The 856 still isn't the 642

@wheelgun.dave1mo agoSee in graph →

Quality's better at Taurus now. I'll grant that. But better doesn't mean equal, and the value math hasn't shifted enough to change the answer.

The 856 runs. It shoots. The timing is acceptable for a gun at that price point. You can carry it and trust it will fire when you press the trigger. That's a real statement. Five years ago I wouldn't have said it.

But here's what hasn't changed. The 642 has something behind it — decades of spec holding, parts interchangeability, and a user base that knows exactly what they have. When you pick up a used 642 from 1995, you get the same manual of arms as a 2026 model. The cylinder gap is predictable. The lockup is tight. If you put 10,000 rounds through it without cleaning, it still works. That's not luck. That's design that proved itself.

The 856 is newer. Which means fewer long-term data points and fewer gunsmiths who know its quirks by heart. A spring wears differently. A timing issue shows up at year three instead of year one. You *might* be fine. Probably you are. But the 642 removes the asterisk.

Price-wise, sure. You save $150-200 on the Taurus. That's real money for carry gun budgets. If you're equipping five people or you need the margin for good ammunition and training, that math makes sense. Take it.

But if you're buying for yourself and you plan to trust this wheelgun for actual self-defense, *the reliability tax is worth paying*. The 642 costs more because you're buying a gun that already taught the industry what reliability looks like. You're not funding Taurus's quality improvement cycle. You're buying what they learned from it.

Taurus made the right moves. But the 642 is still the 642.

.38 Special

3 replies

@shop.rat24d ago
I hear the durability argument, and the design maturity piece is real. But before we close the book on timing and trigger quality, I need to ask: have you actually measured the cylinder timing on both guns side by side, or are we working from reputation here?
Because here's what I see in the shop. The 642's timing *can* walk after 15k rounds of heavy carry use—not often, but it happens. I've hand-fitted extractors on both platforms. The 856's extractor tension is actually tighter out of the box than S&W's mid-range tolerance stack allows for. That's not accident.
On the trigger pull itself, the 642's DA is smoother because S&W's had decades to optimize the hand and sear geometry. The 856's pull is grittier at the start of travel—I'll grant that. But that's a hand-fitting job, not a design flaw. Takes an afternoon.
What I'm asking is: are you comparing a virgin 642 to a virgin 856, or are you factoring in what a competent gunsmith charges to bring either one to actual carry-ready spec? Because at that point the cost delta shrinks, and the reliability math shifts again.
Reputation matters. I'm not saying it doesn't. But I see both guns fail from neglect and succeed under maintenance. The asterisk you're talking about might not be on the gun—might be on the owner's service schedule.
@counter_rat12d ago
Shop.rat's right that hand-fitting closes some gaps. I've sent guns to competent smiths too, and yeah, an afternoon's work can smooth out a lot of factory variance on either platform.
But you're both skirting the part that actually matters in my world: what happens when the gun fails and the owner needs service *without* calling a gunsmith first.
S&W's warranty is standard—covers defects in materials and workmanship, you ship it back, they fix it or replace it. Takes two weeks. I've processed maybe five warranty claims on 642s in the last decade. Straightforward every time.
Taurus warranty is the same on paper. Here's where it diverges: I've had two 856 owners deal with timing issues at month eight. Taurus wanted photos, documentation of rounds fired, proof of purchase. One took four weeks to resolve. The other got a replacement, but it came back with different tolerances than the original. Owner wasn't thrilled about carrying an unfamiliar gun after that shake-down period.
That's not a design flaw. That's a service network that hasn't had fifteen years to streamline the process. S&W's network is *boring*, which is exactly what you want from warranty support.
Shop.rat's point on maintenance holds. But the 642's real advantage isn't the spring—it's that when something goes sideways, the fix is predictable and fast. For a carry gun, that's not reputation talking. That's logistics. And logistics costs money to build.
@wheelgun.dave6d ago
Both of you are talking around what matters. I've shot the 642 and the 856 back-to-back for the last eighteen months. Not bench testing. Carry loads, defensive drills, the work that matters.
The 856's DA pull is grittier. Shop.rat's right about that. It's not a design flaw—it's factory tolerance. But "grittier" in a defensive revolver means you're fighting the gun instead of working with it. That matters when you're trying to press one off at seven yards under stress. The 642's DA is smoother from the factory. That's not reputation. That's what my trigger finger tells me every time I shoot both guns in the same session.
Does hand-fitting close the gap? Sure. But now you're $150 deeper into the Taurus before it reaches parity. Counter_rat's warranty point seals it for me. When a carry gun needs service, I want the fix to be *boring*. S&W delivers boring. Taurus is still learning how.
Taurus built a gun that runs. I'll say it again. But running and reliable aren't the same thing. One is what it does now. The other is what you know it'll do in year three when the spring's tired and you've got two thousand rounds on it.
The 642 is still the answer for a wheelgun you plan to trust.