[Bill2e]

Is the lock supposed to work with the hammer up, down or both?

I have a Mod 60 and the lock will only work with the hammer UP, which makes no sense to me. I really wish the lock was not there, but it is.:cuss:


I am concerned that it may not be functioning properly.

[Old Fuff]

When you say "up" I presume you mean "cocked," and no - it isn't supposed to work that way. The hammer should be forward at rest when the lock is either engaged or disengaged. Something is wrong here... :uhoh:

And it's an excellent illistration why some of us have no use for internal locks on handguns. They are just one more gadget that isn't necessary, but can go wrong.

[krs]

Tell the truth, I don't know.

We have two revolvers with the lock (out of 18 total) and I've never turned the lock on either out of distrust that doing ANYTHING with it would only give it a chance to screw up the gun.
One of the two is one of my wife's and I told her not to try to use it under any circumstance.

A thing like that, a mandated "safety" gizmo, is bound to be cheaply done and quick to break. By it's location I'd guess that it blocks the cylinder bolt from moving back when the hammer comes back. If applied with the hammer back it would probably jam the cylinder bolt in some unplanned for way.

As you seem to have turned it into play with the hammer back I'd guess that unless you can turn it back you are about to break it and it's little pieces will be loose to jam the tightly fitted remainder of the mechanism.

Why are you messing with the stupid thing at all?

[Bill2e]

I wanted to see how it worked.

I tryed to lock it and it will sort of lock with the hammer uncocked, but as soon as you let the key go it unlocks, Now if you cock the hammer and turn the lock the gun locks up and the thing blocks the hammer from falling.

All in all I really do not trust this thing. I bought the gun used from a large dealer at a fun show, so I am not sure if it was messed with or not.

This internal lock is such a bad Idea, I swore I would never buy one & now I won't buy another. You would thing the big PAD Lock that came with the gun would be enough.

[Old Fuff]

Call Smith & Wesson's service department. They will arrange for shipping the revolver back to the factory, and pay charges both ways. When it's returned the lock, and anything else they find wrong will be fixed. After that you can decide on keeping or selling the gun. :cool:

[.38 Special]

I HATE THE LOCK I'M NEVER BUYING A SMITH & WESSON WITH A LOCK THEY'RE GUARANTEED TO LOCK UP DURING A VIOLENT ENCOUNTER AND YOU WILL DIE AND ANYONE WHO OWNS ONE IS A COMMIE!!!!!!

Just wanted to be the first one in this time.

[Old Fuff]

Well gee....

I never thought that anyone that owned a S&W with a lock was a Commie....

And I don't exactly hate the lock...

It's just that some folks simply lack good judgement.... :evil: :D

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

There is apparently a condition where the lock can be in the lock position while the hammer is cocked as there is a warning in the manual stating "ALWAYS RECOVER FROM A SITUATION WHERE THE REVOLVER HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY LOCKED WITH THE HAMMER COCKED BY FOLLOWING THESE STEPS..."

So, if the hammer is back (cocked) it is possible to be locked. UNLOAD THE WEAPON AND REFER TO YOUR USER MANUAL. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A MANUAL, YOU CAN DOWNLOAD SAME FROM THE SMITH & WESSON WEB SITE.

Obtain a manual at the S&W site here: http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CustomContentDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=11101&content=13015&sectionId=10504

[Hawk]

Sorry, Bill2e, Fuff, et al.

I just don't believe it. I only know what I see and I've not seen a S&W lock sieze up so that means it doesn't happen.

Whether or not anybody believes it has ever happened revolves around whether the "lovers" or the "haters" got to the thread first.

Have I lost my happy mind?
Am I around the bend?

Perhaps. I made the mistake of relating my experience with a Kimber type II failure and was pretty much handed the above verbatim. Oddly enough, a Kimber type II Swartz is unnecessary, adds to the complexity with no apparent benefit and complicates a design that worked just fine without it.

The difference?
Maybe the S&W lock is visible?
Political overtones?

