[glassman]

I've recently gotten back into shooting after many years away from the range. I'm a wheelgun fan and have gotten an education since coming here. The integral locks seem to be getting a bad rap from experienced shooters and I wonder why. Is it a matter of esthetics or is there a functional problem associated with them?

[JMag]

Aesthetics issues for some and POTENTIAL functional problems with others as I see it.

Happily, finding wheelies without the lock is still not too much of a chore...easy enough to avoid the issues as they say.

[Thaddeus Jones]

Like you, I'd been away from handguns for some time, and came here to get caught up. After doing some research, I believe there is a functional problem with the internal lock revolvers, and there is obviously an asthetic problem too, they are ugly. I've read the posts from those that have had them lock up, and I've examined the posts of the few that keep saying there is not an issue with them. My conclusions are, that the problem may not be widespread, but is significant enough to preclude the use of a key lock revolver as a carry gun. I've noticed that it is the same handfull of posters saying these revolvers are fine, on several different gun boards, the exact same folks. That alone makes me leary of what they have to say. I also notice, that these same folks own a bunch of the key lock revolvers. Perhaps that fact shapes their advice more than it should. I've read a couple of those folks attacking others who disagree with them, on the S&W forum, as well as other boards. They seem to have an agenda. I've wondered if they don't work for Safe T Hammer.
All the folks who carry revolvers for serious, post threads saying they decline to purchase the key lock revolvers, and are buying pre lock guns instead. I followed their lead. My 586-3, and my new to me 686 CS-1 are superior to the key lock guns I've examined and shot. Sweeter triggers, very accurate, and no ugly hole above the thumb latch. One last thing I noticed. Those key lock revolvers are not selling around these parts. Two shops offered me incredible deals on them, before I found out why. The old mom and pop shop I was at yesterday told me they won't carry the new revolvers, and don't take key lock revolvers in trade. The lady said they are too small to lay out that investment, in guns that nobody wants. I did see that the key lock revolvers seem to sit in the classifieds for a long time too. If they are just as good as the pre lock guns, why am I seeing all this?

[Vern Humphrey]

My position is that as the buyer, I should make the decisions about what add-ons, gimcracks and doo-dads I want. No one has the right to force gunlocks on me if I don't want them. Since I have never personally identified a need for an integral lock on my guns, I won't pay the extra money to buy a gun with such an unneeded feature.

[Golddog]

Irrelevant. Other features determine my response to a firearm. I've had many S&W's with and without, and the locks made no difference.

[karlsgunbunker]

I don't mind them. if you don't like them leave them unlocked.
I'd rather have an integral lock than a cluncky key lock.

[dbarale]

I wouldn't mind 'em as much on S&W revolvers if they were not so unsightly.
I like the Taurus system much better.

[orionengnr]

Here, let me fix it for you.

Aesthetics issues for some and ACTUAL functional problems with others as I see it.

I don't mind them. if you don't like them leave them unlocked.

Yeah, and if you leave that rattlesnake alone he won't bother you...:rolleyes:
Wrong answer. "Leave it unlocked" is great in theory, but they can (and have) locked themselves. You could only find a few instances when they came out. I read about several new ones per month now, and now know someone who had it happen to him. He is on this board and has posted about it.

Buy what you want, but don't buy BS.

[Alan Fud]

I've heard reports that the S&W design MIGHT affect functionality. In which case, I don't think they are a good idea.

Haven't heard any such reports with the Taurus design and if they don't interfer with functionality, I don't have a problem with them. If I don't want to use it, I don't but if I ever need to disable the gun because I'm checking it some place or for some other reason, I don't need to worry about a lock because it's already built in.

[Vern Humphrey]

My position remains, I don't see any need for an integral lock on a gun. Since it costs money to put such locks in guns, I'm opposed to paying for what I don't need or want.

There are plenty of good, used guns out there without locks.

[Old Fuff]

I think that it depends on the buyer's circumstances. Ask yourself a question, "do I want, or need, the ability to lock my handgun out of action?" If the answer is, "yes" by all means buy a model that has this feature. If it's, "no" then buy something else.

Smith and Wesson has had some problems with their lock on a few models, and while it is not unheard of for a revolver to lock itself, such incidents are few and far apart. Other companies haven't earned this reputation, at least so far.

