[LJWebster1]

I have a S&W snubbie, and if I happened to undo the screws and open up the gun, would I see the internal lock right there? If so, would it be easy to remove something so that I won't have to worry about it engaging on me at the worst possible moment? Has anyone done this?

[orionengnr]

but if you go to www.smithwessonforum.com, and do a seach for "lock removal" or "IL removal" and you will find some people who may have thought about it...:rolleyes:

[OH25shooter]

Why do you think it will engage for no reason? You've been reading too many scary forum opinions. I'd worry more if you start messing inside the guts of the gun, then if you never touch the lock at all. Plus, the warranty will be cancelled if a problems should arise.

[Mulliga]

Before you open up the gun, make sure you know what you are doing (I speak from experience). Buy a shop manual or take it to someone who really knows Smiths.

It's way, way more likely you are going to jam your revolver by messing around in the internals without a good background than you are to suffer a lock failure.

[MICHAEL T]

I just don't buy S&W with locks. much easiler. S&W lost 3 sales last year and 1 on 50th M-29 this year. I had really hoped the would make the model like the orginal. Nope has lock. I will just buy another older M-29 S&W needs to learn It's costing them money .The lock and over all cheaping of their pistols.

[LJWebster1]

Good points. I'll just leave it alone.

[Lone_Gunman]

There is a member of this forum named Erich whose lock inadvertently activated when the gun was dropped.

Be aware, failures do happen. Anything man-made can screw up. Murphy's Law exists for a reason.

[Erich]

Thanks! You saved me the typing. A search here (or on half a dozen other forums) on the word "oafishly" will bring my story up. :)

[MICHAEL T]

S&W fourms has a thread just for people that has had a problem Erich post their if you haven't already

[Lone_Gunman]

Sorry, but friends don't let friends buy S&W's with internal locks.

This may be the reason I was put on Earth.

[GMAN]

I won't buy anything with a lock!:cuss:

[ChristopherG]

I am bored beyond tears with lock jihadists. I hereby resolve to ignore-list anyone who posts one of these da*& "locks are evil" fatwas that contains no real content and just junks up the board in an effort to spoil everyone's enjoyment of a gun you think you're too pure to touch.

And, on topic: LJ, you can do what you propose, but it is down the road a bit. I mean, it's not the first thing that comes to hand if you take an S&W apart. Should you decide you want to learn to do that, you can get a good instructive video by Jerry Miculek on how to dissassemble and reassemble, and even how to perform a home trigger-job. I like doing this kind of work on my S&W's, and once you are familiar with what's happening in there, you can generally figure out a way to remove or disable the lock should you want to. I have done this on one gun that has it (just because I wanted to see if I could), but have left it intact on others. Might even find a use for it someday.

[Erich]

Michael, I was the first poster in the S&W Forums thread. :)

[orionengnr]

I am not a "Lock jihadist", nor am I a "Lock apologist". I read a large number of these posts and I see no reason for Erich or many others to fabricate their stories. Does emotion flow on an IBB? Of course. Do some have an agenda? Perhaps. Can I see past all of that and determine what the facts are? I like to think so.

At one time I owned five, but I am now down to two Lock-equipped S&Ws. In the future, I will buy a Lock-equipped S&W's for range use, but will not trust my life to one as a carry piece.

My 340 is on "paid administrative leave" pending the outcome of my "investigation". I'm pretty sure there is a no-Lock 342 with my name on it out there somewhere--in the meantime my no-Lock 37-2 will perform j-frame duty.

"Ignore" whomever or whatever you choose, but denying the existence of a problem does not cause the problem to disappear. And calling someone a "jihadist" because they believe differently...well, let's just say that's an approach driven by emotion rather than by reason...and not very High Road.

[Erich]

I took what Christopher was saying to mean that he was tired of reading posts w/o much content other than "I hate locks" on these threads.

Me, after participating in (no kidding) dozens of them on several forums to relate what happened to me, I'm just sick of the topic. And I'm sort of surprised that more folks don't run a search instead of asking the same questions that have been asked and answered dozens of times before.

