[2ndamd]

How many have actually disabled their S&W internal lock?

[Just Jim]

I would never buy a Smith with the lock so count me out.

jim

[22-rimfire]

Not me. They stay un-locked, but they are still lockable as designed by the factory. Removal or disabling of the lock eventually hurts the value of the firearm. If you don't want locks, buy pre-lock guns.

[Euclidean]

If you don't want locks, buy pre-lock guns.

If you don't mind buying a used gun.

That is, assuming you can find one.

And it doesn't cost more than a new one.

And it's not shot loose or in need of expensive repair.

And that they ever made a pre lock version of the gun in question in the first place.

Yes a pre lock version is the ideal solution, but it's getting harder and harder to swing that as supply shrinks and prices soar.

You could theoretically I suppose open the sideplate and go through some elaborate adjustment to deactivate the thing. Of course you can't actually remove the possibility of failure anyway, nor can you get a sideplate sans spider hole. Oh and good luck getting S&W to help you in the event anything goes south.

Or you can do what I do, turn the thing to "off" and ignore it, pay too much for a used one if it's even available, or buy a Ruger.

[Brasso]

None of my S&W's have a lock.

[GTSteve03]

or buy a Ruger.
This is the correct answer. ;)

[magsnubby]

It only takes a few minutes and a Dremel to "unlock" the internal lock. I "unlocked" both my 642 and my 66.

[ironvic]

I don't mess with any internal parts on my Smiths. Consider that there were other, older S&Ws with locks, like the lemon squeezer Centennials. Now, if I came across a nice old Smith with a pinned and disabled backstrap lock, I'd pass on it, same as with one with the trigger guard filed on the right side or cut away forward.

Messing with the originality of any gun destroys its history and shouldn't be done. There's also the liability problem. Shoot someone in self defense or accidentally damage someone's property with your modified Smith and see how much extra your lawyer adds to his fee to explain how it came about that you disabled the safety on your gun.

Finally, my post-lock 686, out of the box, has just about the smoothest action and slickest trigger of any S&W that I've owned to date, and it's on par with a couple of Performance Center models I've owned. So I'd get a pre-lock or just enjoy your post lock Smith and keep it unlocked. BTW save those keys! They'll add value when future generations price that vintage post-lock Smith next to the particle ray guns on some future dealer's shelf.

Ironvic

[2ndamd]

That's where I am at.
I buy Rugers mostly anyway. But, have considered the 642 for CCW. I guess I just need to keep an eye out for a used 642-1 that is +p rated and does not have the lock.

The SP101's are getting harder to carry in the summer. I have been CCW one (or two) for almost 8 years now. In the summer wearing jeans and pocket carry one with another one on the ankle. In the winter it is easy to strong side carry in a Don Hume H721 OT. I have found several pre-+p rated light weights that were in good condition after checking them out with range rod. But, kinda wanted to stay with the +p ammo.

Guess I just have to keep my eyes open and not compromise my principle of never buying any gun with an internal lock.

[Wakal]

Messing with the originality of any gun destroys its history and shouldn't be done

Unless you believe that guns are made to be shot, and not just put on a shelf and looked at.

I don't own any "lookin'" guns :)

If I don't like something about a gun, I fix it. Matter of fact, I make fair money running a shop that does just that for other people, so I suspect that I am not alone ;)

There is no place on a gun designed for serious use for a silly "locking" feature that isn't designed to be deactivated on use...like the lemon-squeezer safety and such-like. Now that real shooters report that real Slick and Weasel locks are really (unintentially) activating under real use, there is no reason to have one...ever...on a shootin' gun...



Alex

[pinkymingeo]

I've deactivated several. As mentioned earlier, only takes a few minutes with a dremel. The locking "flag" is available from S&W for four bucks and change. I have a new one for each I've deactivated, so I can return the gun to stock configuration in a couple of minutes. While I'm not a fan of the lock, I really like the scandium framed Smiths, so I'm stuck with them. Don't have to leave them intact, though.

[Standing Wolf]

Yes a pre lock version is the ideal solution, but it's getting harder and harder to swing that as supply shrinks and prices soar.

