Wheel Gun Internal Locks Poll


PDA






PolymathPioneer
August 21, 2011, 12:25 PM
I was at a local sporting goods store in Helena Saturday to get some bore solvent and happened to see a S&W 500 with a short barrel, (while asking a question at the counter comparing copper removal products). The S&W had the internal lock, which is a turn off for me because IMO gun safety is better accomplished in other ways (I won't get started on that since it is not the reason for this post). I went online to see qualitatively what the failure rate of the S&W internal lock is currently compared to when I checked a few years ago (when I stopped buying new S&W wheel guns with internal locks). It appears failure of the internal lock on S&W revolvers is occurring more frequently, (presumably because there are more of them out there now), yet S&W current senior management sticks to their interesting position that they believe it helps with insurance rates (anti-gun appeasement IMO and appeasement is a slippery slope). I know the internal lock on the Smith & Wesson is covered extensively on THR yet I could not find any recent thread with a Poll on Internal Locks on revolvers. So here is one that is straight forward.

Postscript: The reason I was interested in a short barreled S&W 500 (or a short barrel 44 mag for that matter) is for something besides bear spray as backup for an obnoxious bear that decides to issue me a "writ" to take possesion of my elk during hunting season, (in the event that my M-70 fails). Failure of my M-70 is unlikely, yet like we always used to say "2 is 1 and 1 is none."

NOTE: Please review the posts in this thread for those that did not vote due to an alternate position, which they state in their post. The poll is kept brief since there were so many different possibilities, which I ultimately did not cover.

If you enjoyed reading about "Wheel Gun Internal Locks Poll" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
montanaoffroader
August 21, 2011, 01:15 PM
I'm not a big fan of unnecessary stuff on my guns. Exposed hammer firearms have no need for additional failure points, IMO. That's why I own older revolvers, because they are relatively simple and reliable.

Rail Driver
August 21, 2011, 01:33 PM
I'd buy one with the lock. If I'm not mistaken, they can be removed by someone competent (job for a local gunsmith maybe?)

beatledog7
August 21, 2011, 01:47 PM
Easy to remove but not needed. Can be hard to find NIB no-lock Smiths sometimes.

CDW4ME
August 21, 2011, 01:50 PM
Oh no, a internal lock thread :uhoh:

I will not buy a revolver or semi-auto with an internal lock. I don't see the point in them. If the gun doesn't need to be ready for use then put it in a safe, or a lockable hard case. For me a IL is just some band-aid "feel good" excuse for proper firearms storage / supervision and more importantly it adds a unnecessary mechanism to a life defending tool.

I HAD three guns with internal locks, but strengthened my mental position and sold / traded all three.

Then I took it to the next level:

I HAD three Springfield XD's, which do not have internal locks, but I found out that Springfield 1911's did :scrutiny: Why stick a IL on some models but not others? I couldn't stand that kind of inconsistency and sold them too.

I still have my two old lock free S&W J-frames that I bought new in the early 1990's. I won't sell them even though S&W sticks locks on everything except their 1911 (or at least I don't think their 1911 had one initally). These two have been lightly used and should serve me nearly forever if I ever desire a revolver for SD / carry.

As far as I know there is not a new revolver made without a lock. I believe Ruger has one hidden under the grip of their LCR. I don't think I could find a "suitable" ie lock free new DA revolver made by a company that didn't stick lock on other models (not that I've actually looked for a new revolver lately).

My list of acceptable pistols includes Glock, Colt, Dan Wesson, Les Baer, Ed Brown, and Kel-Tec (the P3AT is pocket carry perfection).

I step off my IL soapbox.

Now, please don't start a thread in semi-autos on 1911's and how MIM is "good enough"

gotigers
August 21, 2011, 01:56 PM
My 642 with lock has performed flawlessly.

918v
August 21, 2011, 02:22 PM
An internal locks on a revolver is like a banjo bolt in a sphincter.

jad0110
August 21, 2011, 03:05 PM
Did not vote, as there isn't the following option:

"I own revolver(s) with the ILS, but have decided not to purchase any more with the ILS"

That's my personal choice, as I don't like what the ILS represents. Plus I prefer blued finishes and wood grips anyway. I won't bash anyone's choice to buy a revolver so equipped.

Hellerhighwater
August 21, 2011, 03:17 PM
I think the internal lock is a nice option to have really. If I ever have kids, I like knowing that I have the ability to lock the firearm in a way they are not likely to understand until they are old enough to responsibly handle it. Yeah, I keep it in a safe, but its one more level of safety for those of us who may want it. Speaking of options though, it would be nice if they sold them without, for those of you who fear them for whatever reason.

Also, I have never read an actual first hand account of an internal lock freezing up. For all the hype, it seems to be a rare, if almost nonexistent occurrence.

230therapy
August 21, 2011, 03:21 PM
I voted "I would buy one" because I have.

However, that does not prevent me from disabling it either. I do prefer pre-lock guns.


