[heavyshooter]

Please don’t yell at me for my ignorance, but I am curious as to why everyone is so annoyed by the Smith and Wesson locks. I just got rid of an S&W 637 and it had a lock on it that I never used. I am probably one of the few people in the world who does not like S&W (I am a Ruger fan myself—no revolver locks:rolleyes:), but I do not believe I would stumble over the ignorable lock if it came on a quality gun. The only thing that I could think of that would keep me from buying a lock equipped gun is if it were an attempt to appease some "Moms Against Guns" group (I just noticed that that would spell M.A.G. – that would be pretty corny). Catch me up on what I am missing.

Heavy

[Gord]

Try doing a search.

Internal locks (both on S&W revolvers, and on Remington 870s and others) have been known to randomly trip and lock up the gun. If you don't happen to have the key with you, you're out of luck. If it happens to occur when you need it, you're probably dead.

[nero45acp]

Can't speak for the others, but for me it's not just the lock that has turned me off on S&W's current offers, it's a whole series of changes that include:

No firing pin on the hammer
MIM parts
No more nice bluing
No more real case hardened triggers and hammers
Rubber grips instead of the wood stocks
The lock
Slanted cylinder release


Yes, I'm sure the new S&W revolvers function just as well as the older, more aesthetically pleasing (for me) ones, but as long as I can buy a used execllent condition older model for the same or less money than I'd pay for a new one, I'll buy an older, better lookin' one.


nero(still misses rotary dial phones, and stereophonic phonographs....)

[pinkymingeo]

Most of the anti-lock sentiment, which can get close to hysterical at times, is based on emotion, and fueled by the desire of some to be part of the group. Fact is, there have been a (very) few documented lock failures, usually due to incorrect installation at the factory and occurring the first time the gun is taken to the range. The lock is very easily deactivated by those so inclined. Don't like it? Neither do I. Hysterical about it? Not me. Most every gun out there has something about it I'd rather change.

[jfh]

pinkymingeo has it right--spot on.

In the last sixteen months, I have fired about 20,000 rounds through S&Ws with internal locks--five different j-frames, and two K/L frames.

Two of the j-frames are lightweights (442, 640) and three are / were steel (640, M60, M60Pro).

I've never had an internal lock failure. That includes shooting up to about 500 heavy full-bore 357 magnum loads in the magnum j-frames.

Would I rather not have the lock? Absolutely. Do I worry about it?

No.

Jim H.

[harmonic]

There is a thread of about 25 pages going over on the Smith-Wesson.com forum about IL failures. There have been documented cases of the locks breaking off or otherwise disabling the handgun.

Sorry, but the forum is down right now. When it comes back up I'll give you the link.

IIRC, it's mostly the super lightweight handguns with magnum loads that are prone to malfunction. I also remember one forum member who dropped his handgun on a concrete floor and his gun was disabled.

I personally wouldn't own an internal lock Smith for personal defense.

[johnnylaw53]

wow i just can't seem to stop reading the trends about the lock. this must be some kinda a mental problem wonder if my HMO will cover consouling for this? As I stated before when the new 642-1 came out I went to trade my 642-2 for one but the cash the shop wanted in addition was more then I wanted to let go. I had attempted this twice both times i left with my 642-2 went to wally world got more ammo and went to the range trying to make it lock up so I could justify spending the money needed for the trade but the darn thing just keep shooting and refuse to lock up. so the plan now is to convice myself that evil S&W installed somekind of demon into the lock that will lock it the first time you have to use it in an attack. So far I have not had much luck with this one.

Be Safe

[ojibweindian]

IL? Another potential point of failure.

[Old Fuff]

I side with nero45acp, and add to his list:

Crush-fit barrel threads - if turned too tight you can have serious problems, and if you want to replace the barrel it has to go back to the factory

Shallow EDM-machined rifling - maybe O.K. with jacketed bullets, but less so with lead.