No shortage in Colorado that I've ever encountered.

I won't have a gun with a lock or an idiot message stamped anywhere.

[mobayjd]

I have a S&W 66 with lock, never use it no problem, this is the best trigger I,ve had on a smith and I,ve owned many.
As far as the horror stories go {unintentional locking etc} I would think some of these guns are used in law enforcement, if it were to lock itself? in a self defense situation Don,t you think S&W would be liable?
Shoot Safe

[Old Fuff]

I'm another one that doesn't have a problem because I don't own an S&W revolver with a lock. If I did a drop of blue Loc-Tite would prevent any problems, and if I needed to (highly unlikely) I could restore the lock's function.

Trigger guards: There was a reason for both thinned and cut-away trigger guards. S&W made some revolvers with thinned guards, and Colt did some with the guard cut away at the front. Both were used by a long who's who list of highly respected and knowledgeable lawmen among others.

Like many other I tend to stick to earlier revolvers - not so much because of the lock, which is a factor - but for other reasons that I consider to be more important. I understand that it is economically and perhaps legally impossible for S&W and others to make guns like they used too, but so long as older guns are available I have a choice, and I'll exercise that option.

I sure hope the rest of you will go out and buy the new stuff... I highly recommend it for others beside myself... :evil::evil: :rolleyes:

[DMK]

I just put the keys in the box, put the box away and ignore the lock.

Personally, I think it's a non-issue and the whole uproar was started by those who wanted to make their older S&Ws worth more. But that's just me.

[theNoid]

I would never buy a Smith with the lock so count me out.

Not targeting Jim here in this thread, but more like just wondering about all of the people who make this statement and stick buy it.

Do you in fact only buy old muscle cars and antique vehicles to avoid the damn seat belts? If you are a cycle rider, would you never ride a bike in a helmet-law state? Would you never buy a boat just because it has an anti-syphon valve on the fuel tank?

I own a S&W 617 with the lock. I don't like the lock there because it was mandatory, but it has absolutely no bearing on how great of a gun/shooter it is, so I just leave it be and continue to love the gun. I have owned a 686 in the past as well with the lock, guess what, I just left it alone and it never gave me a single problem either. Both guns having thousands upon thousands of rounds through them.
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:mwqvSzGV_ev5PM:www.motorimania.net/manifestazioni/supercar/images/McLaren.F1.Gt.2.jpg

I mean shoot folks, I can't stand the third brake light on new McLaren F1, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't buy one if I could afford it.

Noidster

[gudel]

I just put the keys in the box, put the box away and ignore the lock.

Personally, I think it's a non-issue and the whole uproar was started by those who wanted to make their older S&Ws worth more. But that's just me.

Not just you, count me in. Just put the lock away, and it has never bothered me.
If you prefer to buy used non lock smith, that's fine. Just don't forget your tinfoil hat while you're at it.

[Z71]

I have lots of Smiths, no locks. Just don't appeal to me enough to buy one. The lock looks pretty Micky Mouse to me, have heard to many problems with guns locking themselves during recoil. The later revolvers with the locks just ain't for me.

[GTSteve03]

Do you in fact only buy old muscle cars and antique vehicles to avoid the damn seat belts? If you are a cycle rider, would you never ride a bike in a helmet-law state? Would you never buy a boat just because it has an anti-syphon valve on the fuel tank?
The problem with this comparison is that it's 180 degrees from what the lock is for on the post-agreement S&Ws.

All those examples you listed are designed to protect you from bad things happening.

The lock on S&Ws are there to (supposedly) protect others from doing something and hurting themselves with the gun. However, that gun is originally designed to protect you just like the seat belts and helmets. When a mechanical device is added to this gun that can and has in documented cases caused the gun to fail in it's primary purpose of firing, then that gun is no longer providing you with the protection that it was supposed to when you bought it.

Therefore, the lock, unlike your other examples, is actually harmful to your own safety.

[theNoid]

The lock on S&Ws are there to (supposedly) protect others from doing something and hurting themselves with the gun.