I HAD three Springfield XD's, which do not have internal locks, but I found out that Springfield 1911's did Why stick a IL on some models but not others? I couldn't stand that kind of inconsistency and sold them too.

This is probably due to California requirements and the cost to put the gun on the list. One little change requires the company to pay the fee again.

dagerv
August 21, 2011, 03:27 PM
I voted I would not buy one with an IL because I recently have bought one without it. It was a easy as asking my local gun store if they could order my particular s&w without the lock so I bought that one. I agree with cdw4me about locking up the gun when it is not in use. What better peace of mind than did I lock the gun or not?

Old Shooter
August 21, 2011, 03:40 PM
Too many good used ones without the lock out there and I personally believe the older guns were built better than the newer over-priced, shrouded barrel, unobtanium frames and cylinders, mim parts, etc. etc etc.

I don't fault anyone for buying a new one but they just aren't for me.

Old krow
August 21, 2011, 04:06 PM
I voted no, but I do own a SW revolver with one. I probably wouldn't buy another. It's mostly because I agree with Old Shooter.

Gottahaveone
August 21, 2011, 06:11 PM
I voted "no". I won't buy a (new) S&W, lock or not. I *did* buy a Springfield 1911A1 but I knew in advance how easy it was to swap out the mainspring housing. It's been my experience that the fewer parts a mechanical device has, the more inherently reliable it is.
Some silly lawyer-lock that I would NEVER engage is a waste of mechanical parts.

dagger dog
August 21, 2011, 06:28 PM
I wonder if the S&W ILS uses MIM parts? :D

My Ruger Blackhawk lock mechanism does, along with the keys.

Oh by the way I voted yes.

Big Juan
August 21, 2011, 06:48 PM
I have had both, I like being able to lock my displayed Vaquero, especially in case my grandson is around.Isn't it is a legal and liability issue in a few states? I also can verify that a Ruger GP100 comes only with an external lock. After all, with revolvers, the safety is between your ears.

stanmo
August 21, 2011, 06:55 PM
I just can't bring myself to buy one with ILS.

So let's see, you're driving to work and thinking; Did I turn the sprinkler off? Did I unplug the iron? Did I lock the gun?

PolymathPioneer
August 21, 2011, 07:21 PM
Did not vote, as there isn't the following option:

"I own revolver(s) with the ILS, but have decided not to purchase any more with the ILS"

That's my personal choice, as I don't like what the ILS represents. Plus I prefer blued finishes and wood grips anyway. I won't bash anyone's choice to buy a revolver so equipped.
I understand and thanks for the write in. I thought of other questions but decided to keep it a simple "yes" or "no" poll because I couldn't cover all the different possibilities. I probably should have included a general "poll does not cover my response" option.

mmitch
August 21, 2011, 07:38 PM
IL is a deal killer for me.

M

Mick_W
August 21, 2011, 07:48 PM
Just picked up a 625 with the IL, couldn't pass up the deal on it and it is one of my favorite revolvers. But I do own 2 other revolvers without the IL and prefer them not to have it, but as long as the gun functions flawlessly it doesn't really matter to me.

eazyrider
August 21, 2011, 08:30 PM
I never have bought one with the lock but it would not stop me from buying it. If it bothered me that much then I would just remove it.

Warp
August 21, 2011, 08:30 PM
I would - and have. Haven't had a problem.

M2 Carbine
August 21, 2011, 08:44 PM
As a matter if fact I turned down 6 or 7 revolvers in the last couple weeks because they had the lawyer lock.

The only revolver I have with a lawyer lock is a $4000 500 S&W. The only reason I have that is it was given to me.

Now don't you think that someone that defaces a gun like this with that ugly hole should be horse whipped.
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/Smith500.jpg

powwowell
August 21, 2011, 08:50 PM
I have and probably will again. It's no biggie with me. I have not heard of any complaints with the Taurus version.

As many S&Ws as there are out there, lock failures must be less than .05%. Does anyone personally know of a failure?

texgunner
August 21, 2011, 08:50 PM
I currently have 20+ S & W revolvers in my collection. About half of them have the lock and not one has caused problems for me.

918v
August 21, 2011, 09:04 PM
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/Smith500.jpg

Nice mold lines on the gold plated hammer.

bergmen
August 21, 2011, 09:31 PM
They are required for California so we don't have a choice. I don't understand why they just can't be ignored. I never paid any attention to them since they are inconsequential to the function.

Dan

918v
August 22, 2011, 12:34 AM
There is more to firearms than just function.

Lucky Derby
August 22, 2011, 01:16 AM
They are required for California so we don't have a choice. I don't understand why they just can't be ignored. I never paid any attention to them since they are inconsequential to the function.

Dan
No they are not. The internal lock does not satify any California requirement. Guns being transfered must have an external, seperate lock installed when they leave the FFL. So even with this stupid internal lock, the dealer still has to install an external one.

