[JoeShmoe]

I've had my 340PD for a couple years. Today when I was shooting it, it locked up on me. The trigger would partially pull, and the cylinder partially turn, but it would not fire. Later when I got home, I realized that it was related to the lock. If I locked it, it would lock tight, and when I unlocked it it would not unlock. If I would lightly tap the but on my bench it would dry fire, and then lock up again. If I lock the lock, and unlock it, it won't unlock until I lightly tap it on the bench again.

Now I know the answer is to send it in to S&W, which I intend to do, but here's my problem. How can I trust it from here on out. This has been my daily carry for a couple years, and it's a great gun. Sure S&W will return it to good working order, but with the lock still in place. If it happened once it can happen again, and I'm not sure I should trust it anymore.

[barnbwt]

Remove the lock?

From what I've heard, it's easy, and has no impact on the rest of the gun's function. It's also easily reversible. If S&W says it is indeed the lock, be sure to post here about it; there's a lot of hot air bandied around about whether the locks are good or bad, it'd be good to have a real example for a change :)

TCB

[Radagast]

Internal lock can be replaced with 'The Plug'. Source, rice and how to video below:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/accessories-misc-sale-trade/143299-fs-plug.html


Before doing so, consider Masaad Ayoob's take on the potential liability of removal:
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2009/09/03/internal-gun-locks/

FWIW I've had the lock fail (temporarily) on a S&W 617. From Mr Ayoob's article and from past postings on this forum, scandium guns such as yours are more prone to lock failure. The scandium magnum frames actually twist under recoil, this is probably jolting the lock out of alignment.

[JoeShmoe]

It's definitely the lock, and my gun is a prime candidate for lock failure. Lightweight and pretty stout recoil with 357s. I love the gun because it's easy to carry, and I shoot it well, but if I can't trust it, what good is it? I suppose I could do like Massad Ayoob, and just shoot 38+p in it.

[Jim K]

I can't say it is not the lock, but with the lock locked on my 642, the trigger will just barely move and the cylinder won't turn at all.

I can think of a couple of other problems it could be, including failure of the center pin spring or binding of the bolt for another reason.

You can easily remove the lock and either fill the hole or just let it be. The only drawback on a carry gun is that if you ever use it, alteration of the gun or removal of any safety device could be used to show irresponsibility and recklessness.

FWIW, while claiming that the locks didn't cause any problem, S&W quietly modified the design to prevent those non-existent problems. The gun returned to you should have the new part.

Jim

[Old Fuff]

Without saying anything, S&W has changed a critical spring in the lock when a "lock problem" revolver is sent in. If you return your gun I suspect that this modification will be done to it. If it continues to misbehave I would remove it.

Any liability would likely occur if the gun was left unlocked and not otherwise secured. If a child (or someone else) found it and hurt themselves or someone else you might be held responsible. That issue can be answered with a small gun-safe or lockbox.

[Jim K]

I don't know of any direct precedent, but there was a case in Philadelphia where a police officer lightened the trigger pull on his service revolver. He killed a knife-wielding attacker. He was cleared in a police investigation and criminal charges were dismissed, but he was sued in a civil case. Even though the plaintiff's attorney admitted that the alteration to the revolver had little or nothing to do with the shooting, he claimed it showed an attitude of recklessness and disregard for human life, and won. Because the officer did not have authority to alter his service revolver, the city refused to defend him and left him out in the cold, responsible for the full amount of damages.

A change to the lock is not really analogous technically, but in my humble (and non lawyer) opinion, it could provide the same kind of opening in a civil suit even though the shooting might have been considered justified under criminal law. It could be tough to explain to a jury why you removed a safety device.

Jim

[JoeShmoe]

Well regardless of what caused it, it's a sickening feeling when your carry gun malfunctions, especially when it's a revolver. At this point my Keltec is more reliable than my Smith. I'm glad to hear there's a modification that may take care of it.

[Jim K]

No argument there. I firmly believe that for a carry gun there are three requirements: 1) reliability, 2) reliability, and 3) reliability. Everything else is of little importance.

JIm

[Old Fuff]

The ultimate solution is to buy handguns that never had an internal lock. Of course you could still be liable if you failed to keep the gun in some kind of secure storage, such as a safe or with an external trigger lock.

But if the locking devise was never there it cannot have any affect on the gun’s reliability.

I agree with Jim in the previous post that in today’s legal climate and the general lack of firearms knowledge among potential jury members, any alterations or removal of the lock might be used against you.

On the other hand, Smith & Wesson’s stronger spring may solve the problem.

Now you have to decide on what too do where I don’t. I wish you luck.

[Jim K]

They didn't just alter the spring. They added to the lock itself a lug that the cam engages so that the lock is moved positively in both directions. Before, the cam was positive only in raising (engaging) the lock, leaving disengagement of the lock to a spring.

That could have caused a real problem and apparently did so in some cases. Other complaints, like the "flag" that turned sideways, the hammer that flew out of the gun and was found 30 feet way, and the lock that caused the gun to blow up in the shooter's hand were pure fantasy, concocted by some of S&W's detractors including, by one report, a representative of an off shore competitor.

Jim

[Hardtarget]

As for civil liability for a removed lock. The lock is not to be used while carrying for self defense. When in storage add a trigger lock...and a cable lock and then put it in the safe. Triple locked when stored should be enough for even the worst anti out there.

