S&W 637, anybody like it?

[FergusonTO35]

Hey guys. I've decided I need to add a snub .38 to the carry rotation and am leaning toward the S&W 637. The main reason is that it has the smallest "feel" of all that I have examined, alot like the original Charter Undercover. All the others are definitely more chunky. The trigger pull is pretty good and the weight of the gun is just right. I really like the factory grips and there are tons of aftermarket options available. If I get a 637 the silly frame lock will get replaced by a Bullseye plug.

So, anyone have alot of experience with the 637? Are there other guns I should consider? Are the sights on the 637 regulated pretty good? I'm planning to use 125, 140, and 158 grain Boolits. Thanks!

[jmort]

I had one and sold it because I needed some money. I miss it. Have a .357 LCR which I like better, but I still wish I had the 637. I just ignore the lock on my J frames, but removing it makes sense. I use this in all my snubs for self-defense
http://www.grizzlycartridge.com/store/index.php?app=ecom&ns=prodshow&ref=GC38SP8
The bullet in the picture is not the 158 grain WFN which looks real nice in person. Made by Cast Performance/Grizzly Cartridge.
I also use the Lee Precision 158 grain SWC and 158 RF. I tend towards to bigger cast bullets with a decent meplat at slow/moderate velocity.

[FergusonTO35]

Thanks. I like the LCR, it has a great trigger pull. It's still a bit larger than I prefer and there are very few grip options for it. Still if Ruger gave it six shots of .32 H&R Magnum I think I would have to get one!

[Jupiter7]

They still make the 442/642 without the lock. I have both, bought in last 3 years new. I like them, but rarely carry them. Thick across middle for my carry tastes.

[MtGun44]

9mm and .380 Kelteks are so much flatter and lighter than the .38 snubbies,
I rarely carry the snubs anymore - too thick. I DO like them, just not as
practical most of the time.

Bill

[winelover]

For concealed carry, why would you want an exposed hammer? Look at the 442 or 642 Airweights. I just added a 642 to my stable. It is a joy to carry and doesn't recoil much more than the all stainless Model 60 that I also own. The 442 /642 are rated for +P loads, while the Model 60 isn't. The lock / no lock is a non-issue. You don't have to use it. In this day and age, the airweights are scarce. Took 10 months to get one.

Compact auto's (9mm) are nice but like anything else there are drawbacks. Women or older folks have a difficult time pulling back the slide. Most don't have "second strike " capabilities. Here in Arkansas, there are venomous snakes, and I like to slip in a shot-shell for the first shot, when I venture out on my acreage. It's a lot easier with a revolver to switch back and forth.

Winelover

[ultramag]

9mm and .380 Kelteks are so much flatter and lighter than the .38 snubbies,
I rarely carry the snubs anymore - too thick. I DO like them, just not as
practical most of the time.

Bill

+1

I do still keep my 637 Air-weight around though and if going with a .38 snubbie it would be my pick.

[Para82]

I have had a S&W 637 for several years and carry it in an ankle rig a lot.I like it.Good gun for what it was designed for. I also have a G26, Sig938,Ruger LC9,NAA380,Beretta 3032 Tomcat and Kel Tec P3AT. I have carried them all as the situation dictated.I like having the right tool for the right situation. I have probably carried the 637,G26 and Kel Tec the most. Just got the Sig so it may move into the rotation.Hope this helps you. Don't think you can ever go wrong with any model snubbie though. YMMV
Para82

[sagamore-one]

I set my daughter up with a 637 when she started night classes. Weekly practice with 100 "cat sneeze" Lee 105 grain boolits followed by one cylinder of Gold Dots to end each session got her comfortable shooting the little gun. At a recent cookout the guys dragged out a scope mounted 44mag revolver and blasted away at a 5 gallon bucket at approx. 90 yards. When they had finished , #1 daughter produced the 637 and nailed the bucket 4 out of 5 shots.

[jmort]

"When they had finished , #1 daughter produced the 637 and nailed the bucket 4 out of 5 shots."