As for the lock: I could live with it, but enough things can go wrong with any handgun without adding unnecessary possibilities. While the risk is minimal, why take any? :uhoh:

There are also occasional negatives in the older S&W revolvers, but most of them can be easily corrected. Not so with the features that have been cited on these newer guns.

Emotional? Hysterical ??? Don't think so. Both nero45acp and I as well as others have presented specific and reasonable objections.

[harmonic]

Here's the link from the S&W forum that discusses the lock failures.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/500103904/m/228102718

Also, re Fuff's post about two piece barrels.

This guy's gun literally fell apart.

http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq288/buckyjames1/Picture013.jpg

http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq288/buckyjames1/Picture011.jpg

Here's the thread:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/530103904/m/6581095623

[JCMAG]

Ahem... OP, take the grip panel off of one of your newer Rugers and tell me what that strange little device is....

Locks happened. I'm over it. I just buy used guns. They have a few advantages that I find agreeable: they come in blued; they come in other variations other than fully underlugged and round-butt frames; they're less expensive.

Like your mother always told you when your macaroni Mother's Day card fell apart when she held it, it's the thought that counts. When looking at the IL on S&W, Taurus, Ruger... Well, there just wasn't a lot of thinking going on when they implemented those...

[1 old 0311]

The snobs don't like them.

[TFred]

The only thing that I could think of that would keep me from buying a lock equipped gun is if it were an attempt to appease some "Moms Against Guns" group (I just noticed that that would spell M.A.G. – that would be pretty corny). Catch me up on what I am missing.
And one thing that I know that is worse than appeasing a Moms Against Guns group, is appeasing a liberal, rabidly anti-gun presidential (sic) administration!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson#Agreement_of_2000

That is just a scratch of the surface. Spend a little quality time with Google on this matter, you will quickly jump on the band wagon... :)

TFred
(Proud owner of two no-lock S&Ws)

[SlamFire1]

I have four S&W's with internal safety locks. I would prefer they don't have the locks. I have known, and posted on the S&W forum, the problems a fellow gun club member had with his safety lock.

He had a M642 (hammerless 38 Spl airweight) and the lock activated and froze up the mechanism. He was unable to clear the mechanism even with the key.

I consider this unacceptable in a self defense pistol, and so did he. S&W product service offered to fix his revolver free, shipping free, which is good service. I do not know the conclusion, but I will bet that after the pistol came back, he got rid of it. He wanted a 100% reliable pistol, and that failure had severly shook his confidence in his revolver.

My pistols have not malfunctioned, but there is doubt in the back of my mind about the whole mechanism.

Otherwise, my M625-9 (45 LC) and the 38 Spl Airweights are wonderfully built and accurate.

[Hawk]

I swore I was done with lock threads but this one seems more civilized than most.

My beef is the looks. It's aesthetically challenged.

While it presents a failure point and has been known to auto-engage, I believe the apparent rate is an order of magnitude higher than reality. This is mostly just the nature of the internet (duplicate reports look like multiple failures). It may also be exacerbated by the fact that the reports are often accepted in an uncritical manner unlike malfs attributable to less controversial parts. i.e. reports of lock failure where the hammer is forward, "flag" is down and cylinder is tied up should be looked at with a jaundiced eye but they aren't for the most part. The "flag down" ILS failure promises to be the "limp wrist" of the early 21st century: if you can't figure it out, the lock gets blamed.

Personally, I view the likelihood of the thing failing at the worst possible time as non-zero but no worse than a 1911 Swartz safety catastrophically failing in similar circumstances. They both happen but only one failure type has each and every report cross-posted till it reaches critical mass.

I prefer the looks of my older S&Ws but I have to admit I shoot the new guy much better. The double action trigger is much more agreeable and my DA-fu progress is putting a grin on my face. The 627's DA trigger is even better than the 686 of filed strain screw that won't light Fiocchi.