Whatever, they'll both tie up an otherwise perfectly servicable weapon for dubious return. A basic difference is that a first person, zero degrees of separation, report of a S&W lock mishap gets one a digital ticker-tape parade, a total and absolute uncritical acceptance of the story regardless of the position of the "flag" and the story spread far and wide. A similar first person report of a Kimber mishap gets you branded a "hater" and, it would appear, not believed for the most part. Even though us "FPB folks" had a spokesman on par with M. Bane.

So, screw it. If I'm making stuff up, everybody else is too.

Until somebody can explain to me the basic difference in a S&W lock and a Kimber FPB, both of which turn their host weapons into a door stop, everybody reporting S&W lock mishaps can get stuffed until such time as my first person reports of FPB failures get me a digital ticker tape parade in lieu of a pantload of intertubz skepticism. Fair is fair, right?

Sorry, guy. That's just the way it is - see the "semi-auto" forum for an example of what I'm talking about. Picture that same degree of skepticism being directed against S&W lock failure reports.

Interesting, n'cest pas?

I'm forced to conclude that there's a significant store of S&W lock hatred on hand that washes away the skepticism applied to reports of every other sort of firearm failure.

I'll be all over that lock think as soon as my tales of FPB woes are taken at similar face value.

I'm not holding my breath.
:D

The thread in question:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=399752

On a semi-serious ;) note, I do, in fact, really believe that the S&W lock suffers from prejudice quite apart from, and in addition to, the repugnance that it richly deserves on its own merits. An objective review of any other firearm's similar or related malfs will make that brutally obvious in short order.

Whatever, I still don't like the lock myself. But overdone is overdone.

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

:)Good reading!

Made my morning, you did!:)

[AH-1]

I only have one smith with a lock.it is a 627-5 and not one problem and it is as accurate as my pythons.nice trigger out of the box.
I "used" to be a no lock smith guy not anymore:).
pete

[Old Fuff]

So, if the hammer is back (cocked) it is possible to be locked. UNLOAD THE WEAPON AND REFER TO YOUR USER MANUAL. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A MANUAL, YOU CAN DOWNLOAD SAME FROM THE SMITH & WESSON WEB SITE.

Please explain how to unload a S&W Hand Ejector revolver if the hammer is cocked. To do so you must first open the cylinder, and when the hammer is cocked you cannot do so because the bolt assembly is blocked and won't move forward to unlatch the cylinder.

On a pre-lock revolver the hammer can be lowered, but if the lock, for what ever reason, will not allow the hammer to move when it's cocked, you are not going to be able to unload the revolver until that condition is cured first.

Quite frankly, the lock doesn't bother me that much, because I can (and would) quickly modify it to a condition where it could do no damage. However there are other features that were incorporated into Smith & Wesson revolvers around the same time which cannot be changed or removed. The lock simply serves as a point of identification when I'm making a selection.

[Hawk]

Please explain how to unload a S&W Hand Ejector revolver if the hammer is cocked. To do so you must first open the cylinder, and when the hammer is cocked you cannot do so because the bolt assembly is blocked and won't move forward to unlatch the cylinder.
Correct. This is the manual entry on the deal:
WARNING: ALWAYS RECOVER FROM A SITUATION WHERE THE REVOLVER HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY LOCKED WITH THE HAMMER COCKED BY FOLLOWING THESE STEPS. THROUGHOUT THIS PROCEDURE, YOU MUST TREAT THE REVOLVER AS IF IT WERE LOADED.

1. WITH YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER AND OUT OF THE TRIGGER GUARD, PLACE THE THUMB OF YOUR SHOOTING HAND ON THE HAMMER AND PULL FULLY REARWARD TO ENSURE THE HAMMER IS IN THE FULLY COCKED POSITION.

2. WITH YOUR FINGER STILL OFF THE TRIGGER AND OUT OF THE TRIGGER GUARD AND THE REVOLVER POINTED IN A SAFE DIRECTION, UNLOCK THE LOCK USING THE KEY PROVIDED.

3. FOLLOW THE DECOCKING PROCEDURE TO DECOCK THE REVOLVER. ALWAYS ASSUME THE REVOLVER IS LOADED WHILE FOLLOWING THIS PROCEDURE.

