Smith & Wesson 442 Ultimate Carry
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2024
- Today, Dean reviews the Smith & Wesson 442 Ultimate Carry 38 Special revolver exclusive from Lipseys.
Thanks for watching and we would greatly appreciate it if you would take the time to like this video, leave a comment down below, and subscribe to our channel.
Facebook:
/ oeoutfitters
Instagram:
/ oeoutfitters
100K Subscriber Giveaway:
gleam.io/jJWdv/olde-english-o... - บันเทิง
I've had mine for a couple months now (642UC .38). Not only does it have a "real" front sight, but also a real rear sight. Excellent set of sights! Also, these VZ grips are fantastic...perfect size, very comfortable, won't catch on cover garment during draw, and enough traction to not squirm in the hand. The sights and grips are worth the price of admission, IMHO. Compared to my 2 all-stainless 640's and another standard 642, I don't feel a big difference in trigger pull quality, but it's slightly better. There are also a couple of tweaks to strengthen the revolver, which I have to take on faith. The one of these that I am a big fan of is the 2-piece barrel...despite what some detractors say, in a revolver like this, the liner/shroud barrel reduces stress on the aluminum frame and is a good thing. Overall, this little gun is absolutely worth the extra money over a standard J-frame. Good review!
I don't understand why S&W doesn't just make better front sights in the first place. I held this in person a few weeks ago, the trigger was only slightly marginally better. The front sight was excellent. I can't justify selling my current Smith, then spend $800. The only benefit is a better sight. I know they boast they threw other stuff on it, but meh. It's a $800 J-frame with a real front sight. I really wanted this to be a great pistol, but it fell short for me.
Why did they not go with better sights? Because to be honest they are not needed. Like staging the trigger it really doesn't get you a benefit that solid pull through will get. Like the guy said. It is for a get off me situation. I prefer trough/gutter sights, but most shooters today are demanding optics and "good sights".I never waste rounds pushing it out past 5 to 10 yards.800 for that purpose-built pistol is about right. It's in demand
Just bought a second 642. Trigger (the more you use it the better it gets), sights, grips, and accuracy are all better. Paid 679 for mine. Have a 638 and a 340pd and am switching solely to the uc 642.
@@JL-xn3zy All smith trigger work in nice.
I have only one J frame S&W 38 presently. Sold older 36, and 60. I have a 60-7, which has very good wider rear and front sight, like a smaller late model 10. Mistress older ones are not very good .
@@JL-xn3zy Where did you find one for $679?
I have a 632 UC for a couple of weeks. Definitely worth the money, thinking about a 638 UC before they sell out
Solid revolver offering imo. With all the R&D and technology, I would like to have seen a 6 shot .38 +p and/or 6 shot .327.. That would make a very nice carry.
I agree 😊
Doesn’t Ruger offer something like this?
I think Smith made a ported 327 a while back. They should bring it back
@@kylewood8327they offer the LCR 6 shot in .327 federal.
My wife has one and she really likes it.
The .327 UC is a 6 shot model. Taurus also makes a 6 shot snubbie in .327 too.
A versatile .32 wheelgun is a riot. Definitely on my list!
All of that Plus A BAG OF CHIPS! I handled that Lipsey's Creation at Shot Show 2024 and was well pleased! Had I not just received back from Finks Custom Guns at Gunsite a S&W Model 60 DAOnly and "Action all Slicked Up" I would jump all over this one ';-)
Excellent review! Thank you
A great honest review.
I appreciate your review sir. Due to marketing hype, I was under the impression that the UC sites would "cut the target" (using your graphic) with 148g WC. A six o'clock hold is a deal breaker for me. It's just fancy term for Kentucky windage. That said, I have four M&P 340s, and three of them are dead-on "combat hold" at 15 yards with 148g WCs. One of them is a six o'clock hold with same ammo (three inches high and four left @ 15Y), and that pistol was recently sent back in to correct this problem. Point is, other UCs might hit a bit differently. So, it sounds like not much has changed at Smith in the last four years. Bummer.
It’s not designed for a six o’clock hold. Lower the dot in the rear sight notch and you’ll hit fine.
Excellent review. Well done, thanks.
Just subbed. OE has level-headed content with professional presentation
Appreciate that
Very competent review
Hey that’s a nice review! Thanks. 👍🏻👍🏻🇺🇸
Good review
X/S sights are top grade I use them in optic height on my M&P 2.0 10mm.
beautiful
This is a genius idea from S&W, in an era of a lot of bonehead ideas and products by many large manufacturers. And I am not the type to spread lavish praise on a product willy-nilly. S&W should go a step further and offer 3" barrels.