Lucky Derby
August 22, 2011, 01:23 AM
I voted No, because you did not have an option for only if it is well designed. The S&W lock, which is what we all think o,f is VERY poorly designed. I have witnessed a failure where the gun locked under recoil. I have read several first hand accounts.
The Taurus lock on the hammer, AFAIK, has not had a failure. And this is Taurus! I almost expect their guns to fail. The Ruger lock, which is hidden under the grip of some SAs (AFAIK no Ruger DAs have a lock) has had no published failures. Ruger and Taurus locks are also both discreet when compared to S&W.

ArchAngelCD
August 22, 2011, 04:25 AM
They are required for California so we don't have a choice. I don't understand why they just can't be ignored. I never paid any attention to them since they are inconsequential to the function.

Dan
I wasn't going get sucked into this thread but I have to answer that comment. That is totally incorrect. The ILS IS NOT a safely device, it's a storage device and like mentioned above, "The internal lock does not satisfy any California requirement. Guns being transferred must have an external, separate lock installed when they leave the FFL. So even with this stupid internal lock, the dealer still has to install an external one."

The ILS like threads involving the ILS are useless!

Racinbob
August 22, 2011, 04:35 AM
I voted no. I did have a problem with the only one I had. It was a 642. Got rid of it and found a no lock 442. All my other Smiths are older and I'll stick to them.

oldfool
August 22, 2011, 06:05 AM
what 'almost' surprises me (and about the only thing that surprises me about these ILS threads) is that somebody at S&W doesn't shove poll results like these under the CEO's nose every day

I think I can guess why they don't quit the ILS, but they ought know by now they are not doing their marketing group any favors.

I voted, yes, by the way.
Despite no fondness or need for that ILS storage lock (S&W or other) , it's just not a deal breaker for me.

oldfool
August 22, 2011, 06:32 AM
"Now don't you think that someone that defaces a gun like this with that ugly hole should be horse whipped."

No, but I sure would love to see what leather that one wears on BBQ day (horsewhip accessorizing purely optional).
Pretty, I bet !

stanmo
August 22, 2011, 07:58 AM
what 'almost' surprises me (and about the only thing that surprises me about these ILS threads) is that somebody at S&W doesn't shove poll results like these under the CEO's nose every day

I think I can guess why they don't quit the ILS, but they ought know by now they are not doing their marketing group any favors.

I voted, yes, by the way.
Despite no fondness or need for that ILS storage lock (S&W or other) , it's just not a deal breaker for me.
__________________

The CEO only needs to read a few posts like yours.

CajunBass
August 22, 2011, 08:08 AM
I've been tempted to, "just because" and might still do it one of these days, but all all Smith & Wesson revolvers with a lock have something that I like even less.

That's a third digit in the model number.

Beaurtiful gun there M2. I don't even think the lock is all that ugly. It's just there. Sort of like a screw or a pin.

TexasBill
August 22, 2011, 08:25 AM
It's worth noting that the resistance to the ILS doesn't seem to have hurt sales of S&W revolvers. From their SEC filings it appears they are selling thousands of revolvers every quarter with J-frames being the hottest items. I have a hunch most people either don't know or don't care about the ILS or MIM parts.

With the number of ILS-equipped S&W revolvers out there, one would think that, if the ILS problem was as widespread as the scuttlebutt, there would have been an incident by now, followed by a big lawsuit.

Personally, I own two S&W revolvers with the ILS and would buy another. In fact, I would far rather have a modern, NIB S&W revolver than one of those made in the 1980s and 1990s, when S&W quality was terrible.

Lenny_D
August 22, 2011, 09:02 AM
S&W still does offer a few models without the internal lock. I bought a Model 442 last year without the lock and love it. I personally prefer my revolvers without one. I really want a 22 cal revolver but can't bring myself to buy the 617 because of the lock. I'll wait till I find an old 18.

Rodentman
August 22, 2011, 09:44 AM
The IL doesn't bother me. Never had a failure with one. OTOH, if I had the choice, I would choose the NL version. I do not carry any gun with an IL for SD, as I have others.

Thaddeus Jones
August 22, 2011, 09:46 AM
I will not own one of those abominations. As far as I'm concerned S&W went out of business in 2001. With all the fine revolvers that were made by S&W prior to its demise, I haven't missed them yet! :)

heeler
August 22, 2011, 09:59 AM
None for me.
Lawyers are the root cause of this Political correctness and I will not pay money for this.

Jonah71
August 22, 2011, 10:02 AM
I have and probably will again. It's no biggie with me. I have not heard of any complaints with the Taurus version.

As many S&Ws as there are out there, lock failures must be less than .05%. Does anyone personally know of a failure?
You have now. I sold my Taurus Mod. 65 ss at a loss. Got it back from CS after 2 months and it locked up again in a very short time. I may have simply ended up with a lemon, but I'm in no hurry to own another internal lock revolver. A good friend has the 7 round model (66 I think) and he hasn't had a problem with it in 3 years. With the kids all grown and out of the house I see no need for the lock on a revolver anyway....or any other gun for that matter.

bergmen
August 22, 2011, 10:47 AM
I somehow came to believe the internal lock was a California requirement (they require so much other crap, my mind just lumped it in with the rest).