4. OPEN THE CYLINDER AND VERIFY THE REVOLVER IS UNLOADED.

The position of the cylinder has no relationship to the locked status of the revolver.

When the revolver is properly locked, the cylinder may be opened or closed.

However there are other features that were incorporated into Smith & Wesson revolvers around the same time which cannot be changed or removed. The lock simply serves as a point of identification when I'm making a selection.
Yup. But, if I'm thinking of the same "other features" you are, it seems some are negotiable. Forged hammers and triggers are still available, nice finishes, pinned sears, barrels with rifling that looks normal to my admittedly uneducated eye. It's pretty frustrating that, at least for the time being, the lock isn't negotiable on the pinned sear, forged part product.

SCoSW notes that the Performance Center doesn't modify existing product - the stuff is made from scratch - they have 2 CNC machines all to themselves. Hence, the "all the frames have the hole" argument fails to convince in the specific case of PC product. The Performance Center could leave the lock off easily unless SCoSW is in error, which I would bet it isn't.

[Old Fuff]

2. WITH YOUR FINGER STILL OFF THE TRIGGER AND OUT OF THE TRIGGER GUARD AND THE REVOLVER POINTED IN A SAFE DIRECTION, UNLOCK THE LOCK USING THE KEY PROVIDED.

So be sure you always have the key at all times, and that the lock will always turn when the key is inserted.

If my head wasn't screwed on I'd forget it most of the time, let alone a key... :uhoh: :D

Oh, and the older "real steel" lockwork won't interchange into the newer revolvers. When they went to MIM parts they redesigned them so a trained monkey could do the assembly work. Also the hammer had to be modified to work with the lock.

Much faster and less costly for them, but not necessarily what I want.

[Bill2e]

All I know is the GUN i just bought locks when cocked & does not lock when not cocked.

I called smith & they said to send it back to them on my dime & they would look at it.

When I asked about removing the lock they OH NO WE CAN"T DO THAT. (which I expected)

I have zero faith in the lock & bought the gun to carry, well it may now just be a range gun.

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

I have locks on two of my Smiths and they don't worry me at all.:uhoh:

[Deanimator]

Oh, and the older "real steel" lockwork won't interchange into the newer revolvers. When they went to MIM parts they redesigned them so a trained monkey could do the assembly work. Also the hammer had to be modified to work with the lock.

Much faster and less costly for them, but not necessarily what I want.
What I find interesting is that apart from some anecdotal evidence of them changing the power of one spring, there doesn't seem to have been ANY effort on S&W's part to make the lock either more reliable or less obtrusive.

It seems to me that for whatever reason, S&W not only insists on A lock, but THAT lock. The design is clearly problematic and it's cosmetically unattractive. Why are they SO committed to THAT lock design which undeniably has problems?

They remind me of IBM and the first IBM PC-ATs. IBM gave a tiny hard drive manufacturer (CMI) a HUGE contract for hard drives which they couldn't possibly fill. So the contractor subcontracted the work out to others who couldn't hold the specs. Drives were failing all over the place, but IBM flatly denied there was a problem at all until the evidence was simply irrefutable. A third party drive manufacturer embarassed them by offering some kind of a trade for your dead CMI drive. The competitor then loaded a derelict freighter that had famously washed up in a woman's beachfront yard with the dead drives, sailed it out to sea and scuttled it to form an artificial reef.

Anybody aware of even RUMORS that they've done anything to improve either the reliability or the appearance/location of the lock?

[Thaddeus Jones]

Yes, they have released 442's and 642's without it. Doesn't get any more improved than that!!:D

[ArchAngelCD]

Obviously this couldn't happen if there were no lock on the revolver but it is there. The reason the guns become "jammed" is someone trying to lock the gun incorrectly. The proper procedure is in the manual. (don't ask how I know! LOL)

[Bill2e]

I still for the life of me can not see how this lock with the little key that every smith owner has is better than the cable lock that come in the box.

I mean seriously, you pick up your gun and all you have is that little flap to tell if locked or not. With the cable lock it is pretty obvious.

and the cable as no chance to lock it self when unintended.