I guess I was under the impression they were there to protect everone, including myself in case of accident or the gun getting into the wrong hands. I could have been wrong, it has happened before. :uhoh:


A quote from another fellow on another forum: The S&W lock issue.
I can only go by what I see in Real Life. In Real Life I have thousands of rounds through my S&W revolvers in ICORE, USPSA, practice, and hunting. Never have I had a single problem.

I have friends who use S&W revolvers for the same. Never a problem.
Out of all the gun game competitions I have been to, both in and out of state, I have never seen a single failure.

I belong to several hunting clubs. Three in state, and two out of state. Never a problem with the members who are handgun hunters and use S&W revolvers.

The internet is a source of fun and entertainment. It can be helpful at times if someone is willing to wade through a bunch of stuff.
It has been said that the internet is a source of information, and even greater source of misinformation. I agree 100% with this assessment.
I will go by what I have seen in Real Life, and with first hand experience
Not by what is said on the internet.....where anything can be said.... and anyone can become an expert.

Now while I haven't known anywhere near as many S&W shooters as this guy, I have known quite a darn few, and likewise have yet to ever hear of any problems with the internal locks except on the internet. Am I saying these things haven't happened? No I am not, but how many actual cases have been documented and proven?

Therefore, the lock, unlike your other examples, is actually harmful to your own safety.

As mentioned, I have yet to hear or see in person a lock of ever doing such things. On the other hand, I have been stranded about 30 miles offshore because of an anti-syphon valve failing. Being a boat mechanic by trade, I have seen it on a few occasions actually. Does this mean I stop buying all boats because the are required to have them when manufactured...nope. They are pretty well designed devices that in most cases do their job as normal, protecting not only me, but everyone around me.

Noidster

[spwenger]

Now, if I came across a nice old Smith with a pinned and disabled backstrap lock, I'd pass on it, same as with one with the trigger guard filed on the right side or cut away forward.
The first-generation Centennials, with the grip safeties (Model 40 and 42), came from the factory with a pin under one grip panel, for those who preferred to pin the safety in the "fire" position. If you find one that you don't want, because the safety has been pinned, please let me know - I could use another for my collection, The pin slides out as easily as it slides in, once you remove the grip stocks.

(The reason that some people opted to pin the grip safety is that, according to hand size and shape, for some users the safety might not be depressed reliably each time the gun is grasped.)

[Old Fuff]

ironvic:

Consider that there were other, older S&Ws with locks, like the lemon squeezer Centennials. Now, if I came across a nice old Smith with a pinned and disabled backstrap lock, I'd pass on it, same as with one with the trigger guard filed on the right side or cut away forward.

The revolvers you cited were made by S&W so that the grip safety could be disabled. All that was required was to remove the stocks take out the lock-out pin, squeeze in the grip safety, and drop the pin into the manufacture-provided hole. Doing the reverse would make the safety functional again.

Then the gun owner had a choice, and the choice was made available by the Smith & Wesson company. Today's lock doesn't offer a buyer any options. As I stated in an earlier post, I can easily live with the lock, but don't chose to do so for other reasons.

Some folks don't mind the lock, and may even prefer it. Others don't and for whatever reasons buy older guns without the lock - or other "improvements." It boils down to a matter of choice. So long as I can buy what I like I don't care about what others buy or like. That's their business.

I do note however, that in times past Smith & Wesson's management was wise enough to understand the importance of giving consumers a choice.

Oh, and if you do come across an older Centennial that's pinned, please send me a PM. I'm not above removing the stocks and pulling that pin... ;)

[Just Jim]

Noid

Not targeting Jim here in this thread, but more like just wondering about all of the people who make this statement and stick buy it.

Do you in fact only buy old muscle cars and antique vehicles to avoid the damn seat belts? If you are a cycle rider, would you never ride a bike in a helmet-law state? Would you never buy a boat just because it has an anti-syphon valve on the fuel tank?

I own a S&W 617 with the lock. I don't like the lock there because it was mandatory, but it has absolutely no bearing on how great of a gun/shooter it is, so I just leave it be and continue to love the gun. I have owned a 686 in the past as well with the lock, guess what, I just left it alone and it never gave me a single problem either. Both guns having thousands upon thousands of rounds through them.

