Internal lock on J frame


PDA






Slasher
July 30, 2011, 12:37 PM
Would you pass up getting a 642/442 if it had the internal lock on it? I want to get a J frame but didn't know if the lock was that big of a deal.

Do the LCR's have a lock on them? Would you trust a LCR as much as a 642?

Thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "Internal lock on J frame" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CDW4ME
July 30, 2011, 03:18 PM
If I was looking for a revolver and the Ruger LCR did not have a internal lock, but the S&W did, then I would buy the LCR. If it cost more money (hypothetical or real) for the LCR I would still buy it if was the only way to get a revolver without the lock. That's me.

buck460XVR
July 30, 2011, 03:23 PM
The internal lock is not a big deal to most...for those that it is, it is easily removed.

gordy
July 30, 2011, 04:33 PM
I do not understand this hate of the S&W locks.
I have a 642 that has a lock and have never had a problem.
I think this is a what if thing. Well what if it locks on me when I need it.
I wonder if someone would remove the locks from there front doors on there homes. Well what if I lost the key?
Or on the auto's they drive?
I have put 2 to 3 thousand rounds(low pressure and +p) threw my 642 and have never had a problem.
I think some peaple just need something to worry about.
You always hear how someone reads on the internet or the guy that works with there brother has had a problem. It never seems to be first hand news.
To me it is a no brainer, never had a problem so there is no problem.
Can't fix what is not broken.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
July 30, 2011, 04:41 PM
I have a 642 with lock and I have never thought twice about it.

I have thought, though, that if I were in a predicament where someone was demanding I give them my 642 and I happened to have another gun on me, I could somehow lock it before giving it to the bad guy. Then, unless he has a key on his person, he isn't going to shoot anyone, including myself with my 642!

JellyJar
July 30, 2011, 05:37 PM
I would never buy a S&W revolver of any kind that had the ILS in it. They, unlike any other ILS that I know of have been know to malfunction. Yes they can be removed but that could lead to legal complications should such a revolver be used in a SD shooting.

Too many old ones and other makes that don't have that ILS. Ruger's ILSes don't bother be because I don't see how they could ever malfunction and lock up a gun by accident.

MyGreenGuns
July 30, 2011, 06:09 PM
I have a SW 637 with internal lock. I've had no problems with the lock feeling lose or not disengaging. The only time I use the lock, is when I practice drawing from conceal. The lock freezes the hammer and trigger, you CAN still open the cylinder. I can leave the gun loaded for real weight and I'm less worried about shooting myself with it. For that reason, I like it.

bergmen
July 30, 2011, 06:53 PM
I would really like to see a demonstration of a lock that has caused a problem. All I have seen or read about is conjecture.

BTW, I have a 642 with a lock and I don't even know it is there. What's the issue?

Dan

skoro
July 30, 2011, 06:57 PM
Would you pass up getting a 642/442 if it had the internal lock on it?

My 642 has the lock. It's never caused me any concern. That said, I'd probably be a tiny bit happier if it wasn't there.

mmitch
July 30, 2011, 07:05 PM
Rather than a mechanical problem (in almost all cases), it is more of an insult to those who would rather not have safety mandated. It has a nanny state ramification and is one more testiment regarding the supposed inability of shooters to utilize the one safety device we all possess, that one between our ears.

Mike

jon86
July 30, 2011, 07:57 PM
Would you pass up getting a 642/442 if it had the internal lock on it?

No I wouldn't worry about the lock.

Honestly, Smith and Wesson must have already sold thousands and thousands of revolvers with the dreaded lock. How many times have we heard of them failing? I would be willing to bet that the locks that failed were USED by their owners. I have never even stuck the key into the lock on my j frame and it has held up for a few thousand rounds already. No problems here.

However, if it bothers you, simply have it removed.

Old Fuff
July 30, 2011, 08:44 PM
Ruger's LCR does have an internal lock, but it is hidden under the stocks, and like the one used in Taurus revolvers, has absolutely no reputation for self-locking at all.

On the other hand the S&W lock has been known to self-lock, but only on very rare occasions. That said, it only takes once if you get hit by lightning. Some find the lock to be cosmetically offensive, but this is a point of little or no serious consequences.