So how (why) did they originate?

Dan

oldfool
August 22, 2011, 10:54 AM
"The CEO only needs to read a few posts like yours."

the CEO of S&W doesn't care about my opinion
he OUGHT care a whole lot about the other 50% in this poll, unless his vision of success is to have his sales and salary cut in half.. which is what I would be telling him real loud if I was on the Board of Directors

Loosedhorse
August 22, 2011, 10:57 AM
Very limited poll options. Others to consider:

I have already bought a S&W revolver with the key lock.

I have already bought multiple S&W revolvers with the key lock.

I have had the key lock removed on at least one of my S&W revolvers.

I am considering getting the key lock removed on at least one of my S&W revolvers: a light-weight, heavy-recoil one meant for emergency defense against human or animal attackers.

Oh, I appreciate the story about the Taurus: I thought with all the hoopla about Smith that only their revolvers could fail in a way to tie the gun up. Now we just need a similar story about Ruger key locks, and we're all set!

oldfool
August 22, 2011, 10:58 AM
"So how (why) did they originate?"

the infamous ILS (etc., notably the "biometric" idiocy) deal S&W cut with Clinton is the reason that "the company formerly known as Smith & Wesson" went bankrupt and was sold to Saf-T-Hammer for 10 cents on the dollar
http://www.lneilsmith.org/smithandwessonmustdie.html


and the Saf-T-Hammer folks apparently have spent too much time thinking about the great bargain they got, instead of why they got it

Rexster
August 22, 2011, 11:18 AM
I will qualify my "not" vote by inserting the word "likely" after the word "not" in the sentence. I am not likely to buy an S&W with a keyhole, simply because I have plenty of revolvers already, and am lucky to live near a very large dealer in collectible firearms, who seems to have plenty of good-as-new pre-clintonista-era S&W revolvers at any given time.

I reckon that I might someday get a chance to handle a sixgun with a keyhole, and it may have redeeming features that negate the keyhole. The problem with keyhole revolvers seems to occur in the Airlite and Airweight versions, when using very powerful ammo.

As for a compact weapon for repelling bears, as mentioned by the OP, my choice would not be any S&W product, anyway, when I own Rugers quite suited to the task, that fit my hands superbly.

918v
August 22, 2011, 11:20 AM
Somebody needs to figure out how to weld these inbred revolvers up. Somebody needs to make hammers and triggers worthy of the platform (no, not the spurless competition parts, but regular hammers).

788Ham
August 22, 2011, 12:16 PM
I voted NO ! This was one of the first things I asked about before buying the SP 101 I now have. Guess I'm too "old style" to change now, don't want to have to contend with something else when the time comes to needing it in a hurry!

Beautiful BBQ gun, show us a pic of the whole unit, plus another with the leather, please!

Lucky Derby
August 22, 2011, 12:17 PM
I somehow came to believe the internal lock was a California requirement (they require so much other crap, my mind just lumped it in with the rest).

So how (why) did they originate?

Dan
As I understand it, and I may have the details wrong: A company called Safe-T-Hammer designed the ILS as a retrofit. They couldn't sell any. Due largely to the S&W/Clinton deal S&W was going under. Safe-T-Hammer bought S&W really cheap, not so much as a way to get into the gun business, but as a way to sell those useless locks. Safe-T-Hammer is a (poor excuse for a) lock company, not a gun company.

Guillermo
August 22, 2011, 12:36 PM
I have learned to like the IL on the S&W.

It is a moronic design that works with the axis of the recoil of the gun. A drunk retarded monkey could have done better.

Still it is my belief that life is too safe these days. Too many safety regulations. In days gone by, stupid people took themselves out of the gene pool with much more regularity. They did it with cars, power tools and yes...guns.

Darwinism should apply to the gun community.

Carl N. Brown
August 22, 2011, 12:48 PM
I believe in keep it sweet and simple: the fewer unnecessary parts the better.

If the gun needs to be locked (as when I'm away from the house and the gun is home), it needs to be in a lock box or safe.

918v
August 22, 2011, 01:32 PM
If the Clintons wanted a safety, S&W should have installed a 1911-type thumb safety.

Wait... that's just as stupid.

PolymathPioneer
August 22, 2011, 02:06 PM
As a matter if fact I turned down 6 or 7 revolvers in the last couple weeks because they had the lawyer lock.

The only revolver I have with a lawyer lock is a $4000 500 S&W. The only reason I have that is it was given to me.

Now don't you think that someone that defaces a gun like this with that ugly hole should be horse whipped.
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/Smith500.jpg
That is amazing work! Maybe you could have the ILS removed and have the hole filled in with a small gold plug, flush to the frame and polished. Seriously, I think it would look very nice if it was done professionally.