Change isn't always a good thing. When Colt came out with the series 80 and the fireing pin block I bought one. I went out to shoot it and it wouldn't fire. Seems when it came from the factory it was just a little off in the trigger enough to drop the hammer but not push up on the plunger far enough to free the fireing pin. The Colt was put back as a toy status and would never be used for self defense.

Smith chose a bad design for their lock in my opinion and I won't buy a new gun. I have plenty of old Smiths to shoot without the lock including a 6 shot 617 that is one of the finest weapons I own. A lock isn't going to make it a better shooter and there is no reason for it to have one.

Am I an old guy that has certian values I stick with? You bet I am and getting to this stage I feel I know what is best for me. The rest of you guys have the freedom to buy what you want form whoever you want as the way you spend your money is one of the great freedoms we enjoy in America. Heck guys like you probably love Chinese products:banghead::neener:

jim

[Hawk]

I got interested in revolvers relatively recently and for those of us "new on the scene" whether through accident of birth or inclination, the available supply of pre-lock models is dwindling. I don't like locks or bulletin board rollmarks but there is something I dislike more than either: paying a grossly premium price for a used product.

I don't have a S&W with lock (yet) but suspect my time is limited. If the lock is on something more or less "normal", I'll likely just leave it. If it's on one of those outer space things that Michael Bane reported self-locking, I'll probably slather it up with thread locker. The Bane lock-up was on a modified product but I can't see where the modfication could possibly be called to account by anyone other than a warrantee department employee.

[Ohen Cepel]

I'm with Jim on this one.
"I would never buy a Smith with the lock so count me out."

[pinkymingeo]

Most FTF's I've read about that were blamed on the lock clearly were the result of something entirely different. If the lock self-engages, the hammer won't move. Take strain off the hammer and push down on the locking "flag" with a fingernail. It'll unlock, if that's the problem. The flag is kept out of the way by a very small spring, which can be mispositioned during assembly of the firearm. The credible problems I've read about happened on the gun's first or second trip to the range, giving further evidence of a factory screwup. If you raise the flag with a pen tip or equivalent, and upon release it snaps home cleanly, the lock is not going to self-engage.

[Thaddeus Jones]

No locks here either. They are just another place for Mr. Murphy to hide.

Since none of my S&W revolvers have one, it's a non issue for me too!

[Black_Talon]

Legal Notice: I would never deliberately bypass or modify a manufacturer-installed safety feature.

That said, every one of my Smiths that come with the lock are totally dissembled when I first get them home. This allows me to clean and inspect the interior parts for burrs, etc. While I'm doing this, I disassemble the lock mechanism and clean it thoroughly with degreaser, then reassemble it. The funny thing is, after I do that, I always manage to accidentally spill a few drops of the green (penetrating) Loc-tite into the lock mechanism. After it sets up the lock is virtually glued together and there's no way to tell that anything foreign was spilled in there. :)

[Just Jim]

pinkymingeo
Most FTF's I've read about that were blamed on the lock clearly were the result of something entirely different. If the lock self-engages, the hammer won't move. Take strain off the hammer and push down on the locking "flag" with a fingernail. It'll unlock, if that's the problem. The flag is kept out of the way by a very small spring, which can be mispositioned during assembly of the firearm. The credible problems I've read about happened on the gun's first or second trip to the range, giving further evidence of a factory screwup. If you raise the flag with a pen tip or equivalent, and upon release it snaps home cleanly, the lock is not going to self-engage.

Do you ask the bad guys to hold their fire while you fingernail the safety:o

That lock has no place on a defensive weapon.

jim

[cottonmouth]

I don't care for the lock, I have 18 S&W's and 17 of them are lock free. My X frame 500 has it. I am thinking of doing away with it but I haven't made up my mind yet. It's only used for deer hunting and plinking so I may keep it.:confused: If there was an oversized thumb safety that would cover the hole I'd do it for sure. I also have a 50th anniversary Ruger Blackhawk that has a lock but the good ole boys at Ruger had enough sense to hid the thing under the grips, why can't the Smith boys do this? If they started I bet you could get the current models for a song.

