Internal lock on J frame

If I was looking for a revolver and the Ruger LCR did not have a internal lock, but the S&W did, then I would buy the LCR. If it cost more money (hypothetical or real) for the LCR I would still buy it if was the only way to get a revolver without the lock. That's me.

The internal lock is not a big deal to most...for those that it is, it is easily removed.

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

I have a 642 with lock and I have never thought twice about it.

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

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

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

I wouldnt worry about it.

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

I would really like to see a demonstration of a lock that has caused a problem. All I have seen or read about is conjecture.

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

Dan

Would you pass up getting a 642/442 if it had the internal lock on it?

Click to expand...

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

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

Mike

Would you pass up getting a 642/442 if it had the internal lock on it?

Click to expand...

No I wouldn't worry about the lock.

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

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

Ruger's LCR does have an internal lock, but it is hidden under the stocks, and like the one used in Taurus revolvers, has absolutely no reputation for self-locking at all.

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

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

Besides the obvious, two things:

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

I have both the M442 and M642 and neither have the ILS. If the lock bothers you buy a no lock version of the M442 or M642 because S&W does sell them. They also have a M&P340 without the lock.

Old Fuff said:

Ruger's LCR does have an internal lock, but it is hidden under the stocks,

Click to expand...

Sneaky

Thanks Fuffy for the now price increase. you have brought on us.

Click to expand...

You're welcome.

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

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

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

Ruger's LCR does have an internal lock, but it is hidden under the stocks,

Sneaky

Click to expand...

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

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

Fuff...

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

Oh Balderdash…

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

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

I just laid away a top break. Model 1 1/2 center fire from early 1880's in 32S&W SA Pistol solid The bluing is worn.

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

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

I refuse to have anything to do with a gun with a lock—period.

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