My beef with the locks in Smith & Wesson's has more to do with other features within the same revolvers then the lock itself. But given a choice it's a feature I don't need or want, and since S&W doesn't offer any other option I choose to buy older guns that I'm more confortable with.

I suspect that if you were thinking of buying a new car you wouldn't pick a model that was loaded with accessories that you didn't want or need. I use the same reasoning when I buy a gun.

[Vern Humphrey]

Old Fluff, great minds run in the same channels.:D

[thales]

*


I own about a dozen S&W revolvers, including four of recent manufacture with the lock and MIM parts. I like them all.

I don't have strong feelings about the lock, one way or the other. Given today's political climate, I can see why S&W makes them; there are some states where they are required. Get used to it because there will probably be more in the future. I can see how it can be pretty handy for somebody that has a need to lock their gun conveniently; if you have children in the house, for example. I can also see how they could fail sometimes, like any other mechanical device.

What I don't see is the need for all the repeated whining and moaning in the gun fora. This ain't rocket science here. If you think the lock is ugly or dangerous, get a revolver without the lock. If you think it's going to lock up on you and get you killed, disable it. If you need a revolver that doesn't come without the lock, like a 329PD, it takes about ten minutes to remove the thing. If you still think it's ugly, then weld it up and refinish it. If you think that you will be prosecuted or sued for removing it, then don't remove it. If you are still unhappy, then make your own brand of revolvers to sell to the millions of people who share your views. If you don't have the ambition or can't get the capital to do that, and are still unhappy about this state of affairs, then go home and cry.


*

[Glockman17366]

I've got two Taurus revolvers with the internal locks.

I'm quite neutral on the subject. I guess I'd pefer not to have any type of lock and I definitely would not pay extra for an optional lock.

The Taurus locks are quite unobtrusive. I just leave them unlocked. I do know where the keys are...I think!

[ARTiger]

Locks, while useful and even desired by some, do tend to rub many gun owners the wrong way just because it's another issue of being "told" rather than "asked" about having a lock on their gun.

I have kids and sometimes even use locks on the few guns I have with them, but I really resent the politically correct BS that all guns should be mandated to have locks. It's not my belief and I don't like it forced on me.

[jad0110]

Is it just me, or has this horse been beaten to death way too many times?

[454c]

So we should sit on our high horse and dismiss those that haven't heard of the dead horse ?:confused:


FACT- An internal lock is a mechanical device.
FACT- All mechanical devices will fail.
FACT- An internal lock is not necessary for the gun to function.
FACT- An internal lock adds an extra unnecessary chance of failure.

[Vern Humphrey]

FACT- An internal lock is a mechanical device.
FACT- All mechanical devices will fail.
FACT- An internal lock is not necessary for the gun to function.
FACT- An internal lock adds an extra unnecessary chance of failure.
FACT- Putting an internal lock in a firearm costs money.
FACT- When you buy a gun with an internal lock, you are paying for something you don't want or need.

[Troutman]

<<Is it just me, or has this horse been beaten to death way too many times?>>

Yes, that ole lang syne.
One can makes choices here.
Let’s face it, their not going away. Just like the seat belt. I feel the same about them. Wearing (by law) seatbelts is not going to prevent you from GETTING into an accident. Use, does prevent getting hurt any further, without them.
Simple.
Choices one has: Don’t buy a firearm (new or used) with a lock. Buy a pre-lock (only used).
Buy the firearm (with the lock) and remove it. If you have the knowledge to do it. And it is accepted that you don’t need one (in your state, check laws).
Buy the firearm (with the lock) DON”T remove it. Don’t use it. Or use it. (Your choice)

Note: if it does lock up, send it in for repair.
Btw. Some complain about how dangerous it can be if it locks up in self-defense situations. Well…True. But again. One can make a scenario, just about anything. I had a handgun (no scenario), and all rounds (in chamber and magazine) in 75% of the box were duds. I’m not going to name that company, because they do make good ammo. But how many times would that happen again? Things happen. Guns’ jam, misfires ….and who knows what else can/could happen?
Furthermore, having a gun does not give one a 100% guarantee that you will live though that combat situation either, going against another with the same. That person (good or bad) could have an advantage. By training, experience, who knows? By giving a pre-interview of that other person would be of help, to that gun duel.
I have seen/known “tunnel rats” (short, thin guys, fast reflexes) that can disarm, before one could pull that piece.
With the situation gun owners are facing, they might not have to worry about, lock or no lock.