Mark

[ArchAngelCD]

The Lock on S&W revolvers is not a "safety device", it's a "storage device" so how can you be liable in a GOOD shooting if a storage device is disabled?

Like said above, the ILS is not intended for use while carrying the gun, only when it's being stored.

JoeShmoe,
Sorry you had to fine out first hand the lock is not safe on a carry gun!

[Stainz]

The Infernal Lock has been used in S&W revolvers for over ten years. Guess how much they've had to spend defending themselves since it's inclusion? Nada. Zip. Nuttin. Remember, it blocks the hammer movement. No hammer movement, no hand (pawl, ratchet, whatever!) movement, no cylinder movement, and no trigger movement. I'll bet your hammer block safety, the L-shaped in two planes piece you have to line up just right to get the sideplate back on, is the fault. Either you've had the sideplate off, perhaps for a spring change, and didn't line it up properly, although the sideplate generally won't properly line up in that case, or it broke - unlikely, but stuff happens.

As the IL is either on or off - and has a spring to compress to change, making it easily checked with the key, it has no 'almost on' mode. Either the hammer is secured or it isn't. Should the spring break, the gun be dropped, or a lightweight loudenboomer (329, 340) be limp-wristed, they have 'jumped' into lock - but nothing moves! Of course, any of those faults happen to a beloved 1911 and it becomes a paperweight, too. S&W may just have a more stout IL spring now - it would make sense. Might be worth a trip home... and ask for a more stout IL spring. Additional effort in it's normal use won't matter to most - I don't know anyone who uses it!

Stainz

PS The hammer block safety is a drop safety device that has been in S&W revolvers since WWII.

[Thaddeus Jones]

Send it in to S&W. When it comes back, dump it and get a new lock free 340. :)

[JoeShmoe]

Send it in to S&W. When it comes back, dump it and get a new lock free 340. :)
That's what I was thinking. Lock free, was not an option when I bought mine, unless I missed something.

[Thaddeus Jones]

No, you didn't miss anything. S&W did though. They thought that LE agencies would allow those IL guns as back ups. Some agencies do, but the vast majority do not. The J-frame is still popular as an LE back up/off duty gun. My old agency banned the IL versions. Several other NC agencies do as well. :)

Now you have lock free variants available, of some more popular model J-frames. Despite the fanboys refrain of "locks are here to stay!" :rolleyes:

There is no way I'd trust my life to one of those IL revolvers. Yeah, you can neuter it and buy a "plug". Additional waste of money in my opinion. Even if I did that, the gun is still ugly. ;)

If I wanted to pay to much for an overated gun, then throw away additional funds just to insure it would function when I needed it, I'd still be buying Kimbers. :)

[bigtubby]

I have Three S&W's with locks all have been removed I would rather have to deal with a potential civil suit which will be filed whether the lock is removed or not than have my wife have to deal with a funeral.

[sidheshooter]

With S&W revolvers, as with some threads: "in before the lock!"

All mine are no ils.

Everyone is different, but when a gun fails on me like that, I always get it fixed by the maker, then sell it. Life is too short to carry around nagging doubt. Sadly, I seem to be sending most of the guns I buy new back. I can't believe how many issues I've had with modern guns lately.

Conversely, all the ancient wheelies that I've brought in off of GB (mostly K frames, plus one sp101) have worked exactly as expected.

One guy's experience is hardly the rule, but, since I'm the one guy that I have any say over, I get rid of any gun that offers tainted testimony at the range.

[JoeShmoe]

I'll be transparent here. When I bought it, I had heard all the criticism of the lock, but I didn't think much of it. I figured, it's Smith and Wesson, so it's got to work right.

I love the gun, I shoot it well, it's a 357, it's easy to carry, but that feeling of the thing locking up, was a big deal. Revolvers are supposed to be reliable, or so I thought.

[ArchAngelCD]

That's what I was thinking. Lock free, was not an option when I bought mine, unless I missed something.
A few years back S&W brought back a no-lock J frame but only their Centennial frame revolvers. They first released the M642 Airweight and a few months later the M442 closely followed by the Aitlite M340.

It's too bad they won't release their Bodyguard J frame revolvers without a lock because I would really like a M438 since it's so hard to find a +P rated M38 anywhere!

[Old Fuff]

Revolvers are supposed to be reliable, or so I thought.

And they are, or at least were. Unlike pistols, they're mechanical function is not dependent on whatever ammunition is being used, and feeding/chambering/extraction/ejection is a moot point.

But regardless of the kind of handgun, the key is the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principal. Anytime you add any unnecessary component reliability may be lessened to some measure. What you have is something else that might fail that wasn't there before.

If internal locks were absolutely necessary that would be one thing. But the truth is that they are there to offer the manufacturers a legal defense if someone leaves a loaded gun unsecured in an environment where someone (particularly a child) can get it and harm themselves or others. The responsibility and liability should fall entirely on the gun owner, but the fact is that the maker can be (and has been) sued for selling an "unsafe product" to consumers in our liberal bliss nanny utopia. There is also the prospect that left-wing federal, state or local legislatures will pass a statute requiring such devices, so gun manufacturers (such a Ruger) incorporate them in new models, or older ones undergoing major revisions.