My smith is on the way back to the factory & will be for sale when it returns.

[Deanimator]

The reason the guns become "jammed" is someone trying to lock the gun incorrectly.
MAYBE, in SOME cases. In at least as many, the lock has NEVER been USED once it's left the factory. It's still failed. If the ONLY problem was people not using the lock properly, the factory wouldn't be replacing springs, which they have admitted to doing in the service paperwork returned with guns that had lock failures.

[Hawk]

I'm going to hop onto this thread rather than resurrect the one where we were discussing the mechanics of lock failure.

In brief, it appears that the hammer is locked in a "near cocked" position during recoil (in the somewhat common description of spontaneous tie-up). This seems counter intuitive as the hammer has no business being in that position during recoil - it should be forward.

Anyhoo, I found where a report clearly states that the hammer rebounds back to a "nearly cocked" position. It was hiding in plain sight at Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lock_Fail.JPG
Lock failure on an S&W 329. The lock failed two times consecutively while firing 240 gr .44 Magnum loads. The hammer rebounded back part way and the flag came up temporarily tying the revolver up. The flag would drop and the revolver would function normally after the hammer was pulled back to release the tension on the locking mechanism. The cylinder did not rotate, the just fired brass was still under the firing pin.
This is consistent with Michael Bane's report.

So, despite being counter intuitive and being dismissed by my favorite revolver guru, I'm guessing it might be prudent to reconsider whether a hammer really does come nearly all the way back in recoil against the pressure of the mainspring. This would seem consistent with "The cylinder did not rotate, the just fired brass was still under the firing pin." as the trigger / hand isn't moving during this time.

Presumably, this "sorta self-cocking" hammer, if indeed it happens, applies only to the helium framed models with epic recoil - it surely wouldn't extend to something like a 617.

Anyhow, it has nothing to do with anyone's opinion of the lock but it's probably worthwhile to understand the dynamics of the more common failure.

So I bring it before the jury again: does the hammer indeed rebound as described in the link during recoil?

[krs]

there are certainly many people with refined and speedy skills with revolvers but a fellow who could insert his key and apply his lock durng the improbable occurance of a hammer recocking in rebound from recoil would be something to see - even worth a small admission fee.

Until I can go and buy my ticket to have such a thing proven right before my very eyes I'm not having any of that, Wikipedia verification notwithstanding.

[krs]

If there had been an installation of a too light rebound slide spring, something that is as much as encouraged by the Wolff spring people, then maybe some sort of error that appeared to be related to a hammer back condition could take place and that would explain why S&W showed spring replacement on the invoice of a lock failure repair. This just a guess.

Naturally the owner would disavow any knowledge of any such modification.

[Hawk]

Perhaps I should have resurrected the other thread rather than derail this one but part of what is bothering me is a Cunningham response to a Tamara post:
...the flag, which is the part which actually locks the hammer, is shaped in such a way as to distribute its mass toward the greatest distance from its fulcrum. This translates to a moment of inertia which easily overwhelms the very weak return spring, allowing the flag to move into the locked position.

Here's where it gets whooly: inertia is only acting on the flag during movement of the frame. If the thing flipped to the locked position with the hammer forward it'd lock in that position but there's more than one report of the thing engaging with the hammer back. This implies the hammer did get kicked rearward.

Assume a too weak or missing lock spring, just for the sake of discussion. This is more a physics question than a lock issue. Postulating a reduced power mainspring is reasonable. Between the fact that self-cocking revolver hammers don't make any sense to me and the observation that Fuff says it doesn't happen I'd ordinarily let it go but I can't figure why anyone would fake that picture - there doesn't appear to be much in the way of motivation.

That picture can't happen without substantial hammer rebound (and presumably a grip like a gorilla - it would have to happen when the recoil movement was being stopped - rearward recoil frame movement would presumably paste the hammer forward against the frame).

Hammers that stay forward like good hammers should can't be reconciled with that picture. I'm not likely to lose sleep over it but it's sufficiently weird I'd like to get to the bottom of it.