[Old Fuff]

Is it just me, or has this horse been beaten to death way too many times?

Indeed it has, like a number of other issues. But it will keep coming up so long as we get new members who haven't yet learned how to use the search feature. Getting and giving answers is one of the reason we're here... ;)

[Headless]

Neutral - i've got a 642 with the keylock...i've put upwards of 3000 rounds through it, some +P some not, about 50/50..it's never locked itself, i've taken it apart and examined the mechanism and detents and it feels and functions solidly, never jumps the detents even with high pressure loads and when i simulate limp wristing the crap out of it to let the gun jar more than a normal grip...all in all, it makes no difference to me if there's a lock on it or not. Re: aesthetics, i don't buy guns to look pretty, they are tools..the lock is a very small black circle...just not a big deal. You can always dremel off the locking mechanism if you don't like it - internally where you can't see it. :)

[DawgFvr]

Yes...this horse has been beaten to death. Unless the locking mechanism inadvertently affects the function of the revolver...I couldn't care less. Now...some people have mentioned that they read...heard...or think that it does affect the function of the weapon...that it locks on its own. Any proof?

I want to know...I want to hear from somebody in this thread whom has had a problem firing their weapon because this internal locking mechanism locks on its own volition. If there are no actual, personally related instances of this occurance, then let this remain in the political agenda...cuz that's what it is really all about...eh? :barf:

[Deanimator]

I don't mind them. if you don't like them leave them unlocked.
I'd rather have an integral lock than a cluncky key lock.

Unfortunately, sometimes they don't want to STAY locked.

I don't want ANY kind of lock, be it a trigger lock that can be used to FIRE the gun by an unauthorized person, OR an internal lock that can stop ME from firing the gun when I MOST need to shoot it.

I've got a safe. It has no effect on the functioning of my guns.

If you can afford the gun, but can't afford a safe, you can afford a GI ammo box, a hasp and a padlock.

[Deanimator]

Yes...this horse has been beaten to death. Unless the locking mechanism inadvertently affects the function of the revolver...I couldn't care less. Now...some people have mentioned that they read...heard...or think that it does affect the function of the weapon...that it locks on its own. Any proof?

Yes, plenty. Do a search at http://www.smith-wessonforum.com

[strat81]

I heard this story once, from this guy my brother's boss knew. His girlfriend's brother's plumber bought a brand new Ford something, or maybe it was a Honda, and the brakes failed when he drove off the dealer's lot and he died. :rolleyes:

Reminds me of the whole key lock thing. Also, several THR members have reported putting a drop of Loctite on the lock so it doesn't lock by itself. I'd worry more about a primer failing to ignite than lock malfunctions.

[DawgFvr]

Deanimator...I say again, has anbody on this thread...PERSONALLY had an internal locking mechanism lock on its own volition? I don't care what you have heard, read, dreamed up, etc. I want to hear some personal experience from somebody on here now...so that I can evaluate if there is incompetence on some Joe-Bob's ability to turn a key or if there is an actual flaw in the mechanical performance or function on S&W's revolvers due to this internal locking device. If so...lets begin drawing up papers or suit...or, again, send this thread over to the political side which methinks this is truly about.:scrutiny:

[Headless]

Dawg called it -i suspect the 'random failures' (i've only ever heard of two, in posts on the S&W forum) were a result of user error - not turning the lock completely to the locked position/detent.

[Old Fuff]

The lock, I think, is a tip of an iceberg. Some buyers, I’ll call them “traditionalists,” not only object to the lock, but also other design, material, and quality control issues in Smith’s current production that they don’t like. Thus the lock has become symbolic of a larger dissatisfaction. Be that as it may, production economics has forced the company to go in the directions it has. But as long as the traditionalists can buy older revolvers on the used market – sometimes in new condition – for less money then the current production guns… they will. If or when this changes, and the older models command a price over current production this situation may change.

There is a real possibility that in the not distant future, the cost of making a revolver – even with production shortcuts – may make them so expensive that only a few very popular models will remain viable in the marketplace. Unfortunately this kind of handgun does not lend itself to punch press and polymer construction.