Of the major revolver manufacturers Taurus and Ruger seemed to have been able to incorporate lock systems that don't cause problems (knock on wood). Smith & Wesson was first, and dropped the ball. They may, or may not have been able to pick it up again.

In the meantime the Old Fuff will continue to carry what has proved to work over his long lifetime - meaning handguns that don't have superfluous features because they never had them. They may not be the latest/greatest, but they work - and if the truth were known, the Old Fuff isn't the latest/greatest either...

[bikemutt]

I get rid of any gun that offers tainted testimony at the range.

Yup, me too. That's why my one and only defensive semi-auto is getting sold today, and it's the brand that never jams, unless it does.

[Vern Humphrey]

but here's my problem. How can I trust it from here on out
You can't. As others have suggested, the best thing is to remove the lock. It does nothing for you, nothing at all, and represents a positive risk in a carry gun.

[YJake]

I bought a No Lock M442 to void this very issue in an alloy frame gun. I don't mind the locks in an L or N frame as much but would remove those as well if I decided to carry one.

-Jake

[Jim K]

Well, S&W really did seem to try the KISS principle. Taurus's "lock" involves multiple turns of a screw; Ruger's involves removal of the grips. Both seem to take the (probably correct) view that most buyers will never use the lock and that (as Fuff says) it is mainly to cover the manufacturer's fanny and put the burden on the gun owner for any accident. S&W seems to really have the idea that if the lock were easy to use it would be used. Their design seems to have (or have had) problems, but it is easier to use than the other brands. Of course a plain old padlock would be as easy to use as any but would not satisfy the anti-gun gang whose idea is to make guns more expensive and harder to use, lest someone shoot a crook who is paying off the mayor.

Jim

[S.B.]

Buy an after market lock filler kit and install it! End of your problem.
Steve

[JoeShmoe]

I got my gun back from Smith & Wesson. They replaced the cylinder because I had some cylinder erosion. They replaced the hand, as the fix for it jamming. No mention of anything with the lock.

[788Ham]

I looked for a S&W revolver at a GS a couple months ago, model didn't really matter, .357 cal was what I was after. Every S&W I saw had that friggin' hole in it, laid them all down. I found a '57 Colt Cobra 4" .38 spl. for a very reasonable price, hardly shot, pristine bore, only lock associated with this one, is when its in the safe!

[Jaymo]

I wish Ruger offered a lock-free BH.

[Fremmer]

Sell it and buy one without a lock.

[Stainz]

It seems odd - even though the op got his revolver back from S&W repaired - and the fault was the hand/pawl - everyone still blames the IL! Good grief!!

Stainz

[buck460XVR]

It seems odd - even though the op got his revolver back from S&W repaired - and the fault was the hand/pawl - everyone still blames the IL! Good grief!!

Stainz

Guess those folks need to stick to pre hand/pawl guns from now on. Just poor design and more unnecessary parts to fail.

[Guillermo]

The lock is an idiotic design
virtually universally loathed
useless

and yet is defended

Literally laughing out loud.

This thread was fun though. I learned that S&W quietly tried to "improve" the idiotic thing.
And that many departments do not allow their officers to carry IL guns.

Also that S&W will lie to their customers (probably) about the nature of the repair rather than admit that their idiotic lock is, in fact, idiotic.

Not surprising...but sad

[JoeShmoe]

The lock is an idiotic design
virtually universally loathed
useless

and yet is defended

Literally laughing out loud.

This thread was fun though. I learned that S&W quietly tried to "improve" the idiotic thing.
And that many departments do not allow their officers to carry IL guns.

Also that S&W will lie to their customers (probably) about the nature of the repair rather than admit that their idiotic lock is, in fact, idiotic.

Not surprising...but sad
Well that is what I am wondering, because my original problem was most definitely lock related. There may have been a problem with the hand, but that doesn't explain the fact that when I was troubleshooting, when locking/unlocking the lock, it was definitely not unlocking as it should. It took a couple of taps of the butt on a hard surface to free it up.

I hope I don't get cylinder erosion again.

[JoeShmoe]

Sell it and buy one without a lock.

Maybe I'll sell it and buy an LCR.

[Guillermo]

Joe,

I am just glad it didn't fail on you when you needed it.

Folks seem to love their LCRs. Trigger pulls sure is nice. I think they are ugly but function first. And I like English Bulldogs, FJ40s and cast iron dutch ovens...beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.

[JoeShmoe]

Joe,

I am just glad it didn't fail on you when you needed it.

Folks seem to love their LCRs. Trigger pulls sure is nice. I think they are ugly but function first. And I like English Bulldogs, FJ40s and cast iron dutch ovens...beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.

Me too. I can't describe the sick feeling I had the first time it locked up. I know it's a mechanical device, but revolvers are supposed to be nearly foolproof.

Regarding the LCR, I agree it's ugly, but I can't get away from the need of a lightweight revolver to keep in my pocket when sitting around the house, or when I am quickly headed out the door. The trigger pull would be a bonus. I've never been thrilled with the trigger on the 340PD. Very heavy for such a lightweight gun.

I've got some thinking to do.

[Jaymo]

I wish I could sell my Ruger and get one without a lock. Problem is, Ruger didn't make a .44 special blackhawk without the lock.

