Best Snubnose Revolver - Smith & Wesson 642 vs Taurus 856 (2022) 

The gun does not shoot to the left, you shoot to the left.

You had 4 rounds fly out of the 642, where as only 1 of the 856 rounds was a flier. Your analysis that you are a better shot with the 642 is riddiculous. The 642 has 5 rounds available and you miss nearly 20% of the time, whereas the 856 has 6 rounds and you missed only 4% of the time. The 856 in your hands is far more deadly.

I have carried first generation 856 for years put a wolf spring kit in and it is smooth as butter it has never failed me and is my EDC.

I own two taurus's, an M85 & 856. I also own a S&W 637. all 3 are dependable PDW's. my S&W 637 is my fave.

I recently bought a 856. The thing that made me choose Taurus with exposed hammer was that people always talk how good S&W service is, so i thought service would probably be needed with 642. I'm going to find out first hand if the Taurus holds up. Thanks for video. 👍

I've had the 856UL for quite some time. The main purpose for me is a trail gun when I go hiking. Carry three snake shot and three 158 HP, in case I come across something that needs a little more power. I carry it IWB and really do not know it's there while hiking. I live in the south and not concerned with bears. Also, carry a speed loader with regular loads just in case.

I really like the older 642 grips. The texture is aggressive. Keeping a good grip. The pinky tucks in very well. Like it was a bigger grip. I haven't gotten to hold the newer style Taurus grip.

I just picked up the taurus 856 3" barrel and I'm waiting for the new taurus 605defender with the cerakote finish Altamont wood grips to come into my Dealer!! The best is the taurus revoler!!!👍🏿👍🏿

i have a taurus 85 and 856, and a s&w 37 and 642. the only attribute of the t856 that i dislike is the difficulty in changing its pinned grip. a screwed grip is way preferable.

I was going to buy a S&W revolver new and the cylinder kept locking up on the forcing cone and the crane was rubbing on the frame. I don't know what happened to the quality control with some companies anymore

What ammo were you using, I’ve never experienced keyholing from a j frame smith.

Snubbies are pretty difficult to master. But they absolutely are capable of very respectable accuracy.

Nice detailed comparison. Either will work just fine for its intended purpose - bad breath distance defense. If the budget is tight, look for a Taurus. They have come a long way in quality, though their QC does seem to be a little spotty. For quality and overall "shootability", the nod goes to Smith. And self defense is ONLY a double-action affair, so single-action capability is a non-issue. Also, I just scrolled through all 608 Taurus 856 on Gunbroker, and not a purple one to be found.

I don't remember when or why I bought my 642, but I still like it. I did choose it over the Ruger sp101

About the trigger pull difference, could the fact that the S&W is having to move a smaller cylinder than the Taurus when in DA mode make a difference in how heavy the trigger pull is?

i have the 856 and just bought a 3 inch 856. i also have a 605 but typically carry the 856 instead.

love Smith & Wesson, great guns with an incredible reputation for durability, serviceability and excellent finishes but I think Im with you on this, that extra round, the quality of the stock grips and unbeatable price makes it a clear winner in my books. great review!

We’re you shooting +P in the shooting portion? That looked like a lot of recoil.

You put a lot of stock in a gun’s ability to shoot a tight group. I’ve been in a gunfight and the only important thing is to get hits. You’ll be panic shooting and your adversary will be moving and hiding behind stuff while shooting back at you. Some of your rounds will go into what he/she is hiding behind. Good comparison, seems like a draw to me.

I went with the Taurus 856 personally. I like that it's 6 rounds and single and double action. The factory grip is comfortable also.

I've had a S&W 442 for about 10 years or so (the 442 is black vs. the 642 "stainless" look). In autos, I like capacity, and I feel more comfortable with a 6 shot revolver over a 5 shot revolver so four years ago I "replaced it" with a Taurus 856UL. The 856 is noticeably wider in the cylinder, and enough so that in the role I intend my lightweight aluminum snubs (pocket or ankle carry as either a deep concealment gun or a BUG) the 442 is better. I tried it for a few months, but I now only use it IWB. So, I'll likely replace it with the steel version, IWB I find a steel framed snub is more than light enough, and the extra weight makes for faster follow up shots and more pleasant range practice (which means more range practice). As for quality, I have been happy with my 856 (and my older 85CH). The trigger on my 856 is a bit heavier than I'd like, though it does smooth out a bit with use. I've shot hundreds of rounds through it, and thousands of dry fires and while better than when new, it is still heavy. When I replace it with the 856CH (and also with the 3" 856 Defender I'm likely replacing my 3" Colt King Cobra with), I will be investing in a lighter weight Wolff spring kit.

Shoot ability is in the shooter own the Taurus ultra light in Matt stainless and that gun's amazingly accurate I can hit a 5 inch plate at 10 yards with no problem thanks for your video I never cared for the hammerless revolvers but that's just me

I have both of these. I carried the 642 for a while, and then got a T856, and decided I liked shooting the 856 more than the 642. The 642 was slightly easier to conceal, but not by much, really. I liked that sixth round in the Taurus, and having a hammer vs not having one was no big deal. I did change out the stock grips for laser grips on the 856, so concealment required more thought, but it's still good, and the extra real estate on the grips made handling the recoil easier. FYI, the S&W also has laser grips, but it seems that the Taurus grips feel better. Some hate on Taurus quality, but I have no complaints. Both good guns, but I prefer the Taurus for now.

