. I personally stay away from the 642, 638, 637, etc...since Smith & Wesson went to that shitty silver paint that flakes off. I had one that looked like it had been dragged behind a car after one season of carrying. The original 442 nickel was my favorite. The original 642 has an anodized silver frame and it held up well. A few years back they went to a spray on paint type finish that doesn’t. The black 438 and 442 Guns have a nice black anodized frame that holds up well.

I have owned a 640 and still own my SP101.
If you are only shooting 38spl, go with either of the S&W's. The SP101 is noticeably heavier and that will be felt when carrying concealed.

My first 'pocket' pistol was a S&W 642.
It was too big for a 'pocket' pistol IMHO, but I carried it for a couple months.
Sold it after buying my LCP when they first came out.

I've had a hankering for another j-frame lately.
That 642 was a straight shooter and could be pocket carried, but not as easy as my LCP or Kahr CW380.



With a CTC LG-405 grip, that 642 was a nice gun.
The CTC LG-405 has a nice pocket on the top of the back strap that made it pleasant to shoot even with +P.
I should have kept it.

Hello Angio, I have all three. Each has it's advantages, but due to it's lighter weight, the 642 is easiest to carry in whatever manner one chooses.

I have all three. I pocket carry my 642 daily in a DM Bullard holster.
1) 642 no lock, original anodized, Wolff spring kit - wonderfully smooth ignition. Light and accurate.
2) 442 no lock, original matte black, Wolff spring kit - wonderfully smooth ignition. Light and accurate.
3) SP101 spurless DAO, Big Dot Tritium, Wolff spring kit - wonderfully smooth ignition. Heavy and accurate.

There is a common denominator here that makes all three work well, but if I am pocket/ankle carrying only I choose S&W. If I was belt/shoulder carrying either .38 or .357 I choose the Ruger.

I have an SP101 and an S&W 360. The Ruger is considerably larger and heavier, but it feels fantastic in the hand. The Ruger has a better double action pull, but the smith beats it in single action. The extractor rod on the Ruger is kinda flimsy feeling, which is odd on an otherwise beefy revolver.

The Ruger is a better all-around shooter, but it's no pocket gun. I debated for a long time about which to get, and ended up with both. The Smith covers the deep concealment role, and the Ruger is my hiking/woods gun.

In the last 6 months I've bought a lock less M442 and a M642. I have to say they definitely could use better triggers. But they are so light you can slip them in your pocket or IWB and just about forget you have them. I have a Ruger SP101 that I actually got in place of chancing getting a 3rd defective LCR's. Mine has the spur less hammer. I've carried it a few times but always seem come back to my P 938. The SP is a beautiful gun just a bit heavy. I've had a M649 for years and I carried it for a long time but that's another one that gets heavy carrying for long periods of time. I semi retired the 649.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ruger Redhawk,

I own all there and agree with what most others have posted. For me the SP101 is a truck gun. The 640 make a nice holster gun with +P38's or mid loaded 357's. The 642 is the best pocket gun by far due to the weight, but does have more recoil with hot 38's.

The SP101 in .327 with a 3 inch barrel has my vote.