[Old Fuff]

I haven't seen the picture, so I can't comment on it. But remember, Smith & Wesson and older Colt revolvers rebound the hammer. After it goes all of the way down, releasing the trigger and letting it go forward will cause the hammer to back up for a short distance - but I doubt that this small movement would in itself affect the lock on later S&W revolvers.

All Ruger, current Taurus, and late Colt D.A. revolvers use a transfer bar safety system, and when the hammer drops and goes forward it stays forward. No rebounding feature is used because it isn't needed.

If I was in a mood to experiment (I'm not) I'd pull a S&W revolver apart, coat all of the lock parts with Dykem (a toolmaker's layout dye) carefully reassemble the gun taking care not to move any of the lock parts, and then shoot some hot loads through it. Following this I'd pull the gun apart again and see if any marks left in the dye indicated a part or parts of the lock had moved.

I'm satisfied about two things: (1) The lock can self-lock, and (2) It's something that seldom happens. Sort of like getting hit by lightning while standing under a tree on a golf course during a thunder storm.

But people do get hit by lightning sometimes... :uhoh:

Which is the reason I don't play golf. :scrutiny: :D

[Hawk]

Here 'tis. There's much I don't like about wikipedia but you gotta love the "no copyright".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Lock_Fail.JPG

That hammer is waaay back as compared to what the rebound slide generates.

If one assumes the report is accurate and the photo genuine the puzzle is how the hammer got where it is.

[Deanimator]

If there had been an installation of a too light rebound slide spring, something that is as much as encouraged by the Wolff spring people, then maybe some sort of error that appeared to be related to a hammer back condition could take place and that would explain why S&W showed spring replacement on the invoice of a lock failure repair. This just a guess.

The reports which I've seen indicate that the spring replaced was the LOCK spring.

[Old Fuff]

It appears to me that while the hammer was at full-cock the lock was engaged. Then when the trigger was pulled it went as far forward as you see it. This might have happened when the trigger was deliberately pulled, or the hammer might have been lowered with the user's thumb. If for whatever reason the lock is engaged while the hammer is back I expect this is what you would see happen if the trigger was pulled. I wonder if someone set up the revolver this way to show what could happen, or the picture was taken after it happened. I am sure that recoil didn't kick the hammer back to that position.

I any case I haven't had this happen - and I can assure you it won't... :scrutiny: :evil: ;)

[Hawk]

The description of the event from the Wiki entry:
The lock failed two times consecutively while firing 240 gr .44 Magnum loads. The hammer rebounded back part way and the flag came up temporarily tying the revolver up. The flag would drop and the revolver would function normally after the hammer was pulled back to release the tension on the locking mechanism. The cylinder did not rotate, the just fired brass was still under the firing pin.


I am sure that recoil didn't kick the hammer back to that position.

Well, that certainly gums up the works.

Maybe I need more pizza and sour mash. :D

[Old Fuff]

Hawk:

You take one of those totally worthless, pure junk, lock infested Smith & Wesson's :D :D :D....

And see how far you can pull the hammer back before the cylinder starts to turn... :scrutiny:

Also because I'm so generous :uhoh:, you can try the same test with one of those pure, gold standard guns of yesteryear... :rolleyes:

You'll find that they work just the same... :evil:

Maybe I need more pizza and sour mash.

I'm your man...

[Hawk]

You take one of those totally worthless, pure junk, lock infested Smith & Wesson's ....

And see how far you can pull the hammer back before the cylinder starts to turn...

Well, actually, I can pull it all the way back without the cylinder turning....

...if I'm holding the trigger back - but isn't that where the trigger would be right after ignition when the recoil impulse starts? Perhaps Jerry M. or those of you with more practice with revolvers could release the trigger fast enough to tie up the hammer (assuming it moves from inertia) but I'm not that fast.

I'll defer to your expertise in these matters but resistance from the cylinder turning just isn't part of the equation with low speed high drag types such as myself. The trigger is full back and the hammer only has the mainspring inhibiting backward motion and the cylinder doesn't budge.

If one factors in us "slow hand" types, does that make the Wiki reporter's assertion more plausible?

