Beating the S&W Lock

[ChrisVV]

"t took me all of 15 minutes today to permanently disable the lock on my mom's new 642---and it was the very first lock equipped S&W I've been inside.

Seriously, it's not that hard to disable."

I dont think it is a matter of being able to disable it. I find that more than any other group, us firearm enthusiast are principled people. The lock goes against our principles.

I do not think I am alone on this.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

The ILS is useless because all the keys are the same. A trigger lock is more secure because you need the correct key to open it. Also, when the trigger lock is removed it's gone and can't disable your revolver.

In any event, I ordered my M642 through my LGS on Monday, RSR Group got their initial shipment on Tuesday and shipped the same day. I picked up my M642 today, Wednesday. That's a good turn around time if you ask me...



The M37's IMO don't count because the 200 they made available were made from leftover parts. The 4,000 M642-1 revolvers are being made from new parts. (are we sure this run was from a canceled order or were they made for a "test run"?) All that BS about retooling is just that, BS. With all the manufacturing machines being computer controlled all it takes is inputting in new instructions and you get no-lock frames instead of defective frames.

 

[Shade00]

Indeed... I too doubt that they have to retool to build the frame differently - just stop cutting the dang hole!

 

[prisoner6]

It's not always going to be the case. If the grand jury decides the shooting was justified, you're not going to have to go to court.

you may not get criminal charges, but you can be pretty sure that you will get hit with a civil case.

 

[PawDaddy]

You could be sued/charged regardless of whether the lock is there or has been removed.

Wouldn't that be a better thing than if you or a family member died because the lock locked while firing? I think that anyone would rather be sitting in court than at a funeral.

 

[ugaarguy]

Wouldn't that be a better thing than if you or a family member died because the lock locked while firing? I think that anyone would rather be sitting in court than at a funeral.

There's an old saying: "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." Of course the point is the principle of not having the lock there to remove in the first place.

 

[Gary A]

What's going to happen to your mom in court if she has to use that revolver and some slick attorney asks why she had you disable a safety mechanism on her gun.

Well, I'm no lawyer and maybe they could twist things around to make it a problem, but I don't understand it. If you have to use the revolver, then the revolver must be unlocked. Whether it is unlocked because you unlocked it, or unlocked because the lock doesn't work has no bearing. If you had to use the revolver in a legal, self-defense situation, the revolver must be unlocked. How in the world could anyone argue that you should have had the revolver locked in that case? The lock is not a "safety" device like the safety on an auto, it is to prevent unauthorized usage, not negligent discharge (although when locked it certainly does so). The worst thing is it seems to be designed that if it fails, it fails in the locked position instead of failing in the unlocked position. Numbingly short-sighted, IMO.

 

[Evyl Robot]

If they suddenly came to their senses and did away with the lock, I'd be pissed, having several lock-equipped (well, actually disabled) guns. In any case, it would help thier sales, I have no doubt of that. As quickly as the no lock 642's went, S&W has received a powerful message. Money talks WWWWAAAAAYYYYY louder than letters from would-be customers, and that is that. You don't think that Apple dropped the price and bumped up the features on the i-phone because of disgruntled letters, do you? How about vehicle manufacturers and safety recalls? It all comes down to the bottom line. S&W decided that the potential money savings of covering thier posterior with a useless lock outweighed the potential loss of sales. I would like to believe the 642 has proved them wrong. I hope they see it that way as well.

 

[MADDOG]

ArchAngel the picture you show is a 642-1. I thought the current ones were 642-2. Is the picture the recent purchase?

 

[Phydeaux642]

ArchAngel the picture you show is a 642-1. I thought the current ones were 642-2.

The new lock-free 642s are marked 642-1.

 

[.38 Special]

Funny how, even after all these years, the argument still boils down to one group saying that if you don't disable the lock your gun will tie up at the worst possible time and you will die, and the other group saying that if you do disable the lock you will be arrested and imprisoned for life.

Meanwhile there seem to be an awful lot of us who are just enjoying our guns and not worrying about it.

Hmm...

 

[Tberger688]

"I am reluctant to say "never" as the supply of pre-lock smiths may dry up one day.
I'm not reluctant at all. As long as the lock exists in its current form and location, I will NEVER buy (or even accept as a gift) a S&W revolver so equipped. My life means more to me than the ego of those at S&W who persist in that farce."