Amazing what great shooters can do. It's not the gun, it's the shooter.

[MtGun44]

Good for her! A good operator will show what these short guns can really do.

Bill

[sagamore-one]

100 rounds per week of supervised practice didn't hurt anything either.
Learn to shoot what you got !

[rromeo]

I carry a 642 daily. I've never shot a 637, but it seemed that for my purposes, the exposed hammer was not needed.
I have plenty of other revolvers with hammers.

[220swiftfn]

Hey guys. I've decided I need to add a snub .38 to the carry rotation and am leaning toward the S&W 637. The main reason is that it has the smallest "feel" of all that I have examined, alot like the original Charter Undercover. All the others are definitely more chunky. The trigger pull is pretty good and the weight of the gun is just right. I really like the factory grips and there are tons of aftermarket options available. If I get a 637 the silly frame lock will get replaced by a Bullseye plug.

So, anyone have alot of experience with the 637? Are there other guns I should consider? Are the sights on the 637 regulated pretty good? I'm planning to use 125, 140, and 158 grain Boolits. Thanks!

Got thru the thread and noticed a question that wasn't answered....... The Smith's are regulated with 158gr. loads, so the lighter and faster you go, the lower the bullet impact will be with the same sight picture.


Dan

[mongoosesnipe]

i have and frequently carry a smith 638 which is snag free but still allows single action fire

[FergusonTO35]

Did not know the S&W's were still regulated to 158 grain boolits. That's a good thing though. Now on these guns do you aim with the top of the front sight lined up with the top of the rear? Sorry if its an obvious question but the Charter Undercover I used to have was not like this, you were supposed to aim with the front sight well above the top of the rear.

I am interested in the no-lock 442. How easy is the trigger pull on this one? I really like the trigger pull on the Ruger LCR, is the 442 similar? I can shoot my DAO Kel-Tec PF9 and P32 really well so would this one be just as easy?

[fourarmed]

I would say there is nothing more fun - or effective in low light - than a 642 with a set of Crimson trace grips on it. Without firing a live round, you can practice until you can go from the draw to hitting a 4-inch circle out to ridiculous distances in not much more than a second. You just draw, start your squeeze, and the hammer falls just as the laser spot comes on the target. No way you are going to get that kind of practice with most autos.

[FergusonTO35]

Thanks. Unless something happens to change my mind I'm going to my local shop tomorrow and order a 442 or 642 with no lock. I watched a video of Hickok 45 shooting one and was impressed, he really has the technique down.

[KCSO]

I carried a 37 in my pocket for a backup for a long time and they are a good gun. I had a 637 and it shot OK but I let a LEO friend talk me out of it. A dandy backup or CC gun as they tuck in anywhere and are easy to hide out.

[KCSO]

The 637 is not an exposed hammer it is shrouded with just enough of the hammer accessable to allow for cocking for a deliberate shot. The extra metal in the shroud may or may not make a little stronger gun. As to the thickness of the gun if you pack a 380 yu are shooting 7 or so 95 grain bullets at 900 fps as compared to 5 158 grain bullets at 750 fps, some folks like the 38 because of this. I carried mine in a slash jacket pcket in the front and got the benefit of 5 quick extras and an additional chunk of armor to boot. These new fangled plastic guns don't make good armor.

[FergusonTO35]

If I'm not mistaken, the 638 is the model with the shrouded hammer that can still be cocked?

[FergusonTO35]

Went to my favorite fun store at lunch. They had a new no lock 642 under the glass so into layaway it went. The more I examined it the more I like it. This little wheel gun just disappears in a pocket holster, almost as well as my Kel-Tec .32 auto. It feels alot smaller than other snubbies even though they are supposed to be about the same size. The grips feel good, not too big or small. The trigger pull is pretty good too. I sold a couple of guns recently so hopefully I can bail it out when payment shows up.