[454c]

Facts are facts and emotions are emotions. Choose wisely.

[jad0110]

Indeed it has, like a number of other issues. But it will keep coming up so long as we get new members who haven't yet learned how to use the search feature. Getting and giving answers is one of the reason we're here...

True Fuff, very true. Don't know why I wasn't more clear in my post on that point; could be that my little 15 week old man was screaming in my ears 'till I was cross eyed earlier :p . I don't mind the question coming up from those who are not familiar, though I suspect the "search" feature would turn up a gob of info.

What does frost my butt a little is when a THR member posts a pic of their latest acquisition, that they are quite excited about and proud of ... with the wart visible in the shot. I think, "Oh boy, any minute now". Some of the time (certainly not all) someone "volunteers" their disdain for the ILS within the first half dozen posts. Don't get me wrong, I know there are plenty of people who hate the lock and they should be able to vent. Though perhaps some situations, like what I just mentioned, aren't the best time and place I suppose.

FYI, 2 of my 4 Smiths have the lock. I love all of them, but would prefer no locks at all. So far, other than my old K-22 needing a new mainspring and strain screw, all have been 100%+ reliable.

[Old Fuff]

I see no point for having an argument. My experience with Smith & Wesson revolvers is long standing - covering over a half century. I have also owned and examined in detail, S&W guns going back to the 1860's. When one reaches old age sometimes their preferences get cast in stone. If such preferences are based on knowledge and experience I see no problem with this.

There are those who see nothing wrong with the lock, or other recent changes. They are perfectly free to buy the current guns, and given their opinions they should do so. Meanwhile I can look in the dark corners and back shelves for overlooked jewels. I suspect that in the time I have left on this planet there will be enough guns to go around and satisfy everybody. :cool:

[Deanimator]

Deanimator...I say again, has anbody on this thread...PERSONALLY had an internal locking mechanism lock on its own volition? I don't care what you have heard, read, dreamed up, etc. I want to hear some personal experience from somebody on here now...so that I can evaluate if there is incompetence on some Joe-Bob's ability to turn a key or if there is an actual flaw in the mechanical performance or function on S&W's revolvers due to this internal locking device. If so...lets begin drawing up papers or suit...or, again, send this thread over to the political side which methinks this is truly about
That's a very interesting question. Are you saying that you will ONLY accept the word of someone HERE, but NOT on smith-wessonforum.com? That makes it seem like you'll only accept a particular answer and are setting yourself to only get THAT answer.

You buy all of the S&W revolvers with locks that you want. I place a higher value on my own life than that.

[Deanimator]

The lock, I think, is a tip of an iceberg. Some buyers, I’ll call them “traditionalists,” not only object to the lock, but also other design, material, and quality control issues in Smith’s current production that they don’t like.
I have quite a few S&W revolvers, the absolute newest being a 3" 65 with hammer mounted firing pin. I only got it because it was IMPOSSIBLE to find a Model 13 here.

My objection to current S&Ws is first and foremost the lock, followed by mandatory (at least for a while) round butts, then stainless steel. I have no objection to MIM parts. I'm a big Dan Wesson fan, so I have no inherent objection to two-piece barrels, although lock aside, I'm not a fan of S&W's take on the concept.

My objections to the lock have been previously stated and don't need to be restated. Suffice to say I will NEVER buy an S&W revolver with the lock, at least the current incarnation of the lock. That's absolutely non-negotiable.

I HATED not having the choice of square butt grip frames. Putting big, uncomfortable square butt grips on a round butt revolver doesn't magically turn it into a square butt revolver. I have two round butt revolvers, a 36 and a 65, both of them CCW gun. I will tolerate round butt ONLY in CCW guns. A round butt 4" K or L frame or any length round butt N frame gun is just silly to me.

I don't like stainless steel. It just doesn't look good to me. I have ONE stainless gun, the Model 65. If I could have found a 3" 13 for anything within a mile of a sane price, I'd have one of those instead. I couldn't, so I have the 65.

Product-wise, S&W left me behind a long time ago. A lot of their recent product looks like Vin Diesel should be shooting space pterodactyls with it. That's why save for that lone 65, every one of my revolvers is AT LEAST 20-25 years old. Which is as it should be. You'd have to be pretty stupid to spend $800-1000 for something you don't like or need.