J.B.

[CU74]

As we so often do, we've taken this discussion to the dead-horse Lawyer Lock discussion............

None of my Smiths have Hillary Holes. I buy what I want to with my money, and that includes old Colts, older Smiths and older Rugers. I support your right to do the same with your money. (I also don't really give a Schumer whether you agree with me or not................)

[Choclabman]

If a person wanted to remove the IL, it would not be hard. I would have to wonder what would happen if you used such a revolver for SD. The DA may not may not file charges but the revolver will be examined if a civil suit follows.
Just thinking.

[DawgFvr]

Lock, schmock...I just don't use it...no big deal to me, so why should it bother someone else who doesn't own my gun? The only S&W I own is a 642 with a lock. The trigger is terrible...the barrel is mishapen and I can barely hit the target beyond 7 yards with the minisucle barrel...but hey, it goes bang every time I pull the trigger and it is light and fits in my front pocket. This will be my last S&W...but I will keep it until Ruger comes out with a light frame pocket revolver that is comparable. Damn...I wish Taurus still made those small framed Total Titanium .44 specials or, even better, the .45 Long Colt again in the smaller, light, 5 round pocket snubby.

[Jomax]

Unlocked but untampered with.

[Gator]

I would have to wonder what would happen if you used such a revolver for SD. The DA may not may not file charges but the revolver will be examined if a civil suit follows. Just thinking.

And how would the lock figure into an SD shooting? The IL is for disabling the gun while it is unattended, that is all it is for. Would a civil suit claim that the shooter should have been carrying the gun with the lock engaged so the victim wouldn't have been shot?

[Troutman]

Besides the lock.
I don’t like the slotted screws (frame). Hex-screws are better. When it comes to wood stocks on handguns. Why not make a plug (wood) for the screw? The screw, showing…… is ugly looking and defaces (drilling the hole) the wood.
The cylinder turning (during firing), from right to left, bothers me!!!, why not have it turn, left to right?
I’m not going to buy any more handguns! Sell off the ones I have! Hopeless….Handguns!

[Old Fuff]

The cylinder turning (during firing), from right to left, bothers me!!!, why not have it turn, left to right?

The hand (the part that revolves the cylinder) is located on the right-hand side, so it pushes the cylinder to the left.

Not to worry. Buy an older Colt. They revolve the cylinder from left to right.

Custom grip-maker Guy Houge has a system where the stocks are one-piece, and held on by a single screw that comes up from the bottom. It's located where you usually don't see it.

[stevereno1]

It is sad that S&W succombed to the clinton administration when they were no longer american owned. Now that they are back in american hands, they still have to comply with the mandatory lock deal. S&W needs to get some lawyers on this and start selling revolvers without the internal locks before i will buy one. Gunwrtier Michael Bane had a S&W revolver "lock up" on him while firing and he's out of the S&W revolver game now.

[Gator]

The Clinton deal is dead and has nothing to do with current S&W design. Also, S&W is owned by a lock company! Don't expect them to give up on the lock. It would be nice if they relocated it though, along the lines of the Ruger or even Taurus locks.

[Marshall]

Except for being an eyesore, it doesn't keep me from buying one I like.

[stevereno1]

As I am capable of using common sense when it comes to gun safety, and particularly revolver safety, I would prefer anything that I can't control, like a key safety, not be installed on my gun. S&W signed onto a deal that makes it maditory for all revolvers to have the "hillary hole" there is no other reason for the internal lock except for that.

[Gator]

Not that it makes a big difference in the end result, but you are confusing two different companies, and two different deals.

[fastbolt]

My M&P 340 Centennial has functioned just fine, with various ammunition ranging from standard & +P .38 Spl to full-power .357 Magnum loadings.

I can think of at least one other guy at work, who picked up a 442-2, who has received reliable service with his lock-equipped J-frame with both standard pressure and +P loads. He shoots it a bit, too.

I've also heard from someone at the factory that in some instances it has been wondered if the locking arm spring may not have been improperly installed during production.