I own both a 642 centennial airweight and a 11 oz titanium cylinder Smith 342 air light neither of these guns have any key holeling . Elongated holes on the paper.. I would try different ammo I also get fantastic groups with both my 642 and 342 up to 30-35 ft I can get good shots also at 50 ft if I take my time I would change and try different ammo I have never got any rounds key holding with these guns

i owned a S&W 642. bought it for a pocket carry gun. after shooting over 500 rounds thru it i was never happy with the accuracy i was able to get. traded it in for a Kahr CM9

I own a 642 and a 3" 856. When I carry a snubby revolver, I carry an aluminum frame 16oz (loaded) Charter Arms 5 shot Undercover. Why? I like the low weight of the 642, but wanted the option of single action shooting. My Undercover has a better DA trigger than the S&W or 856. It's SA trigger is outstanding. It's been reliable and easy to shoot even with the short grip option. I like the strength of the solid frame. It's +P rated as well. All are excellent revolvers. However, the Charter Arms alloy frame Undercover better suits my wants and needs.

What ammo were you firing?

The trigger pull on that Taurus in single action is probably about two or three pounds so it would absolutely beat the Smith & Wesson hands down if you check it that way it doesn't matter how heavy the trigger pull on a revolver is as long as the action and the trigger pull is smooth

Dude don’t blame the gun for the accuracy. It’s all on you. Practice using revolvers.

Based on my experience renting a 642 I'd take the Taurus. Trigger was gritty & felt about 14 pounds.

642 is perfect for a back-up ankle holster firearm or pocket carry.

I own the 856 Taurus ul and it’s a fantastic fantastic revolver it gets the job done indeed

Best part is the 856 front sights aren't canted like all the newer j frames I have lol

856 is a better full time carry. The Smith is better for deep cover or tertiary. I don't have any small tauruses, and all my 5-6 shot guns are part time. I'm usually carrying a L or N frame Smith. Too big for most people.

The 856 is great, it is quite a bit bigger and harder to conceal.

Vedder doesn't make a holster for the Taurus 856. Wish they would.

Well I do like Smiths but not a double action only with no single action for taking more precise longer shots and I really don't like the safety lock on the 642. Whether a close range revolver or not I still want that single action ability to make a better shot. So my pick is the 856 but I got the three inch Defender model all stainless in matte black. Conceals the same just with an extra inch of barrel for longer sight radius, Tritium day/night front sight, and better muzzle velocity and energy. A little heavier than the UL also but better for recoil and more durable than the aluminum frame. Mine has Hogue grips that are bigger but again better for recoil. A standard white dot front sight and the standard Taurus small grips came with it extra. The extra sixth round is not so important to me even if it was a five shot like a model 85 or the 642 that would be fine. My 856 is +P dedicated and that is unusual since most are just rated for +P. Triggers are not as good on Taurus revolvers but they do wear in with use. Thanks for sharing. On quality control a gun no matter the brand whether new or used should be inspected before buying so there are no defects or damage but Smith lately has had some stinkers from the videos I have been seeing. Taurus can also have some stinkers so bottom line is check the gun over before buying no matter which one. I have been hearing the same about poor Smith customer service lately on videos and folks talk about bad Taurus customer service but my personal experience with Taurus customer service has been good. But my experience was not about the 856 but a lost part on another gun that was taken care of under warranty.

I love my 637 , I have two Smiths and a Taurus, Smith is definitely a better gun and a better trigger, but you pay for it

Taurus looks way hetter in my opinion 💪

The 642 has had spring wrk done they are about 11 to 12 lbs trigger pull

With all the differences and variables between these two pistols, don't you think it's a bit silly comparing them.

Imma go with the 642, but I’m biased, I have one😎

On the website of my favorite gun store both guns are available. The S&W will set you back by about $180 more than the Taurus.

More likely used S&W will cost more then a new taurus. my Taurus 856 wins!

You didn't mention that the Smith has that very stupid (and ugly) exposed ejector rod, which could bend the rod and make the gun unusable if it was hit in the wrong place hard enough. The 856's rod is covered as it should be.

i like 340 pd. 38 +p+.

Buying a used revolver is taking a risk, so anyone doing so needs to know how to inspect a revolver for function, damage, etc. There is a reason a used gun is available at the gun store or pawn shop, and sometimes the reason is that the gun is junk.

Taurus kicked but on the 856 but those air weight guns are not a smart option. Taurus also has model 605 in 357 in 6 shot. I say stay with stainless steel versions or black alloy steel.

The Taurus 856 has a heavy trigger so take it to a gunsmith and smooth up the action

Charter arms is manufacturing revolvers in different colors now but I don't believe the charter arms revolvers are as close to being as good as a Taurus they just don't look that reliable

I have one of each...

The taurus would be my choice. One thought on the trigger pull test. Do you think the table was binding the rotation of the cylinder? May have added the wieght to the pull. Great video, you cant beat a snubby.

You have a purple gun. Turn in your Man Card immediately!

6 shots over 5 shots any day

The Smith is light years ahead of ANY Taurus product

Thank you for this video. You really tipped me to not want either of these. Appreciated.

Taurus is junk save for a smith

It's "SPURless." NOT "hammerless." Come on, bro.

I paid $289 each for two 642 revolvers right before gunpocalypse happened. Online of course.