[daroccot]

So am I correct in assuming I can have my gunsmith remove the locking mechanism entirely? Or is loctite the only other way to disable it? My 629 is for wilderness defence and a malfunctioning internal lock would be bad... If I have a misfire, you just pull the triger again, if the lock has rendered the gun inoperable if have something a little better than a stick....

[DawgFvr]

I like...I don't like...I like...I don't like. What we have here is a failure to communicate. What you dont like and what doesn't work are two horses of a different color. The world does not revolve around your preferences; you do however have the right to spout about them. Me too. Bottom line: There are no mechanical malfunctions on these S&W locks...there are only human error malfunctions...you know, people who are unable to follow instructions...the kind of people who blame the map because they cannot follow a compass direction. Look...if you do not want the perfectly operational locking device on a S&W...dont buy it. If you have one you dont like...sell it to me (at cost of course). Go and lobby S&W. I used to know people who ranted and raved about SS weapons...and how only "real" weapons were blued...or the wood vs plastic crowd...etc. Look...the weapons work just fine. You just don't like them. Me...I dont care if there is a hole in the side of the metal. I just dont use the lock. I pull the trigger, hammer falls...gun goes boom...smoke out the barrel.:rolleyes:

[Deanimator]

There are no mechanical malfunctions on these S&W locks...there are only human error malfunctions.
So then let's nail this down:

Are you saying that the people on smith-wessonforum.com who have posted FIRST HAND experience of lock failures LIED?

That's a simple yes or no question.

Please answer it.

[GunNut]

Not wanted by me, so I choose not to purchase guns with them.

[tinygnat219]

The locks make no difference in performance. Just don't use them if you don't want to.

[Deanimator]

The locks make no difference in performance. Just don't use them if you don't want to.
You don't consider not being able to fire a "difference in performance"? In what capacity is the firearm performing where that doesn't matter, "paperweight"?

It's well documented that sometimes you don't get a choice as to using the the locks. They sometimes make that decision FOR you.

[AJD]

I don't have anything against the lock concerning S&W revolvers.

Its just that vintage S&W revolvers with bright blue finishes, pinned barrels, recessed cylinders, beautiful wood stocks, no MIM parts, color-case hardened triggers and hammers and smoother actions than newer S&W revolvers are still available at very reasonable prices(Most at least).

New S&W revolvers typically lack all of the above features. They are stronger than older models, but with the exception of the 29 or 19 you have little to worry about when it comes to the strength of almost any vintage S&W revolvers as long as you don't pound hot ammo through them on a consistent basis.

IMO the lock is a non-issue. I just happen to buy non-lock S&W revolvers for the above reasons mentioned.

[DawgFvr]

Nope...I am not saying that anybody lied. I am saying they screwed up. Human error. They did not turn the lock all the way. Kind of like somebody not putting their weapon back together correctly and then stating that the weapon doesn't work. Got it? If the car runs out of gas...do you blame the car or the operator? Now me...I'd think the operator needs a bit of instruction...I would not go around saying that all Fords were crap nowadays.

[Vern Humphrey]

I am saying they screwed up. Human error. They did not turn the lock all the way.

Many years ago, several parachutists were killed jumping Security Parachute Company's "Crossbow" parachute.

It turned out that it was possible to make a small mistake when packing the parachute (and jumpers packed their own) so the main parachute wouldn't open. It was also possible to pull the reserve ripcord at the wrong angle -- and it wouldn't come out.

With only seconds to live, I don't want to trust my life to something that may malfunction due to a small error I made. I want a fail safe system.

[454c]

QUOTE:
**Bottom line: There are no mechanical malfunctions on these S&W locks...there are only human error malfunctions...**




That's funny.

[Deanimator]

Nope...I am not saying that anybody lied. I am saying they screwed up. Human error. They did not turn the lock all the way.
Then certainly you can cite at least one documented case presented on http://www.smith-wessonforum.com where you can show this to have happened.

Until such time, the above is what's called an "unsupported assertion".

The claims of lock failure on http://www.smith-wessonforum.com are however much more detailed and convincing.