I have easily solved the whole issue (which includes crush-fit/two piece barrels, MIM lockwork, and some other minor points) by simply buying older production models that fortunately lack these cost-cutting features. Those few that feel the same way are welcome to follow my lead. Others are equally free to go in their own direction. Why have an argument? :cool:

Slasher
July 30, 2011, 10:24 PM
Thanks for all of the responses. I really appreciate it. After looking further in to the LCR I have discovered, as others have pointed out, that the LCR has the lock also. While I have had my mind set on a 442 for a while I think that may have changed today after seeing more about the LCR357. I believe that is the one I want now. It would be a little easier shooting the .38's than the LCR38 and also give me the ability to shoot 357 which would be nice. Any opinions about the LCR 357?

Thanks again.

Old Fuff
July 31, 2011, 12:56 AM
Besides the obvious, two things:

1. The .357 Magnum version is heavier (all steel) which makes it less handy for pocket carry - if that's your intent. Also the additional recoil and blast make it harder to make fast, accurate follow-up shots. If at all possible, try one with Magnum loads before you buy.

2. If your are going to shoot .38 Special cartridges (especially with lead bullets) in the long chamber, don't keep them clean, and then fire a .357 Magnum you may find it next to impossible to extract the fired case.

MICHAEL T
July 31, 2011, 01:15 AM
I have easily solved the whole issue (which includes crush-fit/two piece barrels, MIM lockwork, and some other minor points) by simply buying older production models that fortunately lack these cost-cutting features. Those few that feel the same way are welcome to follow my lead.

Now you went and done it You will drive the price up on the older properly made S&W's I ve been doing this for past several years' See a nice one pick it up for a good price . Thanks Fuffy for the now price increase. you have brought on us.

ArchAngelCD
July 31, 2011, 02:04 AM
I have both the M442 and M642 and neither have the ILS. If the lock bothers you buy a no lock version of the M442 (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_766184_-1_757768_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y) or M642 (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_766181_-1_757768_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y) because S&W does sell them. They also have a M&P340 (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_792048_-1_757768_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y) without the lock.

CDW4ME
July 31, 2011, 08:52 AM
Ruger's LCR does have an internal lock, but it is hidden under the stocks,

Sneaky :scrutiny: :barf:

Old Fuff
July 31, 2011, 10:52 AM
Thanks Fuffy for the now price increase. you have brought on us.

You're welcome. :evil:

But I have a feeling that the continued upward trend is going to keep going without any help from me. Even so, I often notice opportunities to buy older versions of current models in "like new" condition selling for less then the manufacturer's current MSRP. This is especially true of those based on the K-Frame, which was a law enforcement standard for so long.

Looking at the overall picture, continued up-ticks of older guns is easily predictable, as 21st century manufacturing economics and market resistance to higher prices force even more undesirable cost-cutting measures.

In my view I see these guns as good investments, excellent shooters, and a simple way to avoid the despised lock with no possibility of legal repercussions. What more could you want? ;)

Old Fuff
July 31, 2011, 11:11 AM
Ruger's LCR does have an internal lock, but it is hidden under the stocks,

Sneaky

Sort of: On one side it is "out of view, out of mind," and on the other hand it can be eliminated with no visual evidence it was ever there. In fairness to Ruger, there have been zero reports of it self locking.

Keep in mind that the reason Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Taurus and others have these locks is to protect themselves from a real threat of lawsuits brought by anti-gun advocates after someone (often a child) gets ahold of a unsecured gun and something bad happens. To the degree that there is any liability it should fall on the gun owner, not the manufacturer - but in real life it doesn't always go that way. Clearly, an internal lock is not necessary to secure the gun against unauthorized use, as most these days come in a "lockable" case, and with an external trigger lock. But with some courts and juries that may not be enough. :banghead:

Guillermo
July 31, 2011, 11:34 AM
Fuff...

you have got to quit telling people to buy older Smiths!!! (I just picked up a K22 from the 50's for $290. Those deals will go away with increased competition for this diminishing resource)

in addition to increased competition for quality guns, you are interfering with Darwin.

I thus object on these 2 points and demand that you cease and desist.

:evil:

Old Fuff
July 31, 2011, 12:26 PM
I thus object on these 2 points and demand that you cease and desist.

Oh Balderdash…

It don’t matter. I have decided to go in for 19th century top-break models that represent the best quality that Smith & Wesson ever produced, and let the great unwashed have the not-as-well-made hand-ejectors. I mean, well… did you ever see a top-break with MIM lock work or an internal lock? Of course not!!! Since the 1880’s it’s been all downhill with the company. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing should get any attention if it has a dash number in the model designation. :cuss: :cuss:

Oh how I wish I was back in those good ol’ days – but with modern plumbing of course… :)

MICHAEL T
July 31, 2011, 01:24 PM
I just laid away a top break. Model 1 1/2 center fire from early 1880's in 32S&W SA Pistol solid The bluing is worn.