81723

[MarkP]

I have both 637 & 642; I love the 637 super nice carry gun, my sights are spot on with Lee 105's and Red Dot. The rounded grip and cylinder hides better than a blocky auto IMO. The hammer does not seem to bite or snag when drawing. However the 642 could shoot thru a pocket if required, such as shooting from your coat pocket.

[FergusonTO35]

Do you have a preferred technique for shooting double action?

[MarkP]

If I'm not mistaken, the 638 is the model with the shrouded hammer that can still be cocked?

You are correct the 638 has the little knurled flat shrouded hammer.

[fourarmed]

The trigger on my 642 is very smooth and constant in weight. I draw, pick up either the front sight or the laser spot and start moving it toward the target as I start the squeeze. I try for a "thousand-one, thousand-two" count, by the end of which the sights or the spot are on the target. If you wait until you are on the target to start the squeeze, it slows you down and your groups are much worse.

[FergusonTO35]

That's a good tip, I'll try it out. I've long had much difficulty in focusing on the front sight while pulling a DA trigger.

[fourarmed]

The 642 - and probably other current manufacture Smiths - has pretty good sights as snubbies go, but for us old guys, the laser is a real godsend in low light.

[FergusonTO35]

I do pretty well with the blocky sights on handguns. On a rifle I have to have an aperture, my eyes won't focus on the leaf sights of most long guns.

[Petrol & Powder]

For concealed carry, why would you want an exposed hammer? Look at the 442 or 642 Airweights. I just added a 642 to my stable. It is a joy to carry and doesn't recoil much more than the all stainless Model 60 that I also own. The 442 /642 are rated for +P loads, while the Model 60 isn't. The lock / no lock is a non-issue. You don't have to use it. In this day and age, the airweights are scarce. Took 10 months to get one.



Winelover

I'll second winelover's view about hammers on snubnose revolvers. For a small concealed carry revolver I would never want an external hammer on the gun. There are some that will say they want a hammer on the gun for a precision shot and I have to call total BS on that line of thinking. I'm very familiar with the S&W 442 and it's a sound concept. Even on my slightly bigger 2" barreled K-frames, I bob the hammers. There's just no need to ever place that type of weapon in single action mode and the hammer is just one more thing to snag when you're in a hurry. A snubnose is purely a defensive weapon and should be DAO and as snag-proof as possible. The DAO is not a handicap and the guns can actually be shot rather well with some practice.

[gwpercle]

I carry the 637 every day, exposed hammer and all. I prefer this light-weight over all the auto's I have tried. You are right about it being the most compact. I was concerend about the exposed hammer and had planned on bobbing it with Dremel tool. Guess what...it is not a problem . It still has the hammer. Tried a lot of guns ...this one is the winner and works best for me.

Gary

[MtGun44]

I have found that a Lyman 358429 HP loaded over 5.0 gr of Unique in a .38 Spl case (if
yours is magnum chambered) works really well, is accurate and shoots to the sights. I had
no luck with my 342 getting any other load to shoot both accurately AND to the sights.
Wet pack penetration is right at half of what you get in ballistic gel, and the measurement
is to the boolit base, so expect about 9 1/4" penetration in gelatin.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=52430&d=1307446037

Bill

[FergusonTO35]

Lookin' good! I have long used a 158 grain wide flat point over 5.7 grains of Accurate #5 with similar effect in my S&W 10-5 and Ruger Service Six. I'm going to have to cook up something less punishing for the snub nose though. I'm thinking a 140 grain SWC at 800 fps would be nice.

[FergusonTO35]

I picked up the 642 a couple of weeks ago, been deer hunting ever since. Finally had the chance to put some rounds through it yesterday after work. I was shooting 3.3 grains of Titewad with a Lee 125 grain slug. At ten feet it was fairly easy to make predictable hand size groups in the dim evening light. I imagine it will do even better when I figure out what boolit weight and powder it prefers. If I can eventually get to where I can shoot the 642 as well as my Kel-Tec P32 and PF9 I'll be happy.