I wonder if the lock and hammer spring/strut can be replaced with an earlier hammer spring/strut assembly, without replacing the grip frame?

[Old Fuff]

So far as I know, there have been no reports of problems with the Ruger lock, which is a much different design the the one S&W uses. I wouldn't worry, but if you are unconfortable an ejection of some epoxy while the lock is in the "off" position should work wonders.

[Guillermo]

The Ruger and Taurus had a basic understanding of physics. Something which the "engineers" at S&W do not.

Ruger and Taurus made their locks work perpendicular to the recoil of the gun. Thus the chance of recoil having any effect upon the lock is minimized.

The "geniuses" at S&W have their lock working on the same axis as the recoil of the gun and predictably, there are problems.

Hey Fuff...didn't Taurus offer S&W their lock design for free?

[Old Fuff]

Hey Fuff...didn't Taurus offer S&W their lock design for free?

Yes they did, and were rejected.

[JoeShmoe]

So far as I know, there have been no reports of problems with the Ruger lock, which is a much different design the the one S&W uses. I wouldn't worry, but if you are unconfortable an ejection of some epoxy while the lock is in the "off" position should work wonders.
I think I am going to give serious consideration to selling the 340PD and acquiring an LCR. Never, ever thought I would say that.

[Old Fuff]

I think I am going to give serious consideration to selling the 340PD and acquiring an LCR. Never, ever thought I would say that.

I don't think you're alone.

The LCR might win 1st place in an ugly gun contest, but it's a first class example of "form follows function," and you should at least look at, and handle one.

That said, selling one to buy the other will likely cause some pain in the pocketbook, and if your only objection is the lock that can be tended to in several ways so that it will never be a problem again.

I have several guns that I aquired at VERY favorable prices because they were problem children that their owners had given up on or didn't trust. After finding and correcting whatever issues they had I didn't hesitate to carry any of them, and none of them ever gave me any reason to not use or trust them.

I admit that I'm one who prefers to buy guns that don't have these modern safety or storage devices. But if I had one that had some feature I didn't like I would sooner "fix the problem," then sell it at a loss. ;)

[JoeShmoe]

That said, selling one to buy the other will likely cause some pain in the pocketbook, and if your only objection is the lock that can be tended to in several ways so that it will never be a problem again.



I suppose it can't hurt to have both.

[Jaymo]

The LCR looks like it should have been made by Block, I mean Glock. Butt-ugly, but functional. (Except for the Glock knives, I like the looks of the 2 I have)

My wife and I each own a Taurus with the lock. She- a model 85UL, me-a Judge (Flame on, it's one helluva snake gun).

Had Ruger bothered to include a key for the lock, or even an owner's manual, I might not worry about it. But, they didn't. Sure hope they built my gun better than they packaged it.

[JoeShmoe]

FWIW, while claiming that the locks didn't cause any problem, S&W quietly modified the design to prevent those non-existent problems. The gun returned to you should have the new part.

Jim

Does anyone know if there have been any problems with the modified lock design? Also, if I were to take the side plate off, would the new part be easily recognized?

[Guillermo]

Jaymo

Your Tauri (Tauruses?) and Ruger has a lock that, while unnecessary, is at least well designed. The principals of physics are recognized and addressed.

That is something that no one can say about S&W.

[Hardtarget]

Send the gun to S&W for the "fix". If the problem shows up again remove the lock. You already have proof the lock made the gun un safe for you by "locking up" at critical times...therefore making it a liability to your own safety and survival from attack. You point out that if mr. criminal wasn't a criminal...you wouldn't have shot him. :evil:

Mark

[skidder]

The LCR looks like it should have been made by Block, I mean Glock. Butt-ugly, but functional.
I'm a die hard Ruger fan, but not an LCR fan. Possibly the 38, but definitely not in 357 (pointless and painful).
Maybe the LCR in 38 if the stars were in alignment and the angels were singing in sweet harmony. The jury is till out on those plastic thinga ma jiggers, or whatever the scientific term: polymatic-carbonistic-fibercomposite-elasticalloy :rolleyes:. I still prefer a cold chunk of steel with some heft to handle the recoil. If I die in a fight I'll be darned if I go with a chunk of plastic in my hand :D.

[Guillermo]

If I die in a fight I'll be darned if I go with a chunk of plastic in my hand

while I agree

Plastic works well

ask cops, of which a giant percentage carry polymer framed guns

[skidder]

while I agree

Plastic works well

ask cops, of which a giant percentage carry polymer framed guns

Yes, and double embarrassment with them being autos :o. Like one of those bad dreams where your walking down the hall in high school in your underwear :D.

[sidheshooter]

Hey Fuff...didn't Taurus offer S&W their lock design for free?

Yes they did, and were rejected.

I'm just now reading this, and I had to read it twice to make sure of what I saw.

That's just unbelievable!

[Thaddeus Jones]

The inclusion of a lock on a revolver makes it unsuitable for serious purpose, to me.

Too many nice pre locks still out there, and availble for less cash, to bother with IL guns. :)

[Guillermo]

Like one of those bad dreams where your walking down the hall in high school in your underwear

Skidder is a funny guy

but in my dreams, the girls were following, begging

and that was BEFORE I owned cool guns

[skidder]

G got me a little distracted, but I'm back on track now ;).