Couple months back a J frame made 1955 3" barrel excellent shape and a good shooter Their out their if you keep your eyes open .

Ole Coot
July 31, 2011, 01:43 PM
My J frames don't have locks nor to the rest of my handguns except a Ruger LC9 I picked up last week. I can easily remove the mag lock, keyed lock, loaded chamber indicator and leave the safety off. The trigger pull is longer and heavier than any DA I have. I don't care for locks plain and simple.

Standing Wolf
July 31, 2011, 02:57 PM
I refuse to have anything to do with a gun with a lock—period.

InkEd
July 31, 2011, 03:40 PM
Remove the S&W lock. Why take a gamble? The firearm would have to UNLOCKED to use it in a SD scenario. Therefore, it's removal should make no difference in a SD legal situation.

InkEd
July 31, 2011, 03:42 PM
Also, why didn't this get posted in the REVOLVER forum?

GoodKat
August 1, 2011, 09:34 AM
I would like to point out that lock failure has only been documented on the lightweight 44 magnum smiths. In the heavier, lower-recoil guns, the odds the lock failing are probably about the same as you just dying on the spot from an aneurysm.

orionengnr
August 1, 2011, 10:34 AM
I would like to point out that lock failure has only been documented on the lightweight 44 magnum smiths.
Patently untrue. I have read of instances of lock failure in J, K, and N-frames, in Scandium and in steel framed models.

I would remove/disable the ILS in any S&W before using it for carry or SD. It is easily enough done. Putting my money where my mouth is, the only ILS-equipped S&W I own is an M25-13. The prior owner had removed the internal lockwork. I trust it enough to carry it (in the wintertime, when I can conceal it).

Ger1942
August 1, 2011, 11:11 AM
I have a 642 I removed the lock. If I sell the gun I'll put it back in. If it's not on my person it's locked up in our safe. If it's on my person why would I want it locked?

sm
August 1, 2011, 10:09 PM
Old Fuff, Standing Wolf, others...

I had a new 642 with the lock and actually liked it. You both "know" me as others around do, but I wanted to "investigate and verify" for myself.

I gotta admit, the "new" star extractor, impressed the heck out of me. This gun is in the hands of a LEO, a member here on THR now. (or should be)

The darn gun had one of the best triggers, out of the box, I have personally experienced in a while. It got better with the shooting I did with it...

My deal was simple: "investigate and verify" for myself, not Internet garbage from those parroting information, based on who-knows-what, as they have NOT handled, much less shot one of the "locked" guns.

Yeah, I have my "druthers" but I gotta say the one new with lock, "done good". And the LEO whom is a member here on THR ain't got a problem with it either. (based on phone discussions we have had in the past and present]

Oh I want an "older one" still having been in a court of law, including, but not limited to "witness".

Personally I have my druthers, but, having btdt, including a court of law, I see a place for the newer guns with a lock, when one considers a "jury of one's peers" and so forth.

Side note: I'd kill for one of my old 042's though... loaded with standard pressure, 158 gr , lswc.

Old Fuff
August 2, 2011, 11:30 AM
Will I hope my principal point is being understood, but I sometimes wonder if that's so. :confused:

There is no reason to argue about the new vs. older Smith & Wesson revolvers. If one finds the newer ones to be satisfactory (as sm apparently does), then he and others that hold the same opinion can buy anything they like in the company's current catalog, and have no regrets.

On the other hand, those who for whatever reason (and the reasons may have nothing to do with the internal lock) prefer the older guns have the option of buying them in the second-hand market, sometimes at advantageous prices.

While I will openly admit that I am an "older gun" fan, I do not, and never have, tried to impose my belief on others, and in fact would get nowhere if I did.

The truth of the matter is that everyone is free to go in whatever direction they want, and select and buy whatever floats their boat.

So why have an argument? :)

Axel Larson
August 2, 2011, 12:31 PM
My most recent purchase was a Smith 638 and the guy I bought it from had already removed the lock, but if had not been removed I would have removed it, why take a chance. That being said go with a Smith they shoot great and have wonderful double action triggers.

Hangingrock
August 2, 2011, 02:00 PM
Smith & Wesson is hypocritical in regards to the ILS. Their version of the 1911 pistol is ILS free and the M&P semiautomatic pistol series the ILS along with the magazine disconnect is optional. If the ILS was such a worthy addition in the name of security/safety then it would be on all product lines.

PRM
August 2, 2011, 04:45 PM
Yes they can be removed but that could lead to legal complications should such a revolver be used in a SD shooting.

