Miculek "De-Locked" his Competition Revolver!!!


PDA






Steve_NEPhila
July 13, 2010, 11:24 AM
I posted this on the Smith and Wesson forum as well. Love or hate the most, most people either hate it or do not care at all. Every Smith and Wesson fan has a position on the lock.

I would not believe it if I had not seen it with my own eyes. The 627 PC that Jerry Miculek uses for competing in IRC (.38 Special, with Bushnell Holosight) has had the locking flag removed.

Say what you will about the pros and cons, this is quite an interesting find. The picture is on his website:
http://www.bang-inc.com/store/index.php?main_page=page_3

Scroll down to the IRC revolver with the Bushnell Holosight on it and look at the close up picture showing the cylinder cut for moon clips here:
http://www.bang-inc.com/images/gunsgear.irccylinder.large.jpg

One can clearly see that the locking flag has been removed from the mechanism. I can spot this as I have done it to one of my frequent carry revolvers. The locking key hole is still in place, yet the flag that locks the hammer is gone... rock on Jerry.

If you enjoyed reading about "Miculek "De-Locked" his Competition Revolver!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Atticum
July 13, 2010, 11:30 AM
the links need to be redone.

MrBorland
July 13, 2010, 11:50 AM
re-posting the link.

http://www.bang-inc.com/images/gunsgear.irccylinder.large.jpg

So...what?...even Jerry hates or is afraid of the lock?

It's a competition gun, so removal of the locking flag as an unnecessary piece isn't uncommon. The hammer, modified for competition, may not even be compatible with the flag anymore. My bet is the hammer block's been removed, too.

Steve_NEPhila
July 13, 2010, 12:30 PM
Sure, so what is right.

So what if a factory endorsed expert with revolvers and a gunsmith decides to remove the lock that Smith and Wesson refuses to remove. So what.

MrBorland
July 13, 2010, 01:07 PM
So what.

So, all I see is a pic of a top competitor's gun, which only means to me that, Jerry, whose job it is to win matches, has at least one gun built to that end. Beyond that is mere speculation.

If you want to use Jerry as the standard bearer for the anti-lockers, a pic of Jerry's everyday carry gun showing a deactivated lock would be more useful.

Erich
July 13, 2010, 03:31 PM
Thanks for the link. :)

Thaddeus Jones
July 13, 2010, 03:41 PM
He may be a company man, but he is no dummy. :)

earlthegoat2
July 13, 2010, 03:48 PM
I would say he is upping his odds of winning his next match by employing KISS.

Unfortunately gun companies are moving away from this approach in favor of more lawyer friendly alternatives. Oh well. Simple solution. Dont buy new guns to stimulate the economy. Buy used to stimulate common sense.

Oyeboten
July 13, 2010, 05:14 PM
Buying used goods 'stimulates' the ecomony among private persons or small businesses.

They are the true Back Bone of the Country anyway, and in my opinion, deserve first preference for anything 'stimulating'.

Sadly, the true wholesome common sense use of Civil Courts for seeking redress of reasonable grievence, has for generations now been so extremely abused and whored by clever lawyers and imbescile juries, it has had enormous inimical effects through out all dimensions of our Society and Culture, creating vastly more damage and added costs to consumers than anyone could begin to guess.

Companies need to re-think strategy for pre-emptive address of potentisl civil liability suits, and get back to common sense and or adding cogent multi-language disclaimer tags.

Without common sense, we are all on a road to hell.


Glad he pulled the 'lock' and I hope this was not lost on S&W.

rcmodel
July 13, 2010, 05:28 PM
I'd say match shooters being the jokers they are, Jerry took the lock out to keep one of his buddys from locking his gun before a very importent match stage, and sticking his chewing gum in the key hole!

Ya! That will mess up Jerrys mind!
And maybe then I can beat him by one or two points just once in my lifetime!!!

rc

Quickstrike
July 13, 2010, 05:42 PM
Cool, frankly the lock has kept me from buying a S&W. I would have gotten a 629 classic if they didn't have a lock.

jhvaughan2
July 13, 2010, 09:52 PM
If we take this logic too far we will believe that smiths all have worthless hammers, triggers, sights and stocks. JM changed them all!

SharpsDressedMan
July 13, 2010, 10:32 PM
Here's a challenge: Why doesn't S&W give us the same revolver that Miculek has set up? Perhaps he could give them "recommendations" for a comp gun, based on his, and maybe they would listen? It irritated me enought when I read about the then new "Thunder Ranch" revolver , made at Clint Smith's request, and S&W sent him one without the lock (just for him), and then the rest of them were all WITH the lock (and don't be confused, S&W was producing the lock already standard on everythig else). I called Thunder Ranch and asked how we mortals could get a S&W without the lock, and how Clint got his. They stammered and stuttered a bit. I knew it would be a waste to call S&W.