[Rodfac]

Here's my wife's, riding in one of our home made holsters...she wanted a retaining strap on it...so that's what I did, but later cut it back off as the wet molding made it plenty tight. She wears it strong side at 3 o'clock when out walking the pooch along our farm road.

Together we've run 400-500 rounds through it with good results. Note the Crimson Trace grips in the pic...a real boon to a good uniform grip, and the laser's nice too...taught her (and me to be honest) some things about our DA trigger manipulation.

For practice, we use Lyman's 358156 without the GC, cast from 1:3 Pb to WW and sized .359". A cpl tenths below a max charge of Win 231 (not +P), gives us the same recoil impulse that's apparent with her carry loads of Remington Golden Saber 125 gr JHP's (+P). The gun throws the LSWC's an inch high at 10 yds from a Weaver Stance, and is dead nuts on with the Remington carry loads.

It's light for its power, a plus for her, and controllable with normal rounds, fun to shoot with the CT grips, but for pocket carry, you'd be better off with a hammerless design, and with some sort of "boot" grip, I'd say. Buying the 637, I just couldn't get myself to invest in a revolver without a visible hammer...go figgur... And this is the 4th 637 in the family...everyone of my daughter's in law have one, plus son's mother in law and himself...they shot my wife's and then went out to get one just like it.

Had good luck with 3 of the 4. This one went back to Smith for a cylinder hang up problem...they fixed it in 7 days flat, at no charge including shipping...good folks there in S&W's service dept.

Accuracy is surprising...I got a one time 1-3/8" gp of 5 358156's at 35 yds using the laser just before dusk one night...pretty group that I clipped and stapled to my loading bench wall. Ten yd gps with SD ammo or the above LSWC run to ragged holes if you do it SA. The DA pull is better now that S&W worked on it...but was entirely usable before it went in too.

HTH"s Rod

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii64/Rodfac/Holster%20work/P8091544-1.jpg (http://s261.photobucket.com/user/Rodfac/media/Holster%20work/P8091544-1.jpg.html)

[FergusonTO35]

Lookin' good!! What kind of accuracy do you get shooting it double action?

[Dave C.]

I like my 640 357 double action only. Will shoot minute of feral cat at 50yds.
Dave C.

[FergusonTO35]

I was able to put some more rounds through the 642 on Wednesday with 125 grain slugs and 3.4 grains Accurate #2. If I really focus on the front sight and hold the gun steady I can make neat clusters at 10 feet. Next up I'm going to try some 140 grain slugs.

[Rodfac]

Shooting one of Smith's sub-2" barreled J's can be an eye-opener. When practicing, both my wife and I shoot DA only. SA is reserved for evaluating hand loads. We shoot the 3, 5, 7, 10, & 15 yd course of defensive fire taught at Front Sight, the NV based shooting school. With a good solid modified Weaver stance, I get ragged hole gps from the 3 & 5 yd line, shot slowly in DA mode. From 7 & 10, gps open up to palm sized groups. All this is with her 637, albeit with Crimson Trace grips but without the laser turned on.

It's mandatory, in my opinion, to spend the vast majority of practice time in DA mode. Doing so will not only improve the shooter's ability, but it's good for the gun too...smoothing the long trigger pull. There's an interesting cpl paragraphs in Elmer Keith's, "Sixguns", where he discusses DA shooting on aerial targets, and several other references to fast DA shooting...it's worth a look, as are any of the U-Tube posting on Miculik's super fast DA shooting.

HTH's Rod

[FergusonTO35]

Thanks. I've now put 100 rounds through the 642. Boolits have been the Lee 125 and 140 grain slugs with 3.7 grains of Accurate #2. I'm only shooting at 10 feet, trying to become accustomed to this revolver. If I do my part properly the 642 will put all five shots roughly point of aim in a neat cluster. If I flinch, jerk the trigger, or take my eyes off the front sight I lose all hope of any kind of accuracy. So if nothing else the 442 is a great training gun, it forgives no mistakes! The only thing I do not like about it is the rear sight channel is not very deep. This makes it hard to focus on the front because there is such a narrow opening for it.