M2 Carbine
August 22, 2011, 04:04 PM
Beautiful BBQ gun, show us a pic of the whole unit, plus another with the leather, please!
I couldn't get a decent picture of the whole gun, too much "bling".:D
This is what it looks like but the picture doesn't nearly do the gun justice.
http://www.ahffirearms.com/products/SWSECOND.asp

No holster. Would you believe they give you white gloves just to handle the gun. Of course no cocking the hammer.


That is amazing work! Maybe you could have the ILS removed and have the hole filled in with a small gold plug, flush to the frame and polished. Seriously, I think it would look very nice if it was done professionally.
I really hate that hole but there's nothing that could be done at this point that wouldn't greatly decrease it's value. Although a small Gold plug is a good idea.

I didn't buy the gun. It was given to me. I really have no interest in it, so I just showed it to everyone then put it in the bank vault.

I cussed S&W and that hole every time I showed the gun to someone.:D

918v
August 22, 2011, 05:13 PM
You could plug the hole, but what about the hammer slot and the groove in the hammer itself?

JellyJar
August 22, 2011, 05:30 PM
I have one revolver with an ILS. Its a Ruger new Vaquero. The lock is under the grips where it can't be seen and is of the type that cannot accidentally engage during firing. However, I will never buy a Smith and Wesson revolver with their ILS and I don't care how easy it may be to remove.

Take care

JJ

Snowbandit
August 22, 2011, 05:57 PM
I gave in, bought one model 340 with the lock and never had a problem with it because the lock is still in the box and the revolver is in my pocket. I like this revolver because it's light and makes a perfect back up to my model 28. I'll not be buying another with the lock. I used to buy 1-3 new S&W's every year and have bought a total of one since they came out with the lock and, I only bought that one because it wasn't available without the lock. I certainly don't need any more guns and my want list, particularly as far as new revolvers are concerned, is now totally depleted due to the lock.

I didn't vote, put me in the camp with those who bought one but won't be buying anymore.

PolymathPioneer
August 22, 2011, 06:27 PM
I gave in, bought one model 340 with the lock and never had a problem with it because the lock is still in the box and the revolver is in my pocket. I like this revolver because it's light and makes a perfect back up to my model 28. I'll not be buying another with the lock. I used to buy 1-3 new S&W's every year and have bought a total of one since they came out with the lock and, I only bought that one because it wasn't available without the lock. I certainly don't need any more guns and my want list, particularly as far as new revolvers are concerned, is now totally depleted due to the lock.

I didn't vote, put me in the camp with those who bought one but won't be buying anymore.
Thanks for your post and your position is noted. I will make a note of positions not covered by the poll in my OP.

788Ham
August 23, 2011, 12:37 AM
M2,

Thanks for showing us a full pic, I understand about the bling part, a true beauty! You'd better wear gloves!! I'm happy for you, not many have a piece like that. :what:

iflyem1
August 23, 2011, 01:00 AM
I don't like the lock and won't be buying a new S&W with one. I think it detracts from the revolvers looks if that tmakes any sense to you guys. I'm of the opinion that if I need to lock it, I will put it in the safe. Otherwise I like my revolvers without the Hillary Hole.

Shienhausser
August 23, 2011, 01:05 AM
I have a newer S&W 686 and while I have never had any problems with it, after buying an older S&W, it's not just the lock but other factors as well that will forever keep me from buying a newer locked S&W again.

imoXu
August 23, 2011, 06:22 AM
my M&PR8 had a lock
I had to remove it after it broke firing some 158gn wincherster 357magnum rounds.
posted here with pics of the offending piece.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=587295&highlight=internal+lock+failure
I would still probably buy another smith revolver, as good opportunites for used guns are not as common over here in Australia.
but the first thing I would do is take it out.

Dan

woad_yurt
August 23, 2011, 10:04 AM
I almost voted "no" but caught myself. I wouldn't buy a new one but may consider a used one as part of a trade or if the price was good enough. One never knows what will drop into one's lap....

PolymathPioneer
August 23, 2011, 12:27 PM
my M&PR8 had a lock
I had to remove it after it broke firing some 158gn wincherster 357magnum rounds.
posted here with pics of the offending piece.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=587295&highlight=internal+lock+failure
I would still probably buy another smith revolver, as good opportunites for used guns are not as common over here in Australia.
but the first thing I would do is take it out.

Dan
Thanks for including your thread link in this thread regarding ILS failure. The pictures are excellent.

PolymathPioneer
August 23, 2011, 12:33 PM
I almost voted "no" but caught myself. I wouldn't buy a new one but may consider a used one as part of a trade or if the price was good enough. One never knows what will drop into one's lap....
Thanks for your your input that is not covered by the thread poll. I have included a note for thread followers to look for alternative thoughts at the beginning of the thread.

Guillermo
August 23, 2011, 12:39 PM
I would not buy a S&W IL gun.

It is designed to fail.