[Deanimator]

QUOTE:
**Bottom line: There are no mechanical malfunctions on these S&W locks...there are only human error malfunctions...**




That's funny.
One could plausibly argue that trusting ones life to a revolver equipped with S&W's current ILS qualifies as a "human error malfunction". After all it's clearly an error in human judgement to willingly premise ones continued existence on a mechanical device with a proven track record of unreliability.

[DawgFvr]

My revovler works perfectly, albeit it has an unsightly hole in the side. Have you personally had a malfunction with the lock? You keep referring me/us to the Taurus site withouth citing a specific thread...can you give me something specific to look at? Are we going to disucss second person hearsay? I tell you it is all balderdash. I just wrote to S&W engineers...I will post their response on here if and when I get a response. I am also asking and searching if S&W has been sued for this "imaginary malfunctioning lock" which would surely be the case if it actually happend (and was not found to be operator error after a little investigation)...ya think? Please do not pass your fantasy off as factual. Show me/us the proof that there is a flaw in this locking mechanism.

[adaman04]

Without a doubt the single most idiotic thing that has ever happened to the handgun community. I mean 10 round mags are disgusting, but at least they don't have the potential of rendering the gun useless. Unfortunately, we live in Liberal Soccer Mom USA and it will get worse before it gets better.

[10-Ring]

I'm not a fan of the internal lock but I think they're a wave of the future especially w/ states like CA requiring more & more "safety" features on new guns.

[Old Fuff]

I'm not a fan of the internal lock

That's true of a lot of folks... :)

but I think they're a wave of the future

But only if people buy guns so equipped... :uhoh:

(with) states like CA requiring more & more "safety" features on new guns. :cuss:

You couldn't pay me enough to live in California. Come to Arizona and live free... ;)

[454c]

QUOTE:
***One could plausibly argue that trusting ones life to a revolver equipped with S&W's current ILS qualifies as a "human error malfunction". After all it's clearly an error in human judgement to willingly premise ones continued existence on a mechanical device with a proven track record of unreliability.***

:D :D




Deanimator, someone once told me that if you jump off a tall building, it's gonna hurt but, I refuse to believe it 'til it happens to me.;) :evil:




10-RING, surprisingly CA can't share the blame of the locks. CA neither requires or recognizes internal locks. That disgrace goes to 1 or 2 states in the east.

[Nematocyst]

As a person with two, count 'em two, SW with locks (642 and 686),
and since I don't care even a tiny whit about the aesthetics of the locks,
and since I have seen many instances of user error due to "can't read instructions",
IMO, the only two relevant questions/statements in this thread are these:

So am I correct in assuming I can have my gunsmith remove the locking mechanism entirely?Yes or no?

It's a simple question that deserves a simple answer.

Yes or no?

And for those into "do it yourself"...

If you think it's going to lock up on you and get you killed, disable it.If someone would post instructions about how to do that, we can get on to more important issues,
like whether .454 Casull is adequate protection against Griz in NA above 60* N latitude.

[Thaddeus Jones]

Actually, it's only one state that requires an INTERNAL lock, Maryland. S&W sure must sell alot of revolvers in Maryland, to be able to ignore so many other potential buyers, and annoy formerly loyal customers.

[Deanimator]

Have you personally had a malfunction with the lock? You keep referring me/us to the Taurus site withouth citing a specific thread
I've never been bitten by a shark. Do you claim that proves nobody ELSE has?

That I know of, NOBODY has referred to the "Taurus site" for information regarding the unreliability of S&W's ILS.

You only have to go to http://www.smith-wessonforum.com and search for "lock" or "ILS" and you'll find documented proof of the failures. I can only conclude that you don't WANT proof.

[Deanimator]

Deanimator, someone once told me that if you jump off a tall building, it's gonna hurt but, I refuse to believe it 'til it happens to me.