This is less heretical than it might at first appear...
Bangor-Punta cut a wide swath through my older S&Ws.
I believe I recall Fuff saying that S&W assumed single action use back then, hence the serrated triggers (nice for SA, ouch for DA). It does seem they were built in an age before Grant Cunningham, Mas Ayoob and Clint Smith among others were pushing DA as the alpha and omega.
Most of my older ones were lightly used and haven't benefited from "wearing in".

The older ones are much better for looking at; the 2008 version puts the older ones on the trailer when it comes to agreeable DA.

I still wish the lock would go away but I think I can forgive everything else they did provided they shoot the way they do.


Since Fuff is in the house, I have a question on the failure mode of the legit "flag up" reports. From M. Bane's report:
On the second round, the "flag" part of the locking system flew up and locked the gun up at almost a full cock.
That "hammer at or near full cock" seems a common thread and it apparently happens immediately following a discharge.

How's that work? Are those light revolvers with heavy loads recoiling sharply enough that the hammer flies back and that's the point where the flag swings into position? I'm picturing the recoil impulse being heavy enough that when it's stopped the hammer keeps going out of inertia? Is this maybe something that always happened but wasn't much noticed without the lock (or high speed photography)?

[novaDAK]

Ahem... OP, take the grip panel off of one of your newer Rugers and tell me what that strange little device is....
those are not on the DA guns, you know, the ones most people rely on for protection.

[Old Fuff]

Hawk:

Since Fuff is in the house, I have a question on the failure mode of the legit "flag up" reports. From M. Bane's report:

The Old Fuff begs off on this one because he doesn't have enough evidence to reach a conclusion. I am reasonably sure the hammer's cycle isn't affected by recoil, but it is possible that a sharp kick could cause the lock parts themselves to move. I do know that some guns that were returned to S&W had the spring(s) in the lock assembly changed out, so I expect they may have gone to a stiffer one.

They're both mechanical and human factors involved, and there may be no single cause.

Part of the problem is that the S&W lock is relatively complicated, with 2 parts that move. The Taurus and Ruger systems are simpler, and have no moving parts to speak of. If I were going to design a lock for S&W J-frames (which is highly unlikely) it would block the coil mainspring strut rather then the hammer. When it comes to locks, Ruger has it right.

[DawgFvr]

When it comes to locks, Ruger has it right.

I'll just take the next step: When it comes to revovlers, Ruger has it right.

[Hawk]

Thanks.

In reviewing some of the IL reports it seemed they were typically caused when the hammer was 3/4 of the way back or more. This in turn tickled a memory where someone had posted a pic of a loudenboomer complete with fireball - someone called "photoshop" as the hammer was pictured in the cocked postion. Thereafter one of the responses stated that "hammers do that" (i.e. the hammer keeps going when one's grip stops the revolver).

Naturally there are two problems with that:
1. I can't find the thread.
2. My memory has been known to be adversely affected by pizza late at night.

I'm assuming that there's a good chance hammers do, in fact, behave in that fashion as there's too many reports of the thing seizing up with the hammer varying degrees of back. Even discounting some, Bane's report is the "standard bearer" as it were.

But it is counter-intuitive isn't it? I somehow always pictured the hammer hitting home and basically just welding itself there as the revolver recoiled and staying there as the recoil stroke stopped. Instead, I'm getting a picture of a hammer going forward, staying forward for a fraction of second, going back to near full-cock as the recoil is stopped, then slapping forward again as the revolver comes out of recoil. Heck, if we could harness those shenanigans to rotate the cylinder we'd only be a disconnector away from a DA/SA revolver. Well, not really but that's the sort of thing pizza makes me think of.

If the hammer wasn't doing some kind of gymnastics I'd be at loss to cipher how the lock could have made it hang up in the "almost cocked" position - I can picture the lock seizing the thing up but I'm not sure how the lock could move the hammer on its own - if it could, the hammer would move back when the lock was engaged intentionally.

I believe you're correct that S&W may have been "slipstreaming" a fix.

Whether or not I get educated on the dynamics of a "almost cocked" hammer seizing on discharge won't make it look any better to me but I'd confess to being really curious about it.