I'm curious, can you provide actual cases where this has led to "legal complications" in a self defense shooting. :what:

DickM
August 2, 2011, 05:29 PM
Rather than a mechanical problem (in almost all cases), it is more of an insult to those who would rather not have safety mandated. It has a nanny state ramification and is one more testiment regarding the supposed inability of shooters to utilize the one safety device we all possess, that one between our ears.

Mike

This. I bought a 637 with the IL a few years ago, the only one of my couple dozen S&W revolvers to have it. Every time I picked the gun up there was that keyhole staring back at me, reminding me that my government thinks I'm a moron and has the authority to impose laws upon me accordingly. I couldn't stand it and sold the gun soon after. Then S&W came out with a run of non-IL 642s - I bought one for me and one for my wife and we've lived happily ever after.

easyg
August 3, 2011, 09:52 AM
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n165/allenXdog/HPIM6334.jpg

This one has the dreaded lock....but it has never failed to go "BANG!!!" whenever I wanted it to.

Much ado about nothing, IMO.

easyg
August 3, 2011, 09:55 AM
Every time I picked the gun up there was that keyhole staring back at me, reminding me that my government thinks I'm a moron and has the authority to impose laws upon me accordingly.
Well, in the government's defense, about half of "the people" are morons.

How else do you think those who made and passed such laws got elected.
"The people" get the governement they deserve.

Guillermo
August 3, 2011, 10:17 AM
about half of "the people" are morons.

well said

Zundfolge
August 3, 2011, 11:25 AM
I do not understand this hate of the S&W locks.

Its for two reasons:

1) In some rare cases (especially in lightweight magnums) the locks have engaged under recoil (or at least there have been reports that they have, I don't know how valid they are).

2) The locks are there because of what is considered a traitors deal the old owners of S&W (who were Brits) made with the Clinton administration and they're seen as a symbol of capitulation to gun banners by a major firearms manufacturer.


I'm not going to argue for or against either position, but as I type this I am wearing a 340M&P in an IWB holster...and it has a lock (but to be honest I only bought this one because it was a great deal ... I'd rather have non lock guns but purely for value and aesthetic reasons).

Guillermo
August 3, 2011, 11:45 AM
I do not understand this hate of the S&W locks

I do not understand why anyone would even consider owning a firearm with a locking device that works on the same axis as the recoil of the gun.

It is the most idiotic design ever.

Of course I would not own an MIM revolver with a 2 piece, crush fit barrel unless I were to get a price break to make such a poor quality gun attractive.

Or put another way...if I am going to buy a gun of Taurus quality...I should get a Taurus price.

M2 Carbine
August 3, 2011, 12:14 PM
Would you pass up getting a 642/442 if it had the internal lock on it?
Yes.

I own a lot of S&W revolvers and I am a big S&W fan but I refuse to buy a Smith that has that lock.
I buy the pre lock Smiths.

DickM
August 3, 2011, 12:34 PM
Well, in the government's defense, about half of "the people" are morons.

Agreed - but that's the half who don't own guns, right?;)

Guillermo
August 3, 2011, 12:40 PM
but that's the half who don't own guns, right?

It is my opinion that the pitiful state of new revolver products available proves your assumption to be inaccurate.

I will go no farther to explain so as to avoid violating the rules of this fine forum.

Sgt01
August 3, 2011, 01:34 PM
Never had a problem with the lock on my S&W 442, except for the aesthetics. Looks like heck. Got about 1500 rounds through the gun. Then again, there's always Murphy's Law. The possiblity of a lock-up is always there. If it would have been available at the time, I would have picked the no-lock model, just for peace of mind.

sixgunner455
August 3, 2011, 02:58 PM
I was a bit of an ignorant purchaser when I bought my 642-2. I had no real concept of what the lock was, what it meant, or anything of the sort. I had a 1930 M&P in my safe, and was carrying a 1970 Colt DS, and wanted a lightweight, stainless revolver for deep concealment since I was moving to a very hot southern desert area.

I got a 642-2, for a very good price, and it has been my near-constant companion ever since. When I have checked it as baggage on an airline, it has been locked. Those rare events are the only times I have locked it. I have fired so many live rounds, and so many more thousands of dry-fires, that it has one of the slickest triggers on a Jframe I've ever felt. It has a lot of carry wear. I can't imagine selling or trading it. I feel undressed when it isn't in my pocket. :D

Prosser
August 3, 2011, 04:56 PM
My 360PD locked up while dry firing, and it took a gunsmith to unlock it. Taking the lock out, at least the way he did it, cause a weird feel to the trigger. A takeup, then kind of sideways feel, then straight.