The flag is kept out of the way by a very small spring, which can be mispositioned during assembly of the firearm. Yep, the torque lock spring, installed in the locking arm, is a very small spring. I could also see how positioning the spring leg in the small recessed shelf in the frame could be done improperly.

My M&P J-frame's locking mechanism is still in normal functioning condition, and it'll remain so ...

I'd rather it were an option, though.

[Choclabman]

And how would the lock figure into an SD shooting? The IL is for disabling the gun while it is unattended, that is all it is for. Would a civil suit claim that the shooter should have been carrying the gun with the lock engaged so the victim wouldn't have been shot?
__________________


Very simple. Malicious Intent. We all know, what the idiotic IL is for. In a SD shooting, the DA may not inspect/have the weapon inspected. In a Civil Suit, it will be. An Attorney will/can use the disabling of a safety feature as the "victim" meant malicious intent.
I was involved in a SD shooting, when I was younger. The DA ruled in was justified. The family of the deceased, brought a civil suit. Their Attorney had my P220 inspected. He/they wanted to find some type of alteration to the firearm. They did not. I ended up winning the suit.
As far a disabling the IL. Why give the bottom feeders ammo, to use against you.

[tango3065]

Jomax you IM isn't working could you contact me if you would be intrested in selling the eagle sp101 grips that you said in another (older) thread that you threw in the draw.

[doc2rn]

As stated previously +1 for 2 drops of Loc-Tight. Better safe than sorry.

[Old Fuff]

fastbolt:

Yep, the torque lock spring, installed in the locking arm, is a very small spring. I could also see how positioning the spring leg in the small recessed shelf in the frame could be done improperly.

Assume for argument that the lock came from the factory correctly assembled, but the revolver’s owner or some other person improperly assembled the spring later. Or that in an emergency the owner forgot that the revolver was locked, and didn't notice the flag... :uhoh:

This couldn't possibly happen in one of my earlier non-lock guns...

Those who seek to protect us from ourselves always forget or ignore the unintended consequences.

In a defensive weapon, the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principal is golden. :scrutiny:

[JERRY]

i own 12 S&W wheelys, none have a built in lock. that defeats the purpose of my guns as they are for self defense.

more expensive?! are you kidding? go to gunbroker and surf a little. the used guns are "sometimes" equal in price, but according to S&W's own web site the new guns are quite a bit more expensive.

and if you buy a used non locked S&W that needs repair, they will fix it at minimal cost to you and you will then have essentially a "new" unlocked gun....

i know, ive done it and still do it....

what gun model do you want? a snubby .357? or a plinker .22lr, hows about a 4" duty sized magnum...? i will find it on gunbroker usually within a week and for a reasonable price.

p.s. i dont care for Ruger's bill board stampings either, but thats just estetics(sp?) nothing that could hinder the function in dire need.

[DawgFvr]

It's fairly easy to remove the "Bill Board' stampings...and, personally, I do not care to purchase used, worn out revolvers. Ruger is the future.

[JERRY]

Dawg, i could agree with you on that IF they made a light weight concealed hammer small frame wheely. that is where S&W shines over most others....

[rtrwv]

I leave them the way the are, with locks.

[steveracer]

I remove them. They come right out. Takes like five minutes, and they go right back in. I do the same with Springfield 1911s and the magazine disconnect on S&W autos and Browning HPs. These are items that have no place in a safe shooter's guns. It's downright silly. A manual safety, a long DA trigger pull, even a grip safety or one of those triggeer things on Glocks are all pretty darn safe and reliable items. Adding crap in the way of a good trigger or piece of mind is just silly.

[fastbolt]

but the revolver’s owner or some other person improperly assembled the spring later.

Unfortunately, that sort of thing keeps gunsmiths & factory technicians employed.

Why, I even had one of our issued service pistols returned in a plastic bag in pieces - with a couple pieces missing - because one of our folks thought he could, and should, detail-strip the agency-owned firearm himself. :banghead:

Or that in an emergency the owner forgot that the revolver was locked, and didn't notice the flag...

Granted. Although, that's kinda, sorta like how some folks have forgotten to take a S&W TDA, 1911-style or Browning HP Off-Safe under stress ... ;)

This couldn't possibly happen in one of my earlier non-lock guns... In a defensive weapon, the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principal is golden.