[Hawk]

I'll just take the next step: When it comes to revovlers, Ruger has it right.
Possibly. But if they had it as right as all that and a bag of chips Gemini Custom wouldn't be doing such a land office business.

It's important to keep "Ruger" distinct from "Morganti" when one is making comparisons. "Ruger" should be compared to "S&W" and may very well do quite well in comparison.

Nevertheless, "Gemini" should be compared to, say, "Clark Custom".

Comparing "Gemini" to "S&W" would appear tremendously bogus to those of us that prefer not to air freight our weapons all over the landscape.

[TAB]

pinkymingeo, got it right. I personally could care less. All mechanical devices can fail. There have been plenty of cases where "safety" devices have failed cuasing the gun to:
go bang
not go bang
lock up the gun
or any combo of above.

[Thaddeus Jones]

The locks are a poor solution in search of a problem. I hope Safety Wesson chokes on them.

[TAB]

actually its a very simple solution to a real world prob. I'm not saying I agree with it, or that its needed.

[Old Fuff]

Hawk:

Lay off of the pizza... :neener:

I'm assuming that there's a good chance hammers do, in fact, behave in that fashion as there's too many reports of the thing seizing up with the hammer varying degrees of back. Even discounting some, Bane's report is the "standard bearer" as it were.

There are plenty of high-speed movie/photographs that show that the hammer goes fully forward so that the hammer nose (firing pin) can hit the primer. Then as the trigger is released and moves forward the hammer is slightly rebounded (retracted) so that the firing pin is pulled back into the breech. But that's as far as it goes. If it went further back and then fell it would hit the trigger, and tie up the whole action. The hammer is restrained from moving backwards by a heavy mainspring. The lock depends on a very small coil one. If anything is going to move it won't be the hammer.

[Hawk]

There are plenty of high-speed movie/photographs that show that the hammer goes fully forward so that the hammer nose (firing pin) can hit the primer. Then as the trigger is released and moves forward the hammer is slightly rebounded (retracted) so that the firing pin is pulled back into the breech. But that's as far as it goes. If it went further back and then fell it would hit the trigger, and tie up the whole action.

Laying off the pizza is no doubt excellent advice - at least after 11:00 PM washed down with Single Barrel (The Tennessee sour mash - not the shotgun).

But if the hammer doesn't move off the frame during recoil, how does it get wedged "3/4 cocked" during recoil?. Obviously it can't. It's physically impossible for both conditions to exist.

The obvious conclusion is that it didn't happen during recoil and I'm reading too much into the description.

But this sure sounds like it happened during recoil rather than during a calm double action pull:
On the second round, the "flag" part of the locking system flew up and locked the gun up at almost a full cock.

This was from Grant Cunningham:
The problem is one of inertia: 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.
That also sounds like something that happens during recoil - when the hammer is being drawn back subsequent to a shot, the inertial load on the flag should be gone.

So I'm left with a picture of lock flag going almost into the locked position from recoil with the hammer fully down. But the flag doesn't have quite the gumption to lock the hammer there. Rather, it waits for the hammer to come back 3/4 of its travel, either DA or thumb cocked, then snicks itself into position and locks the hammer back, which ties up the cylinder - something it couldn't do simply by locking the hammer in the forward position.

Talk about the basic cussedness of inanimate objects...

The existance of the "hammer back" mystery doesn't mean I dislike the lock any less but I do enjoy a good mystery.



Anyone that's had a "hammer back" ILS failure - when exactly in the firing sequence did it occur?

[BigBlock]

Ahem... OP, take the grip panel off of one of your newer Rugers and tell me what that strange little device is....
The Ruger lock is only on single action cowboy guns...and as far as I know is only being placed on blued guns and NOT stainless. My brand new GP100, for example, is lock free.

Furthermore, I haven't heard of a single Ruger lock failure yet...:neener:

[DawgFvr]

It's important to keep "Ruger" distinct from "Morganti"

Point taken. I agree. All Ruger revolvers need finishing, trigger work, etc.