At the same time, when someone asks, I want to point the person to actually doing the search so s/he can read about the problems that others have documented. (IIRC, there were 4 documented instances of locks self-engaging on the S&W Forum . . . .)

BTW, I picked up one of those no-lock 37-2s from RSR in November - what a deal, eh? :)

[ChristopherG]

I'm just sick of the topic

Exactly.

calling someone a "jihadist" because they believe differently

Not exactly what I did. Those I'm calling 'jihadis' feel compelled to turn every thread about an S&W into a rant against the lock. They are the IBB equivalent of someone who attends a lecture on paleantology and stands up in the middle of it to scream about how Darwin was the devil. Or something. At any rate, my point is the incessant harping on it. I don't have any problem with folks feeling like they can't trust a lock-gun (though my experience leads me to think this is PROBABLY a mistaken assessment). I do have a problem with people who effectively try to bully others into their anti-lock orthodoxy. There is little left to be said on the subject; anyone who wished to learn about it easily could (through helpful folks like Erich); it helps nothing to shout out proclamations that seem more aimed at self-aggrandizement than persuasion.

I know this sounds uncharitable, but once again,

I'm just sick of the topic

[CAS700850]

Am I the only one around here who really has no concerns about the lock engaging itself, but just hate what it did to the appearance of the guns? I trust that S&W did not put out a device that will lock itself, fearing the liability concerns of putting one in the hand of a police officer that ends up injured or killed because his gun failed when needed most. But couldnt they have at least followed teh Taurus example and put the darned thing somewhere that was less aesthetically offensive?

[Soybomb]

Am I the only one around here who really has no concerns about the lock engaging itself, but just hate what it did to the appearance of the guns? I trust that S&W did not put out a device that will lock itself, fearing the liability concerns of putting one in the hand of a police officer that ends up injured or killed because his gun failed when needed most. But couldnt they have at least followed teh Taurus example and put the darned thing somewhere that was less aesthetically offensive?
The only problem is erich here is the only story i've heard of the s&w lock engaging, I've heard it several times from taurus owners. It makes me think s&w's might be in a better place engineering wise.

[tantrix]

I just don't give Smith & Wesson any of my business if it involves a newer model with the lock. I just buy a different make gun. As for those who say the locks don't bother them...you are the reason we will will see locks continue to be on Smiths and others in the future. If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

[nitesite]

As for those who say the locks don't bother them...you are the reason we will will see locks continue to be on Smiths and others in the future. If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

I have purchased two new S&W revolvers in the past year. Both have "the lock". For you to insinuate that I am even partially responsible for integrated locks being on firearms is ludicrous.

Blame tort laws and ridiculous jury settlements, not me.

[Erich]

Orion, I thought your posts were helpful - particularly the on-point direction of the thread-starter to the best info source over at the S&W Forum.

Interesting to hear about the Taurus lock self-activations - I had a 21-oz Taurus .41 mag with the lock, and I figured that if anything would do it, that would! :D Seriously, though, I suppose a broken or poorly fitted part on the Taurus hammer could be problematic - I've just never read about it or seen it.

Again, there were a few other people who detailed their problems with the S&Ws over on the S&W Forum. Search "ILIF" to get the scoop. . .

[1911user]

Am I the only one around here who really has no concerns about the lock engaging itself, but just hate what it did to the appearance of the guns? I trust that S&W did not put out a device that will lock itself, fearing the liability concerns of putting one in the hand of a police officer that ends up injured or killed because his gun failed when needed most. But couldnt they have at least followed teh Taurus example and put the darned thing somewhere that was less aesthetically offensive?
S&W will sell a "police" version of the new M&P semi-auto without the lock, but civilians aren't allowed to buy those; police only. On the Rem 870, the civilian and hunting 870s had the locking safety (that could lock itself way too easily), but the 870 police had no such lock.

I wonder if police dept. letterhead could get a revolver without a lock? I wouldn't bet against it.

[carpettbaggerr]

For you to insinuate that I am even partially responsible for integrated locks being on firearms is ludicrous.
I think he meant if sales dropped to nothing, they'd redesign it immediately. If people are willing to put up with it and buy, they'll keep selling them.