Taurus or Ruger locks, as they work on a perpendicular axis to the recoil of the gun, do not bother me

PolymathPioneer
August 23, 2011, 12:42 PM
As of today the poll is running about 50/50. S&W executives take note. Perhaps the so-called liability/insurance cost issues (i.e. hence the ILS according to S&W corporate) is addressed by 50% more revenues (i.e. numbers from the poll) that provides a non-ILS alternative product. A custom shop offering with no ILS would be great. Indeed, it would be very interesting if there was an ILS custom shop "S&W Classic" alternative, i.e. similar to what Winchester did.

Guillermo
August 23, 2011, 12:57 PM
In addition to not considering a new S&W revolver, I did not consider an M&P when I bought my polymer wondergun.

Spent my money on a Springfield XD

Smith ignores their customers and this one ignores them when my wallet is concerned.

M3stuart
August 23, 2011, 04:44 PM
I voted no.

Before I ever considered it an issue I started buying pre-lock used S&W revolvers which I really like. (See SW forum for posts there). I now have 3. The older Smiths, IMHO, are just a better deal. You get a great gun for the price of a new Rossi or Taurus (which I also own or owned).

So, I said no, but not because I have a major issue with the ILS itself, but because I just don't think the new Smiths are as good a deal as the used Smiths. For example; I recently bought a used 4" 64-5 (I think) K frame (made in 1997 I think) in great shape for $350. That is at least what you'd pay for a new 'fill in the blank'.

SPW1
August 23, 2011, 10:29 PM
I can't really vote with the two options given. I consider the Taurus and smith locks a unsightly negative but I might buy a revolver with one if it was a gun I wanted badly enough and the price was right. At this time though the only smiths I own have no lock. The internal lock on rugers revolvers on the other hand doesn't bother me much at all and I would and have bought revolvers so equipped.

PolymathPioneer
August 24, 2011, 12:03 AM
I can't really vote with the two options given. I consider the Taurus and smith locks a unsightly negative but I might buy a revolver with one if it was a gun I wanted badly enough and the price was right. At this time though the only smiths I own have no lock. The internal lock on rugers revolvers on the other hand doesn't bother me much at all and I would and have bought revolvers so equipped.
I am looking at a Ruger Single Action stainless purchase and would like to know where the ILS would be located. I am going in tomorrow to purchase it but only if there is no ILS (I looked it over and couldn't find any ILS but need to be certain since I won't buy a revolver so equipped for the intended purpose of last resort bear medicine backup if my M-70 or UDAP bear spray fails). I just started a different thread asking where to look for ILS on a Ruger single action blackhawk revolver. It sounds like you know, could you tell me where to look for the ILS? Much obliged for any help.

Sport45
August 24, 2011, 12:19 AM
If the price was right, I wouldn't let the lock stop me.

skidder
August 24, 2011, 01:17 AM
I was in that same store Saturday and probably walked right by you.:D

A big resounding NOOOO!!! A bread crumb tossed to a sleeping society awoken by the sound of complacency. "They are for your own good", and you will understand when you see all the lives they save. Yes master, what else will you toss me from your bag of infringements?? Do you want me to roll over and play dead? I do that very well.....

Got_Lead?
August 24, 2011, 01:18 AM
I think the internal lock is one of the most absurd and useless features ever conceived for a firearm. Kind of like locking the barn door after the cows all got out.

Guillermo
August 24, 2011, 01:23 AM
A bread crumb tossed to a sleeping society awoken by the sound of complacency. "They are for your own good", and you will understand when you see all the lives they save. Yes master, what else will you toss me from your bag of infringements?? Do you want me to roll over and play dead?

poetry

pure poetry

Brian Williams
August 24, 2011, 01:55 AM
Although I voted, No, I would purchase one revolver with a lock that would be a Taurus Tracker in either 45 colt or 45 ACP. That is the original 45 before the STUPID Judge.

wrs840
August 24, 2011, 02:12 AM
Pre lock S&Ws for me thank you. Not because of the lock necessarily, just because they're better guns.

Fishslayer
August 24, 2011, 03:19 AM
As of today the poll is running about 50/50. S&W executives take note. Perhaps the so-called liability/insurance cost issues (i.e. hence the ILS according to S&W corporate) is addressed by 50% more revenues (i.e. numbers from the poll) that provides a non-ILS alternative product. A custom shop offering with no ILS would be great. Indeed, it would be very interesting if there was an ILS custom shop "S&W Classic" alternative, i.e. similar to what Winchester did.


S&W has already begun phasing out the IL.

Good move.

captain awesome
August 24, 2011, 05:04 AM
I have purchased 3 of them, and voted no. I removed the lock on 2 of them, sold one of those at a 20% PROFIT from new(the guy liked the fact that the lock was gone) and the last will very likely be a collectors piece and go up significantly in value so i decided to leave it.