Still....I leave you this:

http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/448400adaed4f0a82d4961b5b2d91d8b-116.html

[Hawk]

Probably one of the few things I'd prefer to a Morganti Ruger would be a Cunningham Ruger. But the waiting list for the last remains closed.

[heavyshooter]

I was unaware of lock malfunctions. While I will concede that it may be relatively rare, the fact that the list of malfunctions on the S&W site is up to 25 pages is a little disconcerting. The first one listed says that the lock engaged as a result of him dropping it. Since the majority of these weapons are intended for home defense or trail use, dropping them is not all that unlikely. I don't think I will be able to say to the bad guy or cougar, "Time out, I need to run to my gun safe and retrieve a key so I can disengage my entirely unnecessary gunlock."

Thanks harmonic and TFred -- Good looking out

[BigBlock]

All Ruger revolvers need finishing, trigger work, etc.
This is absolutely, 100% FALSE. :rolleyes:

[heavyshooter]

"actually its [the internal lock] a very simple solution to a real world prob. I'm not saying I agree with it, or that its needed. -- TAB

The crazy thing is the fact that my Smith and Wesson came with both an intenal lock and an external pad lock. This makes the internal lock unecessary. It is a bad idea to have the gun and the key in the same place, so if I lock it, it is no longer any good for the typical HD purposes. For this reason, I would never use it and therfore would prefer it not be on the gun.

[heavyshooter]

"My brand new GP100, for example, is lock free." -- BigBlock

Ditto. I traded an S&W for the Ruger because it has no lock.

[Hawk]

The first one listed says that the lock engaged as a result of him dropping it. Since the majority of these weapons are intended for home defense or trail use, dropping them is not all that unlikely.

Revolvers sometimes bind up when dropped, lock or no.
See http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313389


A sharp enough blow to the cylinder of any swing-out cylinder revolver could spring the crane enough to trash the gun. The brand doesn't matter; RG to Korth, it's the nature of the beast.

I thought everyone knew this. Sorry!

There's a lot in that S&W thread that find interesting, some mildly distressing, some I dismiss.

[Hawk]

This is absolutely, 100% FALSE.

Blanket statements are dangerous.

If your perspective was based on carrying a Gemini, your view of the stock product might be different from your current view.

Then again it might not. But trying a Gemini first would provide you with a broader base to understand the remark. Whether or not your view would change notwithstanding, if you haven't shot a Gemini, it's something I'd recommend.

[BigBlock]

Hawk, :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:, I was refuting a ridiculous "blanket statement" made by someone else. I did not make any. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

To say "all rugers need work" is a "blanket statement", and a stupid one at that. It's the same as saying "All smiths with a lock WILL lock up on you".

Furthermore, I am not stupid, I know what a nice and/or custom revolver feels like. Ruger makes a very nice one right out of the box. I don't know why we're arguing about Rugers on a post about Smith and wesson problems....

[heavyshooter]

Let's play nice boys.:uhoh:

[Hawk]

Let's play nice boys.

I'm in.

I have no skin in the Ruger issue - this is a S&W lock thread, after all.
:D

[JCMAG]

Rugers are nice guns, I'm not giving them any guff. But single actions are the only Rugers I've handled, hence mentioning that they also have a lock.

I don't have a major issue with the lock. I'd just rather get guns that have more of the qualities that I prefer: Blued, partial underlug, etc.

I don't have a major issue, rationally, but I still don't like the darned things one bit.

[johnnylaw53]

heavyshooter

I can understand where 25 pages of lock failur could make you rethink the lock but if you read those pages you will fine that only 10 really talked about failur the rest is a post for haters and policital statements which is why thier modnators move it to the lounge. I do not love the lock but after getting caught up in this too I began looking hard and I just don't think it a big deal. yes they can happen the truth is the only time I have had a revolver fail me was 1981 firt day of range week my colt trooper Mk III fireing pin broke I had a buddy lend me a Mod. 19 to finish the week with ended up trading the colt for a ruger. yes the lock is another point where it could fail. so are the magazine of a semi auto but been carrying them everyday on duty for the last 20 years. Made your own mind up and i know it hard with some of the things you read on the internet but remember anything on this thing take with a bottle of salt.

be safe

[navajo]

S&W has made arun of J frames without the lock. Maybe they are getting the message.