Deaf Smith
July 13, 2010, 10:51 PM
Gang,

Miculek shoots more ammo through his wheelguns than the top ten people here do, combined! He puts huge stress on his guns. And because of that I have no doubt just to make sure there is no problems, he deactivated the locks.

Shocking? No. Why? Just to make it one less part that might fail, and Miculek doesn't need that 'child lock' on his competition guns anyway!

For many years people deactivated the grip safeties of 1911s, right? For years people took out the magazine safey from their Browning High Powers, right? So I'm not shocked Miculek did this. For all the ammo he shoots, it wasn't a bad idea.

Now my 640 Smith is an older one. No lock. But the 642 beside me has the lock. I never have even acculated the lock even once! Gun shoots fine.

Do I care for the lock? No. Is it a big deal? No. But if I shot like Miculek does, I'd deactivate it to.

Deaf

evan price
July 14, 2010, 01:31 AM
And racing cars don't have airbags, either.

There's a big difference between the "real world" and competition.

Stainz
July 14, 2010, 06:32 AM
More important to we 627 shooters - look at the healthy ejector star easing. That's a lot more than my PC627's or 627 Pro have! It'd be nice to know what .357M cases he uses - and which moonclips, too.

He often employs shortened/lightened hammers to assist his speed - they might interfere/drag with the IL parts. Keeping a light, fast returning, & dependable ignition trigger, I'm sure, is his first goal.

Stainz

shockwave
July 14, 2010, 08:22 AM
If I were to buy a S&W that had the ILS, I'd remove it and use the frame plug sold at the S&W forum to correct the appearance of the gun. This is so trivially easy to do.

FLAvalanche
July 14, 2010, 08:28 AM
I'm going to bet S&W removed it for him.

Steve_NEPhila
July 14, 2010, 10:07 AM
Stainz,

Both my Smith 327 M&P R8 and 327 JM have the same chamfering on the extractor that is seen in the picture. They are both cut for moon clips as well, yet they look identical...

Spartacus451
July 14, 2010, 10:55 AM
I'd say match shooters being the jokers they are, Jerry took the lock out to keep one of his buddys from locking his gun before a very importent match stage, and sticking his chewing gum in the key hole!
Surreptitiously applying tape to a magazine or mag well is an old favorite.

More important to we 627 shooters - look at the healthy ejector star easing. That's a lot more than my PC627's or 627 Pro have! It'd be nice to know what .357M cases he uses - and which moonclips, too.
Wow I hadn't noticed that. When Randy Lee moon clipped my competition 66 he said he couldn't do much with the .38/.357 case for safety and it ended up no where near as aggressive as that.

918v
July 14, 2010, 10:57 AM
And racing cars don't have airbags, either.

There's a big difference between the "real world" and competition.
Are you suggesting that removing the lock makes the gun less safe?

highorder
July 14, 2010, 12:03 PM
I'm going to bet S&W removed it for him.

I'll bet JM did the work; he is a master gunsmith himself.

W.E.G.
July 14, 2010, 12:13 PM
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/pistol%20pics/miculeklock.jpg

Thaddeus Jones
July 14, 2010, 12:20 PM
Makes sense that S&W would do that for him. If Miculeks revolver locked up during a demonstration or competition, even the most ardent fanboy could not ignore that.

The S&W IL revolver, not good enough for Jerry, but OK for everyone else! :barf:

Handgunner
July 14, 2010, 02:41 PM
Why would I want to bet my life on an IL revolver, when Jerry doesn't want to bet a competition on one? :confused:

Joe Demko
July 14, 2010, 02:43 PM
I, too, would find more merit to this thread if we had pictures of Jerry's personal defense gun for comparison.

captain awesome
July 14, 2010, 02:58 PM
so this thread is a message to Smith & Wesson. why don't we all send them a message. In an envelope with the flags we have removed with a letter explaining why.

MR.G
July 14, 2010, 03:47 PM
I see that they left the lock, and just removed the flag. I file off the stud on the flag and put it back. The flag is still in place, but will not lock. It appeared to me that if the flag was removed, and not the lock, the lock could dislodge and fall into the gun. Guess I was wrong.

earplug
July 14, 2010, 03:59 PM
He may have cut some weight from the hammer along with removing the hammer spur.
Depending on where you take metal from it renders the lock useless.

Drail
July 14, 2010, 04:47 PM
I can't imagine why anyone would want a locking device on a competition gun. (or an air bag on a race car when you have a 5 or 6 point harness and a roll cage) My daily driver has a 4 point harness and a roll bar (and no air bag) D.O.T. approved/mandated 3 point inertia reel? No thanks.

MrBorland
July 14, 2010, 04:59 PM
I can't imagine why anyone would want a locking device on a competition gun.