The reasons I voted "No" are these; I do not like the way the lock looks, I do not like the fact that they have caused even one failure in the past, I do not like how proud Smith and Wesson is of themselves. I do not like them SAM I am. Third reason, why? Because the current offerings of revolvers seem sub-quality compared to their older counterparts I have purchased. I am not old enough to have purchased a pinned and recessed Smith revolver new from a store, but I have gotten my hands on some of them (most well used) and it doesn't take a genius to see the difference in quality. Even compared to the well used ones, the brand new ones (even from the so called performance center) just seem inferior, tolerances, fit and finish, triggers, all seem to be inconsistent or inferior to their elder brethren in my safe. I see these differences and then see that Smith and Wesson seems to think their guns are worth half again or more than that of their primary competition. To me that little lock symbolizes all that I have said about these guns. That has been my experience with the ones I have purchased. Your experience may differ.

That being said while my vote was no, there is one, and only one revolver Smith and Wesson makes that still intrigues me enough that I may some day pony up the dough for. Is it likely? I couldn't say. Will it happen soon? Definitely not, after all they may just pull there heads out of their you know whats some day and remove the blasted hole on all their guns, I am in no hurry. For now I will just stick with those wonderful works of art S&W once made.

fallingblock
August 24, 2011, 05:32 AM
I greatly dislike the concept of an internal lock on a defensive device.

The fewer parts (especially unnecessary parts that can lock the gun without warning) the better.

I quit buying S&W after removing the locks from the last two I bought.

Why should we be forced to buy a political statement?

Stainz
August 24, 2011, 06:11 AM
Most of my S&W revolvers have the IL. To say no because of the lock would have kept some fine newer S&W's out of my collection - not acceptable here. Not only have I not had a problem, but neither, apparently, has S&W. In ten years of it's inclusion, S&W has yet to spend a dime defending themselves in a lawsuit concerning a malfunction. Each of us can vote the way we wish in the important poll - with our wallets.

Stainz

PolymathPioneer
August 24, 2011, 09:29 AM
S&W has already begun phasing out the IL.

Good move.
I also read something similar on a post on the Internet the other day from a thread that dated back a couple of years ago but I also read by the same poster that his information was incorrect or only applied to non-wheel guns. Here is the thread: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/64628-locks-will-phased-out-says-s-w.html. I visited the S&W website and found two revolvers for concealed carry that specifically state no internal locking system but other than that all their revolvers have it. Maybe S&W will market no internal locking system as a new "feature" that they charge a premium for.

Do you know of a link where S&W states the internal locking system is being phased out on their revolvers?

M2 Carbine
August 24, 2011, 11:15 AM
S&W has already begun phasing out the IL.

Good move.
I'll believe it when I see it. Then maybe I will not just walk by the S&W tables at the gun shows.


I think the internal lock is one of the most absurd and useless features ever conceived for a firearm. Kind of like locking the barn door after the cows all got out.
But it gives the anti-gun crowd a warm and fuzzy feeling.:rolleyes:



M2,

Thanks for showing us a full pic, I understand about the bling part, a true beauty! You'd better wear gloves!! I'm happy for you, not many have a piece like that.
Yes, in person it's a thing of beauty.
But not being one to hang such on the wall and all my friends have seen it, so it just stays in the bank vault.
One day I'll leave it to one of my friends, who will probably also just leave it in a bank vault.:)

Guillermo
August 24, 2011, 01:06 PM
I do not believe that the people running S&W have the intelligence or integrity to phase out the lock.

As evidenced by their actions they are idiotic punks that care nothing about quality, doing what is right or the gun community. They sell overpriced, questionable revolvers and make money doing it.

Of course Harley did the same thing for many years so it is a viable business model.

skidder
August 24, 2011, 02:10 PM
I would love to get a 66 (traded one in my younger days :banghead:), but I will not buy one with the monkey lock.

ColeK
August 24, 2011, 06:52 PM
I have purchased revolvers with an internal locks.

BUT, do I use the locks?

HECK, NO!!! I NEVER EVER use an internal lock!!!

fastbolt
August 25, 2011, 04:35 PM
Okay, I voted YES, but only because I did buy one with an ILS. It was a M&P 340, and it was only offered (originally) with the ILS.

I've had no problems with the ILS engaging, shooting standard or +P .38 Spl, or a variety of .357 Magnum.

I've not had any of the other folks I've met have any problems with their New Model S&W ILS-equipped revolvers. This has ranged from folks shooting regular Airweights, to the Sc/Ti .38's, to the Magnum Airlites and up to the .500 S&W Magnums.

When I went to a S&W revolver armorer class I asked if any of the other armorers in the class had ever personally had a revolver exhibit an ILS problem (which they could confirm actually involved the ILS). None had. Naturally, a few of the older guys in my age group weren't exactly enthralled with the "aesthetics" of the ILS, but they didn't have any problems with their folks carrying guns with them.

The armorer instructor told me he had never had an armorer bring him a gun which had exhibited a problem with the ILS, either.

The portion of the class which dealt with the ILS was brief, covering how to remove the locking arm (or "flag", as it's called online), and replacing the small torque lock spring in the locking arm, if ever needed (like if damaged by someone doing some unauthorized monkeying around inside the gun :scrutiny: ). It's a bit of a pain to manipulate and install the little spring, BTW. (I've done it for practice, just in case I ever need to do it to repair a gun.)