[jjohnson]

No, I don't want to vent on this one anymore. :banghead:

Been there, done that, and I'm in the same place of opposition. :cuss:

Just do a search on "Hillary Hole" and you'll find more reading than you want on this topic. :fire:

[420Stainless]

I bought one with a lock due to its other desirable qualities - so I am able to overlook the lock.

However, I view the lock as a liability (do not want to search for the key or hope for the time and dexterity to deploy it in an emergency). For me it adds no value to the product and only detracts from its function and looks. Perhaps others find functional use in it, but by intuition I think very few actually use it. Which would then mean that its incorporation is driven by nanny state restrictions dictated by legislators that despise the product, not by actual customer needs.

[Deanimator]

Internal locks (both on S&W revolvers, and on Remington 870s and others) have been known to randomly trip and lock up the gun. If you don't happen to have the key with you, you're out of luck. If it happens to occur when you need it, you're probably dead.
Even if you DO have the key, you may not be able to clear the stoppage without major disassembly.

The lock is both:

Grossly unattractive, and needlessly so.

Dangerously unreliable in a self-defense application.

I've got a safe literally full of S&W revolvers. I've never owned an S&W revolver with an ILS. I never will.

[DawgFvr]

BigBlock...It is all relevant. I love Rugers and meant no disrespect when I stated that they needed work. The actions...compared to fine Colts and S&W really are rough and the frames need polishing...triggers are gritty. Really...put about $600 into a little finishing work and the Ruger will compare to the best. I put $1500 into my GP100 and it really is an ultimate revovler compared to a stock GP100. Thus, in my opinion...all Rugers need work to meet my level of expectations for a fine revovler.

[Billy Shears]

I dislike the locks as well. I hate the way they look, and while the chances of spontaneous activation may be miniscule, it could happen. I'd rather not add another point of failure to the mechanism if I don't have to. And I don't have to. I'll just buy used S&W revolvers made before the damn things were added (just picked up an early production Model 29, complete with the "coke bottle" grips.)

But my chief objection to the internal locks is that some people may rely too heavily on them for safety. An external lock, such as all gunmakers provide these days, is fine. You can leave it off, or put it on, but if it is put on, you can tell at a glance that the lock has been applied. Not so with the internal lock. You can't tell just by looking, and a person may think the thing is locked when it isn't, and assume the gun is now "safe." This may actually increase the likelihood of a negligent discharge, especially if the weapon is left unsecured by someone trusting a lock he or she only thinks has been engaged.

[batmann]

If someone would realy read the IL link on the S&W Forum (all 25 pages) you will see that very small % have actually had a lock failure. Most of it is "I heard" or 'someone said" or I was in a gun shop and it just fell out. I am not defending the IL's, but lets at least get the facts straight.
As with any devise there is a chace of failure. IF YOU DON"T LIKE 'EM, they can be removed.
IMHO, most of what you read or hear is as much political as any thing else.
That said, I am not wild about them either, but it didn't stop me from buying one and in all fairness, I has perfomed well.

[krs]

This is a guess, but the lower part of the S&W lock involves a very small pin that protrudes from the underside of the trigger to engage a sliding piece. It looks like the most vulnerable part of the whole mechanism. This is apparently the way the lock locks the trigger in "both the hammer and the trigger are locked".

If something were to happen to that pin to cause it to jam it's lock slider then the error would appear as the trigger drew back the hammer in double action operation. The hammer would be jammed at something more than halfway back and the shooter would say that the hammer was back when his lock failed while all the time it was actually the trigger operation interfered with at some point in it's pull.

As I said, a guess. I was looking at those lock parts yesterday.