Even if it does, I'm still into the Sour Mash and pizza.
;)

[Old Fuff]

If one factors in us "slow hand" types, does that make the Wiki reporter's assertion more plausible?

Not really...

If you cock the hammer, pull the trigger, and lower the hammer while holding back the trigger you can indeed rotate the hammer back and forth, while still holding the trigger back. The cylinder will not move because it is still locked, and the hand cannot pick up the next ratchet tooth until the trigger is released and goes forward.

However even a .44 Magnum doesn't generate enough recoil to kick the hammer back against the tension of the mainspring. And if it could the hammer would fall back unless blocked by something, and the only thing would be the lock. But it's a moot point because a mainspring light enough to allow recoil to move the hammer wouldn't be able to bust a cap. I think the photograph was deliberately set up.

If you want to believe that the condition occured as described (and I don't) it's another example of why one doesn't want the :cuss: lock in any defensive revolver.

I admit that I have no love for the lock, but in this instance I'll never believe things really happened the way the entry in Wiki said.

Also remember that ANYONE can post an entry in Wiki, regardless of truth or qualification.

It's early, but where did you stash the bottle... ? At this point the poor Old Fuff needs a shot in his morning coffee. :uhoh:

[Hawk]

Agreed that anyone can edit Wiki. However, the report aligns well with a significant number of ILF reports in the mega thread at S&W forum.

If the hammer doesn't come back by inertia, we have no alternative other than to throw a significant number of lock failure reports under the bus. Michael Bane's included though his isn't explicit that it happened under recoil. It does appear so though.

Mysteries are fun and I wish I could keep the hammer mystery distinct from lock discussions but the only "evidence" of the hammer moving consists of reports and pictures of ILFs.

329PD... I had a problem with the lock self-engaging under recoil... I was able to wiggle the hammer and push it down.
329PD... While attempting to fire the 4th round, the gun locked up with the hammer at full cock.
329PD ,,, On the second round, the "flag" part of the locking system flew up and locked the gun up at almost a full cock.
The first two are among the earliest reports in the S&W forum mega thread, the last is from Michael Bane's blog.

So my problem is as follows:
If the hammer doesn't do that voodoo move, the lock can't engage it at that position.

If there's an alternative I'm missing, then mystery solved. But it appears that we're either going to throw a slug of lock failure reports under the bus (all the ones that engage the hammer "back" upon firing) or we're going to have to wrap our heads around the hammer moving through majik obscura.

I'm no lock lover but if you're right I don't see any alternative other than to dismiss all the "lock engaged with hammer back upon firing" reports and they're a substantial percentage of the total.

Or to re-word the puzzle:
How can a lock engage a hammer in a position that it doesn't occupy?

I'm not sure even application of a second bottle of sour mash will solve that one - do you see something I'm missing?

[Old Fuff]

I never said or suggested that recoil forces and inertia didn't cause lock parts to move, just that with its relatively heavy mainspring the hammer isn't affected. The lock parts themselves are light, and in some guns the spring was too weak - because S&W replaced them in at least some guns that were returned to them.

In my view it isn't a good design, and over-complicated to say the least. Neither Ruger nor Taurus locks have spring-tensioned parts that move, and I haven’t ever seen or read of any reports of their products self-locking. I am not endorsing their locking systems, but if I had a choice in the matter I’d much rather have a Taurus or Ruger over a Smith & Wesson.

Incidentally, Taurus offered to let S&W use their system, royalty free, but S&W turned them down. Too proud to do it I guess.

[johnnylaw53]

Old Fuff, if you go to the s&w fourm about locks there is one post of a taurus locking. I have also read a few other accounts of taurus locking up. This just mean any thing can happen i wish the locks were not there but I really don't see it as any bigger problem then any thing eles that can go wrong with a weapon. The only time I had a revolver fail me was in the acadamy in 81 my colt trooper fireing pin broke. My current off duty 642 have not locked up on me but i do worry about the shorter fireing pin that they put in thier revolvers now days.