Ruger and Taurus made their locks work perpendicular to the recoil of the gun. Thus the chance of recoil having any effect upon the lock is minimized.

The "geniuses" at S&W have their lock working on the same axis as the recoil of the gun and predictably, there are problems.

This is a real good point on how the mechanisms work.
I've owned two Taurus revolvers with locks and they didn't seem that integrated (hardly knew they were there).
Not sure about the Ruger locks? Anybody got any pics of a Ruger Lock?

[Guillermo]

not sure if this is how all of them work

Looks like I was wrong about the axis on the Ruger.

But it is at the lowest point of the gun, below the fulcrum of the recoil motion

http://www.gunblast.com/images/Ruger_Flattop44/MVC-696F.jpg

[skidder]

Thanks for the pic G.

Man, it just breaks my heart to see them built into the revolver. This is definitely less of an obstacle, but still unacceptable.:cuss:

Maybe I should be more diplomatic about the lock.....NOT.

[JoeShmoe]

I haven't even fired the gun since receiving it back from S&W, but when I went to dry-fire it this evening, it locked up again. Maybe they missed something? I think this is going to settle it for me.

[skidder]

Now I know the answer is to send it in to S&W, which I intend to do, but here's my problem. How can I trust it from here on out. This has been my daily carry for a couple years, and it's a great gun. Sure S&W will return it to good working order, but with the lock still in place. If it happened once it can happen again, and I'm not sure I should trust it anymore.
I haven't even fired the gun since receiving it back from S&W, but when I went to dry-fire it this evening, it locked up again. Maybe they missed something? I think this is going to settle it for me.

You can't trust it now. You did what was expected and they failed you.
You might have to send it in one more time, but when you get it back, get rid of it! You may take a loss, but I would never feel safe with that gun.

[Old Fuff]

There is a small possibility that something other then the lock is causing the revolver to jam. At this point I would remove the lock and see if it continues to jam, even though that is probably unlikely. If it works flawlessly I would contact Smith & Wesson, explain the situation in writing, and ask that the defective revolver be replaced. This is a reasonable request if the trip to the factory didn't either get the problem fixed, or any other alternative cause discovered.

If this didn't go anywhere I would decide if I liked the revolver well enough to keep it, after the lock was removed. Otherwise I'd dispose of it.

For many reasons I believe in the old saying: They don't make 'um like they used to do.

[Guillermo]

Old Fuff,

Quit telling people to buy old revolvers!!!

They are driving the price up!!!

Oh well, Joe seems a nice guy.

BUT DON"T TELL ANYONE ELSE!!!

[Guillermo]

They don't make 'um like they used to do

no

The new ones are better
everyone knows that computers are so good the company would be silly to have QC
injection molding makes for better parts than forged
the lock is their for your protection...do it for the children
pinned barrels are just something else to go wrong
sharp edges keep your attention during stress
fit and finish are passe', make you worry about your gun, make it less usable
new revolvers are the best ever

these are the good old days!!!

[JoeShmoe]

There is a small possibility that something other then the lock is causing the revolver to jam. At this point I would remove the lock and see if it continues to jam, even though that is probably unlikely. If it works flawlessly I would contact Smith & Wesson, explain the situation in writing, and ask that the defective revolver be replaced. This is a reasonable request if the trip to the factory didn't either get the problem fixed, or any other alternative cause discovered.

If this didn't go anywhere I would decide if I liked the revolver well enough to keep it, after the lock was removed. Otherwise I'd dispose of it.

For many reasons I believe in the old saying: They don't make 'um like they used to do.

I think I'll take that advice. It's certainly not doing me any good as is, and even if it makes another trip to S&W and they "fix" it, it would be nearly impossible for me to trust it enough to carry it again. It could just be that a 13oz fire-breathin 357 is not the best idea.

So I'll take the lock out, and see how she goes. Thanks Old Fuff.

[Guillermo]

even if it doesn't jam...how can you trust it?

[JoeShmoe]

Old Fuff,

Quit telling people to buy old revolvers!!!

They are driving the price up!!!

Oh well, Joe seems a nice guy.

BUT DON"T TELL ANYONE ELSE!!!

I am a nice guy. I won't tell.

I do have a pretty nice Model 60. 1988 I believe.

[Guillermo]

shhhhhh

[Old Fuff]

I don't think I need to tell anyone anything after they have read this thread. What is obvious... is. As I pointed out there is a remote chance that the lock isn't causing the problem, but if this is the case the real cause should have been discovered while the revolver was back at Smith and Wesson's factory.

Besides what most of today's buyers want is a polymer-frame pistol with a large magazine that will hold a whole box of cartridges that they can shoot up real quick without having to reload. How can the ammunition companies not love 'um? Revolvers are for cowboys who worship the Wild West (Hollywood version), and Old Foggies who are too lame to bend over and pick up their brass. I'm not greedy - all I want is a few thousand of the older, mostly pre-war models. :evil: :uhoh:

Things are so bad that I read how my favorite .44 Special is now obsolete, and the "Big Magnum" is what's cool. OF course the Old Fuff is a bit obsolete too... :D

[Guillermo]

all I want is a few thousand of the older, mostly post-war models.

My favorite guns seem to be from the 50s

but some are from the decade before the war

compromise...I will take all of them from 1939-1959
you can have the ones from earlier than that

deal?

[Guillermo]

actually...

