S&W "Ultimate Carry" Airweight Revolvers

[Hotdog 7]

Looks like Lipsey's and Smith & Wesson partnered together to create a new package for airweight revolvers. The new "ultimate carry" series comes in .32 H&R magnum (6 round capacity) or .38 special (5 round capacity), with XS Tritium front sights and dovetailed u-notch rear sights, and a trigger job from the factory. I'll definitely be picking one of these up. When I don't have my Glock 19, I have my S&W 442 and these new ones fix all the complaints I have about my 442. Could even possibly replace my Glock 19 as my main carry gun just because of the ease of carrying a j-frame vs a semi auto.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24b7MvVaL4I

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbmbcBoCcJg

Read More

 

[ob1]

No sale for me.

 

[Hot Pie]

I've seen this posted around the other gun boards, and I know people like them, but I'm not a fan. I carry a 442 and sometimes a PC 637, so I like S&W revolvers. I just don't see anything about these that are interesting.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Didn't click.
Are cylinders cut for moon clips?

 

[User 1234]

I don't know what this offers practically that the existing no-lock models don't. I am, however, all for consumer choice, so I'm glad it is an option.

 

[nammac]

Hmmm. Better sights, better/smoother trigger, better grips, more durable internal pins, chamfered and relieved cylinder…. Might be worth a look depending on where they land pricewise…

 

[ron]

Hmmm. Better sights, better/smoother trigger, better grips, more durable internal pins, chamfered and relieved cylinder…. Might be worth a look depending on where they land pricewise…

Yes I agree. Better sights would be great. BUT why not chambered for 357 magnum???

 

[Knobgoblin]

Yes I agree. Better sights would be great. BUT why not chambered for 357 magnum???

You seek the 640 pro.

 

[solv3nt]

Yes I agree. Better sights would be great. BUT why not chambered for 357 magnum???

You seek the 640 pro.
View attachment 1811680

Oof. And here I thought the airweight was bad with 38+P.

 

[nammac]

Oof. And here I thought the airweight was bad with 38+P.

Yea, I limit practice to 100 rounds per session. That's usually enough to make my hands and wrists sore.

 

[DunRanull]

I suppose one could drill out and disable the Hillary-hole. Other than than egregious misstep by S&W, a nice looking revolver. I had an original air-weight "I wish I hadn't sold"...

 

[User 1234]

This model doesn't have a Hillary Hole.

 

[solv3nt]

I suppose one could drill out and disable the Hillary-hole. Other than than egregious misstep by S&W, a nice looking revolver. I had an original air-weight "I wish I hadn't sold"...

You can remove them, and there's aftermarket Hillary hole fillers.

 

[DunRanull]

Looks like Lipsey's and Smith & Wesson partnered together to create a new package for airweight revolvers. The new "ultimate carry" series comes in .32 H&R magnum (6 round capacity) or .38 special (5 round capacity), with XS Tritium front sights and dovetailed u-notch rear sights, and a trigger job from the factory. I'll definitely be picking one of these up. When I don't have my Glock 19, I have my S&W 442 and these new ones fix all the complaints I have about my 442. Could even possibly replace my Glock 19 as my main carry gun just because of the ease of carrying a j-frame vs a semi auto.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24b7MvVaL4I

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbmbcBoCcJg

Light carry, OK.. drop in the pocket carry... but replace the G19? For times when walking in the valley of the Shadow of Death? I rather think not, by preference!

 

[DunRanull]

You can remove them, and there's aftermarket Hillary hole fillers.

Yes, what'sa matter with Smith anyway? Thanks to their always bending the knee to the gun-grabbers I only buy older Smiths now days. My "next" new revolver, GodWilling, will be a Prancing Pony. And stainless.

 

[nammac]

I suppose one could drill out and disable the Hillary-hole. Other than than egregious misstep by S&W, a nice looking revolver. I had an original air-weight "I wish I hadn't sold"...

Don't tell anyone, but the 642, 640 and 442 are available without the internal lock. My normally aspired 642 is sans internal lock…

 

[RVTECH]

I DO like the new sights on this - but I'll never go newer than all steel pre locks.

 

[User 1234]

I have found the 640-1 357 very practical. Too heavy for pants pocket carry without a good belt, but that doesn't affect me.

 

[Cerberus Group]

Yes I agree. Better sights would be great. BUT why not chambered for 357 magnum???

Aluminum frame...won't handle the pressure?

 

[Cerberus Group]

Am having one sent to me for ammo testing, as we may be ramping up for 32 revolver rounds.

These are aluminum frame guns with no internal lock system, and come in at around a pound.
By using aluminum for the frame it limited the calibers to .38 plus P or .32 H&R Magnum.

The cost and effort to make these guns chambered in .357 Magnum or .327 Federal Magnum is not worth the effort for a ton of extra wear, cost, recoil, blast, and all for almost no gain on the ballistic performance side.

If you want to run hotter calibers, there are lots of steel guns available for that option.

Also...these will shoot both S&W 32 Long and Short. The Long version passes the FBI standards for gel testing, with little recoil. The 32 is an often overlooked cartridge that has real world benefits.