Be Safe

[Old Fuff]

I suspect that the Taurus revolvers may have jammed for reasons other then the lock, because it is next to impossible for the little plug/screw to back itself out. However I will accept that anything is possible, and so it might have happened. :uhoh:

What this does is reinforce my contention that the best lock is the one that isn't there.

You are absolutely correct when you say:

I really don't see it as any bigger problem then any thing else that can go wrong with a weapon. The only time I had a revolver fail me was in the academy in 81 my colt trooper firing pin broke. My current off duty 642 have not locked up on me but I do worry about the shorter firing pin that they put in their revolvers now days.

Any weapon can and will fail sometimes because of a defective part, incompetent workmanship, lack of inspection during the manufacturing, process, poor design, and a long list of other reasons. But the best and most reliable ones are those that follow the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principal and do not add superfluous features or gadgets that increase the likelihood of a failure, no matter how small the risk may be. Obviously a firing pin of some kind is necessary in any revolver. An internal lock is not. The lock is there to protect the manufacture from legal liability, and make the gun control crowd feel warm and fuzzy. It should be noted that they take no risk at all, unless in some unlikely event they happen to own one of these guns.

Concerning your little model 642. If it is correctly headspaced (something you can check yourself with a feeler gauge) and the springs have not been tampered with you should be O.K. If the firing pin is short it is because it was out-of-print in the first place and not caught during inspection (if they still bother to inspect them in the first place). It isn't so much a matter of firing pins as it is of lacking quality control. You can of course have a longer aftermarket firing pin installed, but then you risk having a pierced primer. You can use an inexpensive set of automotive feeler gauges to determine the headspace, case-head clearance and firing pin protrusion in your particular gun. If you are worried it's worth doing so for the peace of mind.

[Hawk]

Heck, I'd be willing to bet that outsized number of .45ACP revolver failures have less to do with a lock than sprung moon clips - I've already induced failures of the latter type that align remarkably well with certain of the lock failure reports.

Surprisingly, as contrary as I can sometimes be, I didn't even point out to anyone that Fuff says around 1/3 of lock failure reports are bogus based on the position of the hammer when it happens - to include the "flagship" report and pic on Wiki. Further, I doubt that I will. There's nothing to be gained and, despite appearances to the contrary, I don't enjoy irritating folks just for the joy of it.

But voodoo hammer movements have taken on the aspect of shooting into the air: it's erroneously assumed that because we want to talk about it, we endorse it. Despite my puzzlement about the apparent hammer movement it doesn't mean I'm arguing in favor of the lock or against the reports of lock failure that require that a hammer behave in such a fashion.

But for once, Fuff telling me (and I believe) that the hammer doesn't move under recoil hasn't in the slightest compelled me to go whiz on the lock reports that require that it do so for the report to be correct.

Uncharacteristically, I've stumbled across something that just screams to be left alone.

[jjohnson]

I solved this quandary by resolving to never own a S&W with a Hillary Hole.:fire:

[.38 Special]

Yes, I think you've mentioned that once or twice.

[johnchamp]

hey bill if i were you i would of bought a 442-1 or 642-1 w/o the internal lock. your gonna have troubles with that gun. besides are you using 38. spcl.+p ammo? those both models handle+p i dont have the link but check out rsr group.com they have them in stock.

[johnnylaw53]

642-1, You are of course right if you want a 642 or 442 buy one of those without the lock that take care of the problem the best way, but the thousonds of people that have one with the lock are face with the choice of trading at a great lost which I refused to do since the lost of money IMO is not justified. As far as shooting in the air surly we all know that is not acceptable, I have, with proper safty precaution laid on the ground and shot up towards a target to simpulate being on the ground with an attacker closing in on me.

Be safe.

[krs]

The reports which I've seen indicate that the spring replaced was the LOCK spring.

OK. there are two springs associated directly with the lock and they're the smallest springs in the revolver and the one that lowers the flag from lock so small as to easily be lost.It's easy to imagine that the spring replaced on invoice for repair of a lock was replaced because the original was lost on or under the S&W workbench and had nothing to do with any failure of the lock which may have ocurred.