I will need to go have to 1969 so I can have my Diamondbacks

[Old Fuff]

I might (just might) consider letting you have everything from 1970 forward, while I take everything earlier... :uhoh: :evil:

And I'll let you have all of the S&W center-fire pistols... ;)

[Guillermo]

if I can't have the 50s, no deal

[Old Fuff]

O. K. But I hope you understand that I retain the right to corner the market in polymer-based pistols and maybe revolvers if they go in that direction.

I foresee a huge market in polymer revolvers - light weight (ideal for .44 Magnum pocket snubbies), won't rust, and no worries about refinishing. Always safe to carry because with the lock engaged they won’t go off accidentally – or intentionally. :uhoh:

Oh, and much easier to do when you want to cut off the front of the trigger guard... :neener:

[Guillermo]

looking in my gun case, many of my favorites are from the 50's

Cobra, Officer's Special, K22.

You CAN"T have the 50s!!!

[JoeShmoe]

even if it doesn't jam...how can you trust it?

Well, I took the lock out of my 340PD and of course it works perfectly now. During the process in examining how the lock works, I was shocked. I can't believe S&W would incorporate such a poor design in a handgun designed to be used for self defense. The way that the lock mechanism is supposed to be held out of the way of the hammer by such a tiny spring, is wishful thinking at best. I'm also disappointed that S&W did absolutely nothing to address the lock when I sent it back, when presumably they have a modification for it. Either there is no such modification, or they don't care if my self defense revolver is reliable.

I am going to do as Old Fuff suggested, and shoot it awhile without the lock. If it is flawless, I am going to ask S&W what they can do for me. If they do nothing, I will absolutely never buy a new Smith and Wesson again. I will be forced take the risk of carrying it without the lock. Sending it back to S&W again would be a waste of time.

[skidder]

I am going to do as Old Fuff suggested

That is a name you can trust.

Give it a try and let us know. I hope they treat you right.

[Old Fuff]

I will be forced take the risk of carrying it without the lock

Actually they're is no risk. The lock is not a safety in the conventional way of thinking. It's sole purpose is to secure the gun when it's being stored. So long as you use an alternative (external trigger lock, padlock secured box, lockbox, safe, etc) you don't need an additional internal lock. Leaving it laying around and loaded is another matter. ;)

[JoeShmoe]

Actually they're is no risk. The lock is not a safety in the conventional way of thinking. It's sole purpose is to secure the gun when it's being stored. So long as you use an alternative (external trigger lock, padlock secured box, lockbox, safe, etc) you don't need an additional internal lock. Leaving it laying around and loaded is another matter. ;)

Actually I was referring to the risk of having to defend the removal of the lock if you ever have to appear before a jury. Mine always goes in the safe when it's not in my pocket.

[Old Fuff]

Actually I was referring to the risk of having to defend the removal of the lock if you ever have to appear before a jury. Mine always goes in the safe when it's not in my pocket.

If you were involved in some sort of incident where the revolver was inspected and the missing lock was discovered, that point would come up as a question.

Why did you do it?

You (or a lawyer representing you) would point out that you only removed the lock after you returned the gun to its manufacturer, and they failed to correct the problem (this thread could be presented as evidence, and the paperwork from S&W in addition). Consequently as a last resort you removed the lock and used an alternative method to secure it in safe storage. If the incident didn't include any storage issues, proving negligence on your part would be a streach.

If you want additional insurance, send it back to Smith & Wesson, and tell them it still doesn't work - and you want it fixed! As it stands now, because it still doesn't work (unless you remove the lock) most any liability has shifted to them from you, as it is.

It would be far less expensive for them to exchange the gun you have for a new one, then to risk the consequences of being a party in a lawsuit if the one you have failed, given its past history.

[Fremmer]

I dont understand how the disabling of the lock would be relevant to the issues of whether a law abiding ccw committed homicide , or aggravated assault, or is liable for a wrongful death or battery. And even if it was relevant, doesn't the op have a reasonable explanation for disabling it?

[Old Fuff]

I don't understand how the disabling of the lock would be relevant to the issues of whether a law abiding ccw committed homicide , or aggravated assault, or is liable for a wrongful death or battery.

It depends on circumstances we cannot predict, and the attitudes of a jury, along with statutes and courts in states where we have no input. This means one can't be completely sure. A lot depends on the judicial environment and public perceptions in the area where the incident happened. What should be the outcome doesn't always come about. Disabling the lock shouldn't have any meaning, but no one can say for sure that it won't.

And even if they were relevant, doesn't the op have a reasonable explanation for disabling it?

Yes he does, in fact much more then would usually be the case. I would say he is on safe and sound ground. But if he returns the gun - and especially if he gets a replacement, he'll be on even safer and sounder ground. Right now S&W may have a more serious problem then he does.

[skidder]

I would call back and ask for Jon Young at S&W Customer Service. If you get his email, send a link to this thread. Sometimes you gotta go a few floors up.

[Fremmer]

No, I think that relevancy is an evidentiary question to be adjudicated by a judge under the rules of evidence. A lawyer should file a motion in limine to exclude the lock issue from ever reaching the jury in a lawful self-defense case. But blah blah, right? :p

Anyway, I wouldn't want a revolver that locks up on its own!