To keep it IDPA-legal, for example.

Several here have noted (myself included), the hammer, modified for competition, may not be compatible with the locking flag, and so it comes out as a consequence.

My 686 has a radically bobbed hammer and while I don't give a flip whether it's there or not, the locking flag had to come out for the hammer to work. To be IDPA-legal, though, all original safety equipment has to be there, so the hammer's been replaced with a lesser-bobbed hammer, and the flag went back in.

The pic of Miculek's gun has been an interesting Rorschach test. A very interesting thread.

Spartacus451
July 14, 2010, 05:45 PM
My 686 has a radically bobbed hammer and while I don't give a flip whether it's there or not, the locking flag had to come out for the hammer to work. To be IDPA-legal, though, all original safety equipment has to be there, so the hammer's been replaced with a lesser-bobbed hammer, and the flag went back in.
Safety device? Seriously? Is that an actual ruling from IDPA HQ?

Steve_NEPhila
July 14, 2010, 06:24 PM
I would emphatically argue that the internal lock on the Smith revolvers is not a safety device whatsoever. In fact, it is a usage denial system and in no way impacts the inherent "safe" operation.

SharpsDressedMan
July 14, 2010, 07:30 PM
I'm beginning to like the big old padlock that used to come with the gun more and more. Never used it, but it never made me wonder when it would "fail", sitting over in a drawer............................

MrBorland
July 14, 2010, 07:54 PM
Safety device? Seriously? Is that an actual ruling from IDPA HQ?

From the IDPA Rulebook, p. 18, Appendix One-A.1: "Non-IDPA-Legal Modifications for ALL Divisions"...include..." E. Disconnection or disabling any safety device on any gun."

Carmoney, a master level competitive wheelgunner himself, and the 'smith that worked on my gun is aware of the ruling and, nebulous or not, advises that "if your gun is going to be used in IDPA competition, please let me know when you send it to me, as we will need to retain the hammer block along with the internal key lock (IL) mechanism, if so equipped." (see link)

I would emphatically argue that the internal lock on the Smith revolvers is not a safety device whatsoever. In fact, it is a usage denial system and in no way impacts the inherent "safe" operation.

Yeah, you could, I guess. Myself, I spend little-to-no time griping about IDPA rules. Their game, their rules.


http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=80870

Jubjub
July 14, 2010, 09:42 PM
To the point, I will never own a Smith & Wesson with the lock. I will never, ever buy one. Were one given to me, I would dispose of it in the most efficient way possible. Were Smith & Wesson to start producing revolvers that were in any way worthy of purchase again, I would be a loyal customer.

Steve_NEPhila
July 16, 2010, 09:38 AM
Check it out:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/07/16/jerry-miculek-de-locked-his-competition-gun/

MrBorland
July 16, 2010, 04:04 PM
I think you're over-interpreting and making too much out of too little.

To get the running perspective of actual competitive wheelgunners, for example, go here:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=110071

As suggested in this thread, when the lock's disabled in a competition gun, it's done so because the lightened competition hammer isn't compatible with it, or it's a matter of KISS - keeping parts out of the gun that aren't necessary, in which case, the hammer spur goes, as often does the hammer block.

Of particular note is the reply by Bones (reply #9), an IDPA SSR multi National Champion. An interesting read.

SharpsDressedMan
July 16, 2010, 04:42 PM
"As suggested in this thread, when the lock's disabled in a competition gun, it's done so because the lightened competition hammer isn't compatible with it, or it's a matter of KISS - keeping parts out of the gun that aren't necessary, in which case, the hammer spur goes, as often does the hammer block." I guess we could argue that if parts aren't necessary for competition, and they CAN hang up, then they are not necessary at all, ESPECIALLY if the gun is to be used for defense....either against dangerous animals or other dangerous beings. I see no difference in one person's "needs" to do without the lock and another's.

orionengnr
July 16, 2010, 09:48 PM
And racing cars don't have airbags, either.
There's a big difference between the "real world" and competition.
A fatally flawed analogy. Race cars are built entirely differently from street cars. Race cars (without airbags) crash weekly at ~200 mph, with minimal injuries to the driver being the rule.
...it's a matter of KISS - keeping parts out of the gun that aren't necessary...
This is exactly the argument many of us make against having The Lock in a SD/carry gun.

Thank you for the info on the IDPA rules. Although I will never be good enough to get protested for having no Lock on my gun, that makes any future purchasing decisions easy.

Drail
July 16, 2010, 11:02 PM
orionegnr, I think you completely missed my point.

Thaddeus Jones
July 17, 2010, 02:45 PM
Not owning any of those wind up revolvers, the IDPA rules won't effect me. My pre lock 66's and 19's are made the way they should be. No superfluous parts.

