Have you disabled your S&W internal lock?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I remove them. They come right out. Takes like five minutes, and they go right back in. I do the same with Springfield 1911s and the magazine disconnect on S&W autos and Browning HPs. These are items that have no place in a safe shooter's guns. It's downright silly. A manual safety, a long DA trigger pull, even a grip safety or one of those triggeer things on Glocks are all pretty darn safe and reliable items. Adding crap in the way of a good trigger or piece of mind is just silly.
 
but the revolver’s owner or some other person improperly assembled the spring later.

Unfortunately, that sort of thing keeps gunsmiths & factory technicians employed.

Why, I even had one of our issued service pistols returned in a plastic bag in pieces - with a couple pieces missing - because one of our folks thought he could, and should, detail-strip the agency-owned firearm himself. :banghead:

Or that in an emergency the owner forgot that the revolver was locked, and didn't notice the flag...

Granted. Although, that's kinda, sorta like how some folks have forgotten to take a S&W TDA, 1911-style or Browning HP Off-Safe under stress ... ;)

This couldn't possibly happen in one of my earlier non-lock guns... In a defensive weapon, the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principal is golden.

Yep. Agree.

That's why I wish the revolver ILS was an optional feature.

It wouldn't be all that hard to start offering it as an option, providing non-ILS models with a cosmetic plug of some sort ... and then see which models sell the most, ILS vs. non-ILS.

I suspect the ILS, and its ilk, are eventually coming at us somewhere down the road on all new production firearms, at some point, though ...

I've picked up a couple more older S&W revolvers myself, and will probably pick up a couple more ... and plan to keep the rest of my pre-ILS models.

I also like Ruger revolvers.

The sad part is that while I've been a Ruger user since I was young, the last couple of NIB Ruger DA revolvers I've received have both required repair in order to function normally. One required new parts, and the other just required removal of a nasty burred edge that was causing a problem. Of course, I have an early model Ruger P-90 that required a new slide because of what was described as a tempering problem, too. ;)
 
Thanks Jerry for the offer. I am looking for a lightweight concealed hammer .38 +P. Basically a 642-1 that has no IL and is +P rated.

DawgFvr: I like Rugers ALOT!!!! But, looking for a little lighter package, like a 642-1 for CCW. I have several Rugers all .357 magnums and all SP101s and GP100s. Great guns! My favorite in fact.

Thanks to everyone who posted info about cleaning your gun. Some really helpful info posted here about two drops and stuff :)
 
I have a 22-4 TRR with the lock and I have had no problem with it (knock on wood) after the 500 rounds I've shot through it, including +Ps. Quite frankly, I didn't even consider the lock when I bought it.

I do think that a lock is redundant if you keep your guns properly stored and unnecessary if you don't have kids.

To be fair to S&W; if a small few of the locks tie up some early guns, out of the thousands that they have made/sold so far, how big a problem is it? I would agree that one failure can be one failure too many, but I think the lock failure concerns have been blown a little out of proportion. If this happened to a random person would the be the umpteenth thread on the internet about this? This did happen to a well known person and, IMHO, this controversy has somewhat longer legs that I think it other wise would have had.

If the lock really concerns you then consider a used gun or a different manufacture. The glory of the free market is that you can effectively 'vote' with your wallet.

My carry gun is a lock-free Colt Cobra and the majority of the revolvers I want are Colts.
 
I'm the lone 642 owner that uses and likes the lock.It's handier to simply stow the gun loaded and lock it, then to load and unload every time I strap.
 
I currently own but one S&W revolver with "the lock", a 4" Model 686 that my wife bought me for Father's Day a few years ago. Two other S&Ws I've owned with "the lock" have been sold but neither one was sold because of the lock. Of my five S&W revolvers, four were made during the pre-lock era.

My 686's "flag" has been removed and the revolver now performs dual roles as a recreational shooter and as the gun kept loaded for my wife's home defense gun.
 
nitesite, you got it right....

a gun with a built in lock that needs a tool to disengage it is indeed a recreational gun, nothing meant for self defense can honestly boast about a disabling devise that you can not deactivate with a flick of the thumb and what not....

i have no problem with true "safeties", even if theyre redundant, but a LOCK is not a safety, it is a LOCK.

a safety helps to protect against accidental or negligent firing of the gun only, a LOCK disables the gun until a tool/key is used to disengage it.....
 
No lock for me,but it goes beyond that.The new lockwork S&W went to is all MIM and not the previous forged and tooled steel.I wont pay the outrageous prices S&W charges for the new guns,they are built like a matchbox car.
Its nice to know they increased their profit margin but decreased quality.
I would buy a Charter Arms over a new style S&W.Ruger currently makes the finest revolvers in the world.
 
Hey, don't go pulling those locks. When enough hurrah gets the revolvers back into manufacture without locks you'll be looking around for the lock versions as collector items! :rolleyes:
 
I only have one with the lock and I haven't done anything to it. Its a fun gun so I don't care. I might not want a lock on a carry piece, but I prefer semi-autos for that application and have avoided getting any of those with the IL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top