[JoeShmoe]

No, I think that relevancy is an evidentiary question to be adjudicated by a judge under the rules of evidence. A lawyer should file a motion in limine to exclude the lock issue from ever reaching the jury in a lawful self-defense case. But blah blah, right? :p

Anyway, I wouldn't want a revolver that locks up on its own!

Me either, but that's what I've got. I love the gun without the lock. It's very concealable, lightweight, it's a 357, and I shoot it well. I even like the factory grips.

[orionengnr]

Send it back to S&W (with a copy of this thread).
Ask them to exchange it for a no-Lock 340.
Everyone's happy.

PS- I had a 360 and two 340s back ~6 years ago (along with several other ILS revolvers). One day an acquaintance had his 340 auto-Lock while dry firing. Mine started getting sold off shortly thereafter, and I haven't owned a j-frame since.

I knew S&W was offering 642s without The Lock, but I was not aware they were offering the 340 likewise--might have to add that to the shopping list.

JimK and old Fuff--Good info, as always. Thank you.

[Guillermo]

Joe

Sell it and buy a gun that you can trust.

MIM, CNC guns are bad enough. MIM, CNC guns with an IL are potentially worse than being unarmed.


But whatever you do, don't buy an old revolver with forged parts.

(wink wink)

[Hawk]

So, I come back after what I believe is a long spell to see the lock issue is alive and well. I am, however, pleased to note that the issue seems to have boiled down to one of practicality rather than politics -- the pejorative "hillary hole" seems not to have occurred or, more likely, I simply missed it.

A few anecdotal remarks:

1. Insofar as "investment" goes, the advice regarding "pinned and recessed" is sound. Though I may have participated on the other side of the debate (mostly due to simply being a contrary sort) I took the buying advice offered and I'm being pleasantly surprised by how the things are holding up at auction. Most are closing tomorrow, some a week from now. I'll not shank the rules by pimping the auctions - in fact, they've already nicely gone past the "bargain" stage - good advice from Old Fuff indeed. I owe him some beers.

2. My edc remains an STI VIP so this whole "lock" thing doesn't impact me at all.

3. The revolvers I held back from auction include several with the lock and one that might be desirable except for some gomer having molested the strain screw - it being a older square butt replacement is something of an issue.

4. Apart from all that it appears that the problem is associated with those frames comprised of compressed angel tears. It certainly hasn't impacted my performance center, rather weighty, examples.

5. So it's easy for me to suggest that one simply "get over it" - life is a compromise and, not to point out the obvious, but it's simply impossible to buy an older mystery metal frame - they all came out after the lock and if weight and capacity means something to you, you'll have to take a big cup of "get over it".

6. I don't know about you revolver folks but I've been taught that if your carry gun hasn't messed up you've simply neglected to shoot it enough - granted that an STI VIP doesn't need much to clear a malf (should it ever happen).

At the end of the day it's good to know that things haven't changed - except perhaps for the better in re: adolescent name calling. This last seems to have disappeared and I offer kudos.

[Old Fuff]

Well it is good to see that you are are still around and have not left us, even though it seem apparent that you have degenerated and gone to pistols.

Concerning the mainspring strain screw issue, a lot depends on frame size (K/L or N) and when the gun was made. In earlier times S&W made there own screws to in-house thread specifications. Hopefully that isn't what you need.

I'm afraid that you can't sell one of those modern, mystery metal lightweight guns to someone who still occasionally carries a .38 top-break S&W Safety Hammerless revolver (no lock of course). The poor Old Fuff is lost in a world where they don't make them like they used to. :banghead:

[Guillermo]

1- we all owe him (but don't tell him...his head is already bigger than a beluga whale's)

2- smart

3-

4- glad you are lucky

5- reliability, to me, is MUCH more important than ANY other aspect of a defensive firearm

6- many of my guns have never messed up, auto or revolver

I have thousands of rounds through many of them. Not saying it won't happen. They are mechanical devices. But why add to it with the idiotically designed lock? (on the same axis, opposite, of the recoil of the gun)

[Hawk]

Well it is good to see that you are are still around and have not left us, even though it seem apparent that you have degenerated and gone to pistols.

Concerning the mainspring strain screw issue, a lot depends on frame size (K/L or N) and when the gun was made. In earlier times S&W made there own screws to in-house thread specifications. Hopefully that isn't what you need.

I'm afraid that you can't sell one of those modern, mystery metal lightweight guns to someone who still occasionally carries a .38 top-break S&W Safety Hammerless revolver (no lock of course). The poor Old Fuff is lost in a world where they don't make them like they used to.

Actually not so much degenerated to pistols but a simple medical issue that makes it harder to enjoy a hobby. Though I've admittedly had a soft spot for the STI. Fortunately, it's not a sell-off to cover medical expenses but rather a "it was a fun ride" sell-off which will no doubt finance another hobby.

I do miss this place and it's great to see the old hands are still around to guide those of us with less experience.

@Guillermo: The purchase of a lock-free revolver will in some cases involve the purchase of a used revolver and without you or Old Fuff at one's elbow during the transaction there's every possibility reliability will be spotty. In my inexperienced case it ranged from unscrewed ejector rods to a bad lot of soft brass ammo seizing up an Anaconda to a model 28 that Lord only knows what happened to it to multiple cases of kitchen table trigger jobs.