Kinda amusing when a company man pulls the idiotic lock out. :)

JohnKSa
July 17, 2010, 02:58 PM
I file off the stud on the flag and put it back. The flag is still in place, but will not lock.In my opinion, it's one thing to completely remove a safety device. It's another thing entirely to disable a safety device in such a way that it's not immediately obvious it's been disabled. Safety devices that look like they might work but don't are a really, REALLY bad idea.Kinda amusing when a company man pulls the idiotic lock out.This is an assumption. Maybe he took it out, maybe S&W who builds his guns for him did it. Maybe if they did it for him he asked them, maybe someone at S&W decided to do it.

We can speculate about which one of these is the most likely but it's still just speculation.

SharpsDressedMan
July 17, 2010, 03:45 PM
Forget about what Miculek is saying about about speed, competition, and readiness with regard to removing the lock, think about the statment he is making/implying with regards to the lock itself. His actions say " sometimes it doesn't work the way it's supposed to, may hang up, and impede the normal function of the revolver". Whether your need is speed, or just defending yourself, having a revolver that is more likely to work is a better idea.

Handgunner
July 17, 2010, 04:02 PM
Kinda amusing when a company man pulls the idiotic lock out. :)

Yup. :D

sw282
July 18, 2010, 12:41 PM
The Chevy in my drive way is not like the one Ernhardt drives.

Jerry's gun wont be 'exactly' like mine either

Billy Shears
July 19, 2010, 02:16 PM
Premier revolver smith Grant Cunningham mentioned this on his website today, having this to say:

Several people emailed me about The Firearm Blog's picture of Jerry Miculek's 627PC. It would appear that his gun has had the locking mechanism disabled, leading to much renewed discussion about the incidence of accidental lock activation.

When the locks first came out there were a few reported cases of locks self-engaging. The wisdom of the internet held that the locks were just fine, that S&W would never knowingly introduce something that would put people at risk, that the reports were fabricated, and so on.

As time wore on it became apparent that the issue was real, but seemed to mostly happen with lightweight guns shooting heavy recoiling loads. Then I started getting reports of lightweight guns shooting normal loads experiencing the problem, followed by the "big boomers" and hunting loads. Most recently I've heard first-person accounts of steel guns (all J-frames, so far) shooting sane cartridges having their locks self-engage.

I've collected enough of these accounts over the last several years that I simply won't carry a S&W with a lock. The incidents are numerous enough, and the consequences dire enough, that I simply don't trust the mechanism. I recommend that all my clients seriously consider carrying a non-lock gun; if you tuned in last week you found that my usual carry revolver was a Ruger, partly because they don’t have such a mechanism.

(Just for the record: I have no financial stake in this debate, as liability issues demand that I do not deactivate a safety device - no matter how questionable - from a gun. I'm not making any money by suggesting that you carry a S&W sans lock.)
I have to say it doesn't surprise me to find that more and more of these instances of lock failure are coming to light, and that it happened first with light guns and heavy loads, then light guns and normal loads, and now normal guns and normal loads. It's what you'd expect. As the lock-equipped guns spend more and more time in marketplace, and have been in service longer and longer, the guns out there see more and more use and suffer more and more normal wear. As the internal parts wear and get ever further out of like-new spec, it makes sense that any tendency for the lock to self-engage would become more and more apparent as this process takes place.

I don't carry a revolver as my primary weapon, but I do have a few as house guns. I won't buy an S&W equipped with one of those things. My appetite for revolvers is limited enough that I can get all I want from the used gun market -- ones that don't have that undesirable feature.

Thaddeus Jones
July 19, 2010, 02:59 PM
Thanks for that info Billy Shears. Obviously Mr Cunningham knows what he is talking about. :)

Glad to see someone say those things.

StrawHat
July 20, 2010, 08:17 AM
I wonder if there was a similar uproar when S&W introduced the hammer block safety? I know there was a bit of annoyance when the old long actions were stopped in favor of the short actions. With time, both were accepted.

Old Fuff
July 20, 2010, 10:46 AM
... wonder if there was a similar uproar when S&W introduced the hammer block safety? I know there was a bit of annoyance when the old long actions were stopped in favor of the short actions. With time, both were accepted.

At the time (mid-latter 1940's) the hammer block was generally well accepted because one could then safely carry the cylinder fully loaded. Of course there were a few that removed it because they claimed that it rattled, or made the double-action trigger pull heavier. I never noticed any perceptable difference.

The "long action" was much prefered by those that liked it's unequaled D.A. trigger pull, but the majority of buyers thumb-cocked when they fired.

Neither of these changes had any affect on the revolver's reliability, which in rare cases it would seem that the lock has.

If you enjoyed reading about "Miculek "De-Locked" his Competition Revolver!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!