You know, I keep hearing and reading about shark attacks, but it's never happened to ME. I think it's just "user malfunction" with people's sharks. If you don't want to get bitten, just make sure you don't climb into the shark's mouth and pull his jaws shut! :D

[DawgFvr]

You know, there are documented cases, extremely rare though they may be, of humans spontaneously combusting. Meteorites routinely enter the atmosphere and again, there are rare instances where one penetrates a person’s house leaving evidence behind. What isn’t rare, and you can bank your money on this, are the characters running down the street, in the aftermath, shouting, “The sky is falling…the sky is falling”. Within my 20 years of firing 5.56, I actually witnessed a primer failing to ignite gunpowder in a casing resulting in a round lodging in a barrel. My point here is that there is potential for malfunction in just about everything (‘cept the chicken little affect…eh?) mechanical, organic, etc. All the above instances have a greater statistical chance to occur than the S&W internal lock deploying on its own volition methinks. My primary carry is a .45 Auto which I trust my life to, but again, this pistol has a far greater chance to malfunction, statistically, than the S&W internal lock moving to the lock position on its own volition. Well….I’m off to place an order for another S&W with the nefarious internal locking mechanism and leave you to your soap box. I do not see any opinions changing either way here but it has been fun. Who knows...if more people think like you, I might be able to aford more S&W revolvers as the price will go down with demand right? Perhaps you are doing poor schmucks like me a favor...thanks!:D

[Deanimator]

Who knows...if more people think like you, I might be able to aford more S&W revolvers as the price will go down with demand right? Perhaps you are doing poor schmucks like me a favor...thanks!

OR they might stop making them. That's probably more to your benefit, since at least then they would have value as collector's items... kind of like the OSS Liberator. On the other hand RGs don't have any collector's value, and they aren't made any more...

[DawgFvr]

Honestly, if I really had a choice in purchasing a new revolver without the lock...I'd do so. Ok D...lets resolve the revolver issue w/locks that we do own. I have read somewhere on here where an owner just filed the offender down. In your opinion, is this fixable at the owner's level or is it someting that a gun smith should perform?

[Deanimator]

Honestly, if I really had a choice in purchasing a new revolver without the lock...I'd do so. Ok D...lets resolve the revolver issue w/locks that we do own. I have read somewhere on here where an owner just filed the offender down. In your opinion, is this fixable at the owner's level or is it someting that a gun smith should perform?

1. Why do you need to purchase a NEW revolver? Do you live somewhere where you can't purchase a used one? If NOT, people like RM Vivas and Son and CDNN will sell you a lovely USED S&W revolver that doesn't have a mind of its own. I just bought an M&P from Vivas right after Christmas.

2. Check out the appropriate threads on www.smith-wessonforum.com. There may be some here too. I haven't done anything except skim the modification threads since I'll never own a gun with the lock anyway.

3. For obvious liability reasons, the odds of a gunsmith doing the work for you are probably quite slim. You probably have no choice but to remove it yourself.

I'm not trying to talk you out of buying an S&W revolver with a lock. I'm trying to talk you out of making demonstrably incorrect statements.

Supportable Statement - "I don't care about the lock. I don't think it will malfunction when I need to shoot the gun."

Insupportable Statement - "The locks don't malfunction, EVER. That's only 'operator malfunction' by people who don't know how to shoot a gun."

I think it's everybody's choice whether to buy a revolver with or without the lock (unfortunately not a NEW revolver). I just think that should be an INFORMED choice. Telling somebody that they NEVER malfunction because of the lock is MISinformation.

Do a search on "deactivate lock" here and on www.smith-wessonforum.com. I'm sure you'll find what you're looking for.

[Archie]

Bad.

[tango3065]

Don't like them because its just one more thing that can go wrong, I permanently disable them before they ever get shot.

[Troutman]

One has to appreciate to their creator (whoever that might be), that one has those choices to make when it comes to purchasing a firearm of ones’ choice.
Lets' pray!

[mdao]

Honestly, if I really had a choice in purchasing a new revolver without the lock...I'd do so. Ok D...lets resolve the revolver issue w/locks that we do own. I have read somewhere on here where an owner just filed the offender down. In your opinion, is this fixable at the owner's level or is it someting that a gun smith should perform?

I am fairly mechanically inclined, but don't have any experience with gunsmithing. It still took me only 5 minutes to completely remove the lock from the S&W 386PD I picked up yesterday. Before that, I hadn't opened the side plate on any revolver.

Now only if there was a good way to fill in that damned hole.

[Deanimator]

Haven't some people used cut-off .22lr cases? I've seen people use those to fill the holes left when the iron sights are removed from a High Standard target pistol.

[Old Fuff]

If I was faced with that problem I would thread the hole, and then screw in a plug. Red LocTite would insure the plug didn't move. ;)

[jad0110]

Red LocTite would insure the plug didn't move.