Yep. Agree.

That's why I wish the revolver ILS was an optional feature.

It wouldn't be all that hard to start offering it as an option, providing non-ILS models with a cosmetic plug of some sort ... and then see which models sell the most, ILS vs. non-ILS.

I suspect the ILS, and its ilk, are eventually coming at us somewhere down the road on all new production firearms, at some point, though ...

I've picked up a couple more older S&W revolvers myself, and will probably pick up a couple more ... and plan to keep the rest of my pre-ILS models.

I also like Ruger revolvers.

The sad part is that while I've been a Ruger user since I was young, the last couple of NIB Ruger DA revolvers I've received have both required repair in order to function normally. One required new parts, and the other just required removal of a nasty burred edge that was causing a problem. Of course, I have an early model Ruger P-90 that required a new slide because of what was described as a tempering problem, too. ;)

[2ndamd]

Thanks Jerry for the offer. I am looking for a lightweight concealed hammer .38 +P. Basically a 642-1 that has no IL and is +P rated.

DawgFvr: I like Rugers ALOT!!!! But, looking for a little lighter package, like a 642-1 for CCW. I have several Rugers all .357 magnums and all SP101s and GP100s. Great guns! My favorite in fact.

Thanks to everyone who posted info about cleaning your gun. Some really helpful info posted here about two drops and stuff :)

[mnw42]

I have a 22-4 TRR with the lock and I have had no problem with it (knock on wood) after the 500 rounds I've shot through it, including +Ps. Quite frankly, I didn't even consider the lock when I bought it.

I do think that a lock is redundant if you keep your guns properly stored and unnecessary if you don't have kids.

To be fair to S&W; if a small few of the locks tie up some early guns, out of the thousands that they have made/sold so far, how big a problem is it? I would agree that one failure can be one failure too many, but I think the lock failure concerns have been blown a little out of proportion. If this happened to a random person would the be the umpteenth thread on the internet about this? This did happen to a well known person and, IMHO, this controversy has somewhat longer legs that I think it other wise would have had.

If the lock really concerns you then consider a used gun or a different manufacture. The glory of the free market is that you can effectively 'vote' with your wallet.

My carry gun is a lock-free Colt Cobra and the majority of the revolvers I want are Colts.

[crankshop1000]

I'm the lone 642 owner that uses and likes the lock.It's handier to simply stow the gun loaded and lock it, then to load and unload every time I strap.

[nitesite]

I currently own but one S&W revolver with "the lock", a 4" Model 686 that my wife bought me for Father's Day a few years ago. Two other S&Ws I've owned with "the lock" have been sold but neither one was sold because of the lock. Of my five S&W revolvers, four were made during the pre-lock era.

My 686's "flag" has been removed and the revolver now performs dual roles as a recreational shooter and as the gun kept loaded for my wife's home defense gun.

[JERRY]

nitesite, you got it right....

a gun with a built in lock that needs a tool to disengage it is indeed a recreational gun, nothing meant for self defense can honestly boast about a disabling devise that you can not deactivate with a flick of the thumb and what not....

i have no problem with true "safeties", even if theyre redundant, but a LOCK is not a safety, it is a LOCK.

a safety helps to protect against accidental or negligent firing of the gun only, a LOCK disables the gun until a tool/key is used to disengage it.....

[rodinal220]

No lock for me,but it goes beyond that.The new lockwork S&W went to is all MIM and not the previous forged and tooled steel.I wont pay the outrageous prices S&W charges for the new guns,they are built like a matchbox car.
Its nice to know they increased their profit margin but decreased quality.
I would buy a Charter Arms over a new style S&W.Ruger currently makes the finest revolvers in the world.

[Guy B. Meredith]

Hey, don't go pulling those locks. When enough hurrah gets the revolvers back into manufacture without locks you'll be looking around for the lock versions as collector items! :rolleyes:

[420Stainless]

I only have one with the lock and I haven't done anything to it. Its a fun gun so I don't care. I might not want a lock on a carry piece, but I prefer semi-autos for that application and have avoided getting any of those with the IL.