Anybody that understands revolvers knows that the new S&W’s are junk. With that being said I agree with your statement above completely. Guy’s look at these guns, gas pipes for barrels with fake shrouds, very, very shallow rifling, barrels that are screwed in on an angle (which by the way you can’t remove), MIM’s everywhere, poorly designed locks.

GM and Ford were once cocky like S&W until Toyota and Honda came along, now the Ford and GM cars are much better cars thanks to the competition.

Stop buying this S&W crap and watch what happens!

 

[pps]

Poster by 38special "Funny how, even after all these years, the argument still boils down to one group saying that if you don't disable the lock your gun will tie up at the worst possible time and you will die, and the other group saying that if you do disable the lock you will be arrested and imprisoned for life.

Meanwhile there seem to be an awful lot of us who are just enjoying our guns and not worrying about it.

Hmm..."

It's your gun and your hiney. Do what you want. For me, one less useless piece of debris to worry about. The officer checking our ccw weapons made no comment on the Klinton hole during my last renewal.

 

[.38 Special]

It's your gun and your hiney.

With the obvious implication that if I don't disable the lock I will lose my "hiney".

Ah well. If it weren't for the binary thinkers these discussions would be so dull...

 

[.38 Special]

Of course, it's made even more interesting by the "Anybody that understands revolvers knows that the new S&W’s are junk" type posts. I like a good honest troll as much as the next guy but this fellow gives every appearance of actually believing what he's written.

Good times!

 

[Guillermo]

the obvious implication that if I don't disable the lock I will lose my "hiney".

the reality is that if you don't disable the lock your chances of losing your "hiney" increase.

 

[pps]

"I like a good honest troll as much as the next guy but this fellow gives every appearance of actually believing what he's written."

It's not a matter of believing what is written, but rather what I've seen. In 2006 I saw a shooter's 627 jam up from the flag engaging the hammer and locking up the gun. The shooter later completed the ICORE course sans lock. As far as the troll comment, you really shouldn't be so tough on yourself.

 

[.38 Special]

the reality is that if you don't disable the lock your chances of losing your "hiney" increase.

By about .00000000000001%, I figure. Which is approximately the amount of increase in risk of getting your hiney sued off, or arrested and incarcerated. Pick your poison.

 

[.38 Special]

It's not a matter of believing what is written, but rather what I've seen. In 2006 I saw a shooter's 627 jam up from the flag engaging the hammer and locking up the gun.

I competed in Bianchi style shooting and saw failures in nearly every match -- and this was in the pre-lock days.

As always, I freely admit to disliking the lock. But the rhetoric is still overblown. I mean, we get it: "S&W IS A BUNCH OF SELLOUTS AND THEIR GUNS ARE GARBAGE AND THEY ARE ALL COMMIES AND I'LL NEVER EVER EVER OWN ONE AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU!!!!!!!!!"

Maybe, after all these years, it's time to move on.

 

[Guillermo]

38spl,

Of the people on this board I am one of the few that has used my gun in anger. It happened 3 times. Never once worked out how I imagined. And nobody was mistaken for Dirty Harry or Martin Riggs. It was quick, ugly and scary as hell.

Of the million-to-one shot that I am in that position again, the-million-to-one shot that my lock disables my weapon makes the odds really long.

Still, as one that has looked down the barrel of a gun of a man who said that if I did not comply with his orders he would shoot me, I am all for minimizing those numbers.

A million-to-one is good odds until it happens to you.

 

[pps]

As always, I freely admit to disliking the lock. But the rhetoric is still overblown. I mean, we get it: "S&W IS A BUNCH OF SELLOUTS AND THEIR GUNS ARE GARBAGE AND THEY ARE ALL COMMIES AND I'LL NEVER EVER EVER OWN ONE AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU!!!!!!!!!"

Such binary thinking.

I like Smith and Wessons, but don't like the lock. 3 screws on the side plate, remove hammer, remove lock, replace hammer, replace sideplate and screws. Simple.

If the lock doesn't bother you, great.