Everyone who buys one is a little responsible for the locks remaining on new models......

[ChristopherG]

Trust me, the tiny fraction of blame nitesite or I bear has been more than paid for having to wade through the moral superiority of 7,000 anti-lock crusaders strutting their stuff.

[orionengnr]

The major problem I have with lock "apologists" is that most of them seem to want to shout down the folks who have a problem. The part I have a real problem with, is that many deny that a problem exists, deny that it could ever exist, and decry it all as a vast Right-Wing conspiracy.

I understand that you are tired of hearing about it. I am more concerned with the fact that people every day are buying new S&Ws not knowing that the lock is there, and trusting their life to the gun never knowing that it might let them down.

I am recently new to the CCW thing, and in my class my instructor recomended a 5 shot S&W or Taurus. I came from years of 9mm, 40 and 45 ownership, but the "five for sure" theory had some merit. I had an earlier S&W 66 so I started looking at j-frames. With "only" 5 shots, 357 was my choice. Shortly thereafter I had a 360PD.

In about six months I had bought half a dozen S&Ws, new and old...then I read my first Lock thread. I had been carrying my 360, and by then my 340, regularly, smugly thinking, no jams, no mag problems, point and click...five for sure.

To say that my faith was shaken is an understatement--shattered would be closer. My 360 is now gone, and my 340 is in the safe. My Glock is now by my side (works for the wintertime). Before summer gets here, I have some thinking to do. I bought a Kahr PM9, and I have an old no-lock 37 that I may bob the hammer of. I may disable the Lock on the 340. I may go looking for a no-Lock 342 or 642.

Absent recall/fix by S&W (not holding my breath), I will have a hard time carrying any Lock-type S&W revolver.

YMMV.

[ChristopherG]

Orienengnr,

That's a very nice example of an interesting and content-rich posting (that is to say, a very atypical one) about the issue. Thank you.

I shared your concerns for a while when I got my first couple of guns with locks, and heard the talk about the danger they represent. Then I started competing with revolvers. Since then, I've shot a number of guns with locks tens of thousands of times. In rain and in heat, in dirty conditions, and in the dark, and banging them against barriers (cover), with lead and plated and jacketed rounds, with low power target loads and heavy magnums, and yes, I've had failures. I've had duds, and I've had squibs. I've broken a firing pin, and I've broken a sear spring, and I've worked a mainspring loose, and I've had my cylinder get so grunged up I couldn't jam another six rounds in it for love or money. But I've never once had to so much as think about a lock, or reach for the key in my pocket next the key to the Accord. And somewhere along the line, I realized that the chances of the lock on MY guns going wrong is apparently CLOSE to zero. No, that's not zero. The lock is there, and it could fail. But the probability of that happening, based on my own experience with my own guns, is so infinitesimal--what did they call it in highschool algebra? Practical zero?--compared to the very considerable chance that I will MISS, that I have decided worrying about it is just foolish. For me.

And, I think, in reality, the same course of action would work for you and for a lot of other people whose concern about the lock is that it might engage. Get a reloading press, and some components, and knock together 3 or 5 or 20,000 rounds of ammunition suitable for your gun, and shoot them. And if the lock fails, send it to S&W, and they'll refund you the new purchase price of it. And if it doesn't fail, then ask yourself: is it a reasonable thing for me to worry about? Either way, you'll be a better shot, and probably have a better idea of what you can and can't do with your gun, and a well-grounded assessment of where the significant risks of failure lie. In my case, I know it's not with the lock.

[Lone_Gunman]

I bet the chances of me getting shot and killed by a burglar are on the same order of magnitude as a S&W lock accidentally engaging. Both are very small risks.

If you are going to attempt to reduce your risk of being killed by owning a gun, it doesnt make sense to try and reduce that risk with a gun that has an unnecessary part that might fail.

If you are just going to play the odds, there is no reason to own a firearm at all.

If my lock fails and I get shot and killed by an intruder, the fact that S&W will warrant their product and repair or replace it seems of little importance.