Wish they had taken it up to the .327. Other than that, looks solid.
First it would have been perfect if it was a keyless 638. Next , what is the actual barrel length? Is it a legitimate 2 inch barrel ? That translates to a little more velocity than the 1 7/8 usual J frame barrel
The barrel is way shorter 1. 7/8 in to be exact
Colt is asleep at the switch to not offer a new Agent, with alloy ? Plus p rated frame and hammer shroud. A six shot 38 not a 32
Colt is asleep period. They are making showcase/shelf guns for Boomers these day. It's a pretty gun with a slow trigger that is easy to outrun shooting fast. It's also a MIM piece. If I was having my say it would be a rework of the police positive with forged parts, A crisp fast 5 lbs trigger with a strong return spring and melanite or parkerized finish. An all business gun met to win in a fight.32 mag.Not a shelf piece. For carry use.
Its not just Colt any more. Its Colt CZ. CZ owns Colt. My favorite snub is still the old tried and true Detective Special. Not really a pocket carry though with exposed hammer unless you get a hammer shroud but I don't pocket carry anyway. I will take a six shot Detective Special over a five shot Chief Special M36. Better trigger also. I will stay away from the lightweight frames that aren't as durable and increase felt recoil.
If you can find one cheap enough...It's worth it.
I'm wanting a pocket carry revolver and looking at the original 642 and Charter Arms undercover. Any suggestions?
Depends on your price
Definitely go with the 442-1/642-1 (no-lock model). Charter Arms isn't the worst but I would spend that little bit of extra money for a more reputable gun. I carry a 442-1 in a Safariland Model 25 pocket holster everyday and am very satisfied with it.
@dividualist Appreciate the advice. I have always carried auto loaders but looking to simplify my daily carry and try something new. I've heard mixed reviews of S&W QC but like the look and long run of the 642.
If charter arms uses a transfer bar I would go with Smith, I favor smith's because they don't use transfer bars in their action, so it's more reliable
Any idea what the lbs is on the trigger pull? Did I miss that?
It is only slightly better, then a standard 442/642. Check it out in person first. I did and it was an easy pass for me. Only great improvement for me was the front sight.
I believe around 8 or 9 lbs.
They don't offer in 327 magnum so in a couple of years they can bring that out and charge you another $100.
The standard airweight frame can’t take the blast/pressure of the 327.
They chose not to go to the scandium/exotic alloys because of cost.
The trigger is absolutely not performance center good. I have this and it is better than stock but not PC good, Grip is good. Sights are great.
I never got onto the J-frame wagon for the same reasons you mentioned; sights sucked, grips sucked, and the triggers sucked from the factory. Finally got on the wagon with the 442UC this year and they at least got two out of three right; the sights were worlds better than the fixed front blade and trench sights on older snubbies I've shot, the VZ grip let me get a high grip on the gun without making the web of my hand pay for it in blood, and the grip was just large enough to finally get all my fingers wrapped around it...
...But the trigger sucked; long, heavy, and S&W now gets to fix it after the trigger made it a habit of not wanting to reset every 15-20 rounds, both in live fire and dry fire, and requiring me to pinch the trigger on either side to push it back forward again. Honestly I think it might be the worst trigger on a revolver I've owned so far, with all my other Smith's having a better DA pull, including my 116 year old S&W M1917 that maxes out my Lyman trigger gauge at over 12 pounds.
Once it comes back I'll likely get a spring kit installed to drop the trigger weight by a pound or two, and if it manages to work reliably this time, maybe it'll then be worthwhile enough to consider as my BUG.
The sights don’t make that gun worth 800+
I like the design and the really like the sights but WHY didn't they chamber it in .327 Fed Mag? They could have made it in stainless steel too and it would be a winner. As it is, I don't want it.
They do make it in .327 too, with a 6 round cylinder.
@@jimmeli5200 32 H&R magnum, not 327 Fed Mag
I will carry a revolver. And it will be a smith and Wesson. Just not that one.
Get the stock SW 642, you'll like it and it's easy to carry in your pocket with an Alabama kydex holster.
Another expensive gun with a watercolor finish from Smith and Wesson.
Uc actually stands for ultimately crap