The hammer has a channel for the lock flag operating 'nub' and there are two separated cutout places for locking the hammer. One is a notch into which the nub is pushed by locking and the other an extended channel that would stop the hammer falling from full cock. Looks like the lock can be applied either with the hammer not cocked or with it cocked. Both will keep the hammer from igniting a cartridge but the lock from cocked would stop the hammer at mid drop and prevent further movement downward. That second position looks like it is shaped in a way that would also prevent the lock from being unlocked so maybe the pistol was not jammed or broken - it only needed a coordinated unlocking while the hammer was slowly pulled further back.

I'm still guessing but I'm looking at the relevant parts of my 629-6 in doing it.

[krs]

I think if I file off the 'nub' the lock will look normal but do nothing at all.

Would that be an unsafe action to take?

BTW, that little flag is the bar none roughest piece of work I've ever encountered inside of an American revolver. Knife sharp edges and gritty flats. It's obvious from the little round casting sprue that it's a MIM part but I'd say that it's also a new low in MIM casting technical quality however dimensionally correct it may be.

[Landric]

As posted by Thaddeus Jones: "Yes, they have released 442's and 642's without it. Doesn't get any more improved than that!!"

Don't forget the limited runs of 37-2s without the lock or the MIM parts. I managed to acquire three of them, one for carry and two spares just in case. Being one of the folks who has personally experienced an internal lock failure on a S&W revolver, I'll never own a lock gun for serious use. I'm glad to see they are offering the 442 and 642 without the IL, in addition to the 40 (clearly they are willing to and capable of making no-lock revolvers). One will also note that the IL is optional on the 9/40/357 M&P pistols and not available at all on the M&P45. Perhaps S&W is going in the right direction on the lock, at least making it optional if not completely unavailable.

I'd be willing to consider a lock gun for range use only (which for me would be IDPA), but I'd never carry a lock gun or trust it for home defense. That is just me. Obviously all guns can fail, but I'd rather my defense guns not have unnecessary parts that can fail.

Given the cost of a used 3" or 4" 625, if I ever decide to take up shooting ESR in IDPA, I'll probably have to settle for a 625 with a lock, but in that case a failure just means a bad match.

If, on the other hand, S&W decides to offer a no-lock 340PD with a front night sight, they can sign me up right away. That would be first class BUG.

[pinkymingeo]

It's gotten to the point where every time a S&W revolver hiccups, the lock is blamed. I suspect that most failures blamed on the lock actually have nothing to do with it. The hysterics displayed by some anti-lock guys make you wonder if they've forgotten to take their meds. If you don't think it's a real Smith unless it has 5 screws, fine. Only buy those. If you think stainless guns are junk, fine. Buy only blued. If you don't like locks, simmer down son! Don't buy it, but please spare us the ranting and raving. The lock shouldn't even be a consideration when buying a gun for self defense. Takes only a few minutes to disable, and it will never bother you again. I've had as many as 6 IL guns at a time, though currently I only have 4. Each has the nub removed from the locking flag. End of story. They also have lightened springs and aftermarket firing pins, by the way, but those are areas for even more ranting, aren't they?

[krs]

I think you may well be right, pinky.

So as to maintain the ability to restore the 629 I went ahead and reassembled all of the newly honed working pieces except for the flag, the flag spring, and the sliding piece that's operated by the trigger. That piece might not be part of the lock but I couldn't see any use in leaving it in the gun.

Now I have a new and nicely tuned 629 with a trigger and action as clean and smooth as any to be found that has a .035" space alongside the hammer that I have to look for to notice.

I put the little parts into the little bag that the 'keys' came in and put them in the pistol box for the next guy. Even if he never realizes what the parts are for he'll still be able to put the key in the hole and turn it.

[TexasRifleman]

The lock shouldn't even be a consideration when buying a gun for self defense. Takes only a few minutes to disable, and it will never bother you again.

I'd consult an attorney before modifying any "safety" features on a self defense weapon.

While YOU and I know it's perfectly fine, I'd worry what a prosecutor might twist it into.

Unlikely? Sure. Possible? Crazier things have happened.

[kle]

on my S&W 617-6, the lock works both with the hammer cocked and uncocked (it has two notches in the hammer for both positions).