Is Red LocTite the strongest variety? I've utilized the blue stuff before, but how do they compare?

Thanks!

[Old Fuff]

Blue is designed so that a screw won't vibrate or work loose, but can still be removed with a bit of effort and a correctly ground screwdriver. Red is intended for those that you don't ever plan to remove.

[shu]

The problem which internal locks solve is "How to raise the cost of firearms."

Internal locks raise the cost of firearms directly and indirectly. Directly by the small added cost of design and manufacture. Indirectly by litigation.

Imagine: "The reason my son was able to discharge the gun was because the internal lock failed. Therefore S&W/Ruger/etc is responsible for this unfortunate shooting."

Imagine; "The reason my husband died was because the key jammed as he was trying to unlock the pistol. Therefore S&W/Ruger/etc is responsible for the death of my husband from the intruders.

Internal locks are no particularly noteworthy way to solve the problem "How to make firearms safe." Firearms supposed to be dangerous. There are two ways to mitigate a danger: mechanical fix (e.g. heavy trigger pull; keep unloaded until time of need) and procedural fix (e.g. keep pointed downrange; keep finger off trigger). There are already plenty of mechanical fixes without the need of internal locks.

jmho

[BryanP]

As an option I have no problem with them.

As a company decision "We're making all our guns this way now" I have little problem with them. That's the decision of the company in question and I have the choice to buy from their competition.

Mandated externally is where I have a problem with them.

[Troutman]

<<Actually, it's only one state that requires an INTERNAL lock, Maryland.>>

New York and Connecticut requires them as well. Other states?
Texas does not require them.

[Waywatcher]

Integral locks: good or bad?

When they're optional, its fine.

When its required, it's unwelcome.

I avoid guns with the locks, and I really wish some of the new S&W's had it as an option.
At least they could be a replaceable part, like Remington Shotgun J-locks.

I realize you can disable the S&W lock, but it's still a wart and unlike the Remingtons--it leaves a trace.

[c1ogden]

At best the internal locks are just something else to break and render your firearm inoperative when you need it most. At worst, its the loss of our guns.

Once you have a proven and accepted gun design it is improper to add anything that doesn't enhance accuracy or reliability. Adding complexity always reduces reliability because the additional parts are just more things that can break. If the additional parts increase accuracy then you are trading some reliability for enhanced accuracy.

Internal locks are like that doohickey in the newer cars that won't let you shift out of "park" without putting your foot on the brake. This is an attempt, probably prompted by the company's lawyers, to replace proper driver training with a gizmo. What happens when it breaks? I'll tell you what happens. What happens is cops like me go on dangerous calls alone because thier partner is stranded on the other side of town with a patrol car that has just become a very large paper-weight. What if it was worse? What if you were out with your child who suddenly needed life saving medical care and your only means of transportation became inoperative because of the failure of a part that shouldn't have been there in the first place?

The same thing applies to internal gun locks. I've only seen 2 of them break but I'm sure its happened more than that. In one case it was because a nervous owner broke a key in the lock while trying to use the gun in response to a forced entry to her home. I don't know what caused the other malfunction but we couldn't get the gun to work.

At worst, these things are a ticket to the banning of firearms altogether. What happens when enough of these things have been sold that your state's malfeasant politicians pass a law that says they must be kept locked at all times, until you are ready to use it. What happens when they pass a law that says these guns are "safer" (at least for the criminals that are attacking you) than other guns so now all other guns are banned! Think it can't happen? That law is already on the books here in NJ. Its called the smart gun law. When the smart gun technology is deemed to be "viable", only smart guns will be legal here in NJ. You can keep your other guns but you won't be able to buy any more and you won't be able to transfer them to anybody in NJ. California also banned standard S&W guns. I'm not familiar with thier requirements but I see many Smiths on Gunbroker marked "not for sale in California". Of course, in both states, cops are exempt. The reason given, at least in NJ is that cops need reliable firearms. That can only mean that the politicians think the rest of you don't.

I'm a big S&W fan and own dozens of thier products, but I'll never buy one with an internal lock.

[Thaddeus Jones]

c1ogden, Well said. Amen.

[thales]

*


I keep hitting the horse but she no move.


*