This latter resulted, two separate times, in producing the revolver version of "ammo sensitivity" - if you weren't feeding it nice soft primers you got a "click". "Ammo sensitivity" in a revolver equates to "unreliable" to me but it's possible that there's disagreement on that assessment.

"Buy a lock-free Smith for reliability" is excellent advice but it remains incumbent on the purchaser to give it a thorough shakedown - perhaps even to include S&B ammo. The STI, which I no longer shoot as much as I should, hasn't spit up yet but it won't be a surprise when it does.

[JoeShmoe]

...The purchase of a lock-free revolver will in some cases involve the purchase of a used revolver and without you or Old Fuff at one's elbow during the transaction there's every possibility reliability will be spotty...

..."Buy a lock-free Smith for reliability" is excellent advice but it remains incumbent on the purchaser to give it a thorough shakedown....

This is a great point, and in my mind makes the semi-auto vs. revolver reliability argument, a little bit more muddy.

[Guillermo]

in my mind makes the semi-auto vs. revolver reliability argument, a little bit more muddy

autos are VERY reliable these days. Their flat sides are good for concealment. Capacity and reloading are advantages.

They do require a LOT more training for when they don't work.

As to buying a used revolver, the "sticky" at the top of the page is outstanding. It will help you pick up 95% of the problems you are likely to come across.

[Old Fuff]

Setting ammunition issues aside (because bad ammo can and will mess up the best of guns, and it doesn't matter if they are pistols or revolvers); I cannot remember my last serious revolver malfunction or broken part. I will exclude from that those guns that I knew were problem children, but I bought them anyway at a substantial discount and then fixed them.

Smith & Wesson revolvers that I'm interested in at least don't turn out to be lemons. Consider my simple rules for pre-purchase preparation and inspection.

1. Buy from reliable sellers, and keep in mind that many sellers are honest but have no idea how to spot and diagnose issues in a used gun. The more used it is the more this is true.

2. When examining a used S&W revolver (which will be the subject of today's lesson), first eyeball the screws, especially the sideplate screws. If the slots are battered and burred someone has likely been inside who shouldn't. This should set off an alarm bell!

3. Does it have an exceptionally light double-action trigger pull? Much as we might like, S&W doesn't make them that way. Smooth is O.K. - especially in revolvers made before 1946 or '47. "Light" means someone has tampered or exchanged the spring(s), and while the gun may still be all right the circumstances strongly suggest you should pass.

4. When you cock the hammer does it feel kind of soft and funny?, or when you release it does it fall and make a "ting" sound? This indicates that either the mainspring strain screw isn't screwed all of the way in, or that it is but has been shortened. This isn't absolutely critical, but it is an indicator of somebody's basement action tune-up. This is always a good reason to either pass or seek a substantial price cut.

5. Slowly cock the hammer and release the trigger on all chambers, and be sure the cylinder "carries up" (revolves all of the way from one chamber to the next and the cylinder stop locks it in place). Then do the same while pulling the trigger through a double-action cycle. At the same time feel for any hitches or hesitation as the internal lockwork parts move. There should be none.

6. After making absolutely sure the chambers are unloaded, point the revolver toward yourself so that you can see the front of the yoke (the hinge part the cylinder swings out on) and use a thumb and forefinger to try and wiggle the cylinder away from the frame. If there is any it will be seen when the yoke can be moved away from the frame. This indicates a bent yoke barrel (the tube on the yoke the cylinder spins on) and suggests abuse. It can be fixed, but again light bulbs should be flashing in your mind.

7. With the cylinder swung out, slowly turn it while you push the extractor in and out. If at any point it binds it may be bent.

8. Check for cylinder "end shake" by trying to pull and push the cylinder back and forth when it is latched. This movement should be very slight, and again can be fixed. But if it is more then slight be careful.

9. Look at the end of the firing pin to be sure it's rounded, and when you lower the hammer while holding the trigger back it should stick out into the breech face. Check this out on some obviously good revolvers so you'll know what to look for and expect later.

10 Be sure the cylinder bolt thumb piece moves back and forth when the cylinder is latched. If it binds even a little bit the extractor, center rod, or extractor rod may be bent.

11. A copy of Jerry Kuhnhausen's book, The Smith & Wesson Revolver - A Shop Manual is well worth buying, especially if you are looking to buy earlier pre-MIM revolvers. Unfortunately it doesn't cover the later products, and I don't know of anything that does. Reading the manual will teach you how these critters work, and offer even more hints on trouble-shooting. Knowledge is power and can save you a lot of money.

12. Last but not least, when expecting to buy face-to-face, carry cash. Real money on the deck does wonders when trying to move a deal in your direction, and if the seller bulks at letting you perform the above inspections, hand him back his gun. Sooner or later another one will come along.

[Guillermo]

If the slots are battered and burred someone has likely been inside who shouldn't. This should set off an alarm bell!

Yep

There is a Police Positive on Gun Broker at $200 (last time I checked).

Sat on my watch list until the final day (today) at the low price.

A closer look to see if I was REALLY interested revealed a horribly boogered screw.

An Automatic "PASS"

[Old Fuff]

Ya' know, you're getting smarter then I first suspected... :D

[Guillermo]

you're getting smarter then I first suspected

That doesn't take much!!!

You think you scrape things off your shoe smarter than me