The bottom of the itty bitty dog-leg spring is held in place within a small, lipped recess within the machined groove for the bolt. If the bottom leg were to become dislodged, the locking arm won't be held down. I don't see how it can easily become dislodged ... unless someone were to tinker around, like removing the hammer and bolt, and allow the locking arm to tip and pull the bottom leg free of its lipped recess. I was once told by someone at the factory. that at one time they were looking very closely at production to make sure no assembly problems occurred which might result in the locking arm spring not being positioned and captured as designed.

Each time I've asked different folks from within the factory (repair, sales, customer service, etc), I've been told by each person that they've heard of either no, or very few, problems with revolvers with the ILS. The guys who acknowledge to have heard of an ILS-related problem said that it had occurred early on in the production models.

While I don't use the ILS for safe storage, or to prevent unauthorized access to my revolvers - (I have a gun safe for that purpose) - I can certainly see how some owners would appreciate a locking system that can help them in this regard.

I also suspect that internal locking systems are going to be something that's increasingly with us in the future of privately owned and used firearms.

In the meantime, however ... I bought another M&P 340, this time the latest variation made without the ILS. Yep, a no-lock M&P 340. Now I have 2 of them. ;)

I've continued to carry my original one (with the lock), since it's provided good service to me for the few years I've owned, used, shot and carried it. I'll likely continue to carry it upon occasion, keeping it as a secondary, but most likely it'll become one of my "range beater" J-frames (along with a second 642-1 I bought a while back), while I continue to try and wear it out.

I'm glad to see S&W has been listening to its customers and has been expanding the availability of its internal hammer revolvers (Centennials) made without locks. I wouldn't hold my breath on them making external hammer models without locks, though. Not any time soon, at any rate. I've been repeatedly told that this is due to the advice they've received from their corporate legal staff.

It's seemingly still a matter of some debate, and apparently some small amount of contention, within the company. Oh well. Time will tell.

I'm always a bit suspicious when I read online about an ILS activating itself under recoil. Having looked inside the guns and seen how it works, I always wonder if the bottom spring leg had come loose from someone tinkering inside the gun, not realizing they'd done something which caused the leg to slip free of its lipped recess ... or from it not having been installed right during assembly.

Also, there are a number of other things that can mechanically happen which can "lock up" the gun, none of which have anything to do with the lock. I've seen my fair share of S&W (and other) revolvers have things happen which caused them to "seize" up ... and I'm talking about guns which weren't even made with internal locking systems.

Anyway ...

Given my druthers ... and not needing the ILS to secure my own firearms due to other storage methods I use ... I'd generally choose to buy a revolver made without an internal lock. (Ditto for my pistols, but look at all of those that are being produced nowadays, and look for them to increase.)

Just my thoughts.

PolymathPioneer
August 25, 2011, 05:36 PM
...Just my thoughts...

Fastbolt; thanks for your excellent post to this thread and your participation in the poll.:)

fastbolt
August 25, 2011, 05:43 PM
You're welcome.

Just bear in mind that these are only my own thoughts and experiences.

I know folks (whose opinions I respect) who have different opinions about this subject, and I respect their opinions.

It's often a rather contentious subject, though, and not just because some folks have a complaint with the aesthetics of the ILS design.

Some folks still have an issue with the actions of the former owners and seem determined to take it out on the current holding company.

SPW1
August 25, 2011, 06:49 PM
I am looking at a Ruger Single Action stainless purchase and would like to know where the ILS would be located. I am going in tomorrow to purchase it but only if there is no ILS (I looked it over and couldn't find any ILS but need to be certain since I won't buy a revolver so equipped for the intended purpose of last resort bear medicine backup if my M-70 or UDAP bear spray fails). I just started a different thread asking where to look for ILS on a Ruger single action blackhawk revolver. It sounds like you know, could you tell me where to look for the ILS? Much obliged for any help.


Completely out of sight under the grip panels. If for some peculiar reason someone actually wanted to use it they would have to drill a hole through one grip panel for the access key.

Lucky Derby
August 25, 2011, 10:01 PM
Completely out of sight under the grip panels. If for some peculiar reason someone actually wanted to use it they would have to drill a hole through one grip panel for the access key.
It was brilliant placement. They satified the morons/lawyers etc, and put it where it can't be seen or used without modification.

skidder
August 26, 2011, 01:58 AM
I went to the gun store today and found a brand new 66 for $500 (not sure but seemed like a good deal). I would have bought it, but that Hillary hole is down right ugly. Could S&W have picked a worse spot than right next to the latch to drill a big ugly hole :confused:(the focal point of a once beautiful handgun). I had the money and wanted it, but that big doofus looking hole kept staring back at me and I could not open my wallet. I love to shoot my guns, but on cold nights I like to line them up for a cleaning and gaze into their beauty (but I know that hole would just :cuss: me off).

If you enjoyed reading about "Wheel Gun Internal Locks Poll" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!