I'm not sure what synaptic deficit caused your histrionic, caps locked, rant based on an inaccurate inference about poor Smith and Wesson quality, but I'm sure your psychiatrist can prescribe something to help you.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

MADDOG,
Like Phy said, this run of no-lock's are marked M642-1. You can tell they are current production because of the serial number. The 2001 M642-1 revolvers had serial numbers in the CA and CE range, the new M642-1's have DCM serial numbers. Also, on the box right next to the serial number there is the number 8192. That number tells you the revolver was made the 192nd day of 2008.

Now for all the "you'll get sued" and "you'll get charged" if you remove the lock... That's total BS! If the lock was a safety device you might have a problem but the lock is a storage device, not a safety device. If you disable a safety device and the weapon discharges inadvertently because the safety device wasn't there to prevent it and someone is injured or worse you are in a world of legal trouble. The ILS doesn't fit that bill. The ILS is no different in operation than a trigger lock. You won't get sued for removing a trigger lock and you won't get sued for removing the ILS. Disabling the lock is no different than unlocking it when it comes to safety while carrying the revolver. I'm totally sick of hearing the same old tired talk about getting sued for removing a storage device from a gun you are carrying. C'mon people, please think about what you are saying and don't let the anti's get to you...

 

[Robert Hairless]

This is true, but if you have a lawyer who can use the truth to make the prosecutor look like an idiot, that sticks too.


Course I know I sure can't afford a lawyer that good.

On the flip side, you have to hope a DA is actually good at their job, so as to actually convict the real criminals out there.

Quite the conundrum when I think about it.

You have a pretty good insight into the dynamics of the situation, Matt.

If a prosecutor doesn't make an issue of anything you've done, then there's no issue to concern you and you have what the Internet legal experts term "a good shoot." You get to go on with your life without interruption, and if you've disabled the internal lock or used the ammo you made in your garage or whatever else you've done won't matter. That's because the people who can make an issue of it haven't done so.

I suppose that things can work out that way if you've led a good life, brushed your teeth after every meal, and your uncle is the D.A.

What if you do have to defend your life, you succeed in it, and the people who count aren't sure you were right or are sure you weren't? I know that all the Internet legal experts have decided that "a good shoot is a good shoot," but that's not what they say about most cases reported in The High Road.

Keep an eye on the Legal section of this forum and you'll see that the Internet legal experts are almost never unanimous in agreeing that any "shoot" reported there is "good."

So if you can't count on the Internet legal experts who are gun owners and your buddies, you would have to be a cheery young man indeed to count on the people who make decisions in the real world.

As you say, though, your lawyer's job is to handle the prosecutor and make him look like an idiot if he makes you look like a killer. You'll want to get a very good lawyer to do that of course, but of course you can't afford to pay one of those, so you'll probably want to get your Cousin Vinnie to keep you from going to prison and perhaps even the cemetary.

You'll risk all that for the sake of removing what anyone except an Internet gun expert would consider a safety device--including the manufacturer--because the Internet legal experts tell you not to worry and that "a good shoot is a good shoot."

By the way, are manslaughter and murder cases covered in the court reporters? If so, is every one of them reported? If not, how can anyone respond to the "give me a cite" demand that the Internet legal experts use to make their case that nobody was convicted on the basis of this, that, or the other.

 

[johnnylaw53]

let me give this a go. If you disable your lock or just don't use it and the weapon is stolen from you and used to hurt someone more then likly you will get sued and may even lose but this is also true if your weapon don't have a lock and you failed to use the cable lock or what ever came with your weapon. If you use the weapon it will be more why you used it and less on the weapon itself. Those of us who carry need to spend time learning our laws pretaining to when deadlly force can be used and when it cannot be. In Texas all cases go to the grand jury first if it is rule justified then no lawsuit can follow, new law began last September, sometime the folks at the captial do good things.

 

[.38 Special]

I'm not sure what synaptic deficit caused your histrionic, caps locked, rant based on an inaccurate inference about poor Smith and Wesson quality, but I'm sure your psychiatrist can prescribe something to help you.

Welcome to the forum, BTW. I apologize for the "binary thinking" business; that was a little too personal.

You may want to familiarize yourself with the code of conduct here, lest the moderators do it for you.