Integral Lock Removal

[brockgl]

I have been googling and searching and I cannot seem to find a good how-to on how to remove the integral lock on my S&W 642. I want to grind down the piece that is 'the lock,' thus leaving the hole filled and all other parts in-tact. I wish someone sold an IL replacement kit that included the modified part, but since I cannot find one (if you know of one please tell me!), I am going to do it myself. Can anyone enlighten me as to which part needs to be grinded down? I've read that I shouldn't let it get to hot, because too much heat might mess with the temper of the metal. I also don't care about warranty issues either. I don't see this modification as being any different than a trigger mod or any other of the many mods that people do to their guns. But if it voids my warranty, so be it. I would rather have a gun I can rely on in a self-defense situation than one that has a valid warranty. Though I can't stand the fact that S&W adds these locks to guns, I also love the rest of the gun's design, so I chose to buy it reguardless. I don't agree with the politics behind why they added the lock, but I don't care enough about it to boycott Smith and Wesson. Is anyone willing to help me?

 

[SaxonPig]

If you search this forum's archives you will find several such discussions.

You will also find my comments about this could possibly cause legal trouble if the gun is ever involved in a shooting. Despite the fact that two lawyers agreed with me that a sharp lawyer could make an issue of it with a jury ignorant about guns the majority opinion around here says to go ahead and remove a safety device from a gun without concern for legal consequences. No attorney would eeeeever bring it up in court and no jury would eeeeever hold you responsible.

Your decision.

 

[brockgl]

You will also find my comments about this could possibly cause legal trouble if the gun is ever involved in a shooting.

With all due respect, this matter does not concern me even slightly. There are two scenarios: A. I go to jail after a crafty lawyer convinces a jury to convict me of a crime because I modified a gun and used said gun successfully in self-defense. Or B. I or my wife or child dies because this integral lock malfunctions, and the bad-guy succeeds in his murderous assault.

Any way I look at it A. always wins. There are countless guns currently and previously manufactured without a similar locking mechanism. So, this modification will merely make this gun equal to one of those firearms. The S&W manual says it, and I agree--keeping my firearm out of the wrong hands (including the hands of criminals as well as little ones) is my responsibility. When the gun is not under my direct supervision it will be locked away. So, I do not imagine a scenario where a child will happen upon this loaded gun and discharge it accidentally.

I merely want to grind off this nub. Is anyone willing to help me by showing me a picture of the piece to be modified, and/or give me some advice on how to/or not to do it?

 

[Gator]

http://www.familyfriendsfirearms.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-68058.html

 

[Virginian]

I don't know, but couldn't you buy a spare piece from S&W and grind on that one, and then if you ever want to sell the gun you can restore it to "as built" condition? That's what I've done with two Marlins with the cross bolt and Mr. Ludwig's safety elimination 'kit'.

 

[cocojo]

You don't need to grind anything. Just take the hammer out and remove the flag and spring, "That's it", and the hole over the latch is still plugged up with the locking device. A small hole is visable toward the handle but it's really small. No need to take out everything only the flag. Without the flag the gun will not lock. The good thing about this is if you ever want to sell the gun for some financial troubles or for some other reasons, just put the flag back in. Tough to sell a modified gun.

 

[gopguy]

Seems to me it would be easier to find an