smith & wesson 642 vs. Ruger lcr

[abrams12]

I am thinking of purchasing a small frame revolver in the near future, and have narrowed my choices down to the smith 642 .38 spl and the ruger lcr .38 spl. The Ruger costs a little more money, but I really like the reputation that comes with the smith. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I like the looks of the smith better as well. Does anyone have a recommendation?

 

[9mmfan]

I would suggest you try both. I personally have and like the 642. Great trigger, lightweight and very concealable. LCR owners will tell you the same thing (about the LCR )

 

[chevy07_man]

I own the LCR. I love it, its easy and lightweight to carry. But I would try both and see which fits you best

 

[Colt556]

S&W J Frames have been around and serving reliably for decades. I'd go with the Smith.

 

[luckee]

I would go with the Smith IMHO

 

[Cam]

Smith owner and recommender here as well.

 

[addictedhealer]

Love my lcr, but in my opinion lcrs are like glocks, ugly, reliable and doesn't matter if it gets scratched up. If it isn't going to be a edc gun get a smith with a hammer.

 

[snuffy33]

LCR is lighter and has a better trigger.
642 is cheaper and pocket carries easier (with standard grips).
I've owned both but I only have a LCR now.

 

[Wysko]

I own both revolvers and have shot them side by side. Both are very light weight and have good triggers. My only small issue is the Ruger rubber grip tends to be a bit grippy and pull clothing. May or may not be an issue with you. Either way you will have a fine revolver.

 

[Fullmag]

Have looked at both with considerations of getting one. So far I like the Ruger trigger better, but the Smith is a little lighter and smaller. Have not looked into holsters for them yet, availability and cost of them will help me decide.

 

[stoyan79]

Yes, LCRs are like Glocks, feel cheap, made of plastic and ugly. Get the Smith and dont look back.

Love my lcr, but in my opinion lcrs are like glocks, ugly, reliable and doesn't matter if it gets scratched up. If it isn't going to be a edc gun get a smith with a hammer.

 

[Indysioux]

Handled both, went with the LCR. Thrilled with my choice.

 

[finnegan]

I just bought the Ruger LCR in .357. Not held, shot, or carried the S&W, but I trust Ruger to have overbuilt everything on the LCR. Also, I got it new online for $100 less than retail, so there is that.
My initial impressions: Man, it is hard as hell to get the cylinder to come out this thing. Very, very stiff. I expect it to loosen up around 500 rounds or so. Trigger is fantastic. Easily pocket carries. Just formed some kydex for a custom holster I'm making for it.
In all honesty, the choice between the Ruger and the Smith for this particular marketed firearm (polymer, lightweight, very compact) was a no-brainer. Ruger all the way.

 

[BlueDog]

The 642 is hard to beat and aside from someone's personal preference, the only advantage I can imagine the LCR having is that you can add a tritium front sight (642 sights are fixed so you don't easily have this optionin).

 

[jaybird_123]

I own the S&W 642, love it. Love the hammerless feature and the +P option.

 

[swmp9jrm]

I just went through this exercise. Researched, handled, and shot both - ended up with the LCR. Liked the trigger better, and the fact that I could get a night sight with the XS model (5405). I also like the Hogue Tamer grip.