If the gun was 300 dollars, I'd buy it again and remove the lock. Local gunshop won't sell it, unless the locks on it.

cottonmouth
August 3, 2011, 06:13 PM
Locks on guns is like tits on turtles.

J.B.

Robert B
August 4, 2011, 06:40 AM
Why not buy a no lock 642 or 442 from Bud's? You don't have to get an IL. $361 plus FFL transfer. I have dealt with Bud's twice. Excellent dealer.

Thaddeus Jones
August 4, 2011, 09:13 AM
Yes I would pass on any gun that had an internal lock. They are not suitable for serious purpose IMO.

Thankfully, it appears that the current company calling itself S&W's corporate greed, has finally exceeded its corporate arrogance. They now make lock free J-frames. :)

I would purchase one of the lock free J-frames over a Ruger LCR. Good luck with your decision! TJ

JFrame
August 4, 2011, 10:21 AM
Yes I would pass on any gun that had an internal lock. They are not suitable for serious purpose IMO.

Thankfully, it appears that the current company calling itself S&W's corporate greed, has finally exceeded its corporate arrogance. They now make lock free J-frames. :)

I would purchase one of the lock free J-frames over a Ruger LCR. Good luck with your decision! TJ


Thaddeus -- I've been a little out of the S&W loop lately.

Other than their "Classic" series, are they making any revolvers without the lock?


.

Thaddeus Jones
August 4, 2011, 10:46 AM
Hi JFrame,

No, not YET! Only lock free J-frames are being produced at this point. A S&W employee told me at a trade fair in Charlotte NC that many folks at S&W despise the lock as much as most shooters and S&W afficianados do.

He alluded to the lock free J-frames sales exceeding the IL J-frames had made an impression on "the suits". So hopefully, with their stock tanking and Ruger making guns that folks want to buy, we will see some more lock free revolvers in the lineup.

I'm hopefull. After years of listening to the fanboys preaching; "the lock is here to stay!" and "It's not an issue!" it is nice to see some new lock free S&W revolvers.

I personally hope that with its stock continuing to tank the company calling itself S&W gets bought out or taken over by a gun company! ;) Then maybe we will once again see some new S&W's worth owning. :) TJ

Guillermo
August 4, 2011, 11:03 AM
Then maybe we will once again see some new S&W's worth owning

That would be nice!!!

JFrame
August 4, 2011, 12:01 PM
Hi JFrame,

No, not YET! Only lock free J-frames are being produced at this point. A S&W employee told me at a trade fair in Charlotte NC that many folks at S&W despise the lock as much as most shooters and S&W afficianados do.

He alluded to the lock free J-frames sales exceeding the IL J-frames had made an impression on "the suits". So hopefully, with their stock tanking and Ruger making guns that folks want to buy, we will see some more lock free revolvers in the lineup.

I'm hopefull. After years of listening to the fanboys preaching; "the lock is here to stay!" and "It's not an issue!" it is nice to see some new lock free S&W revolvers.

I personally hope that with its stock continuing to tank the company calling itself S&W gets bought out or taken over by a gun company! ;) Then maybe we will once again see some new S&W's worth owning. :) TJ


Thanks, Thaddeus -- I will continue to hope that common sense (and business sense) prevail, and S&W will go completely back to "the old ways"... :)


.

scottishclaymore
August 4, 2011, 06:19 PM
As someone who carries a 642 with an internal lock... No. I wouldn't pass up the 642 because of the lock. I have never messed with my lock and it has never messed with me. But the 642 is one of the greatest concepts in a carry gun every devised. IMHO anyway.

Old Fuff
August 4, 2011, 06:47 PM
But the 642 is one of the greatest concepts in a carry gun every devised. IMHO anyway.

Ya', but the design concept goes back to 1887, and Smith & Wesson's Safety Hammerless line of .32 and .38 top-break revolvers. They didn't discontinue the .38 until 1940... :cool:

scottishclaymore
August 4, 2011, 09:16 PM
Old Fuff, I defer to your vastly superior S&W lore there. So shall we say the snubby revolver is one of the greatest concepts in a carry gun?

Warp
August 5, 2011, 01:07 AM
I have a 642-2 with the lock. I've had it for 3-4 years, though it doesn't get shot much. It's as if it isn't even there.

I do consider removing it, just-cause, but it doesn't overly concern me and I'm not very handy with firearm mechanics

If you enjoyed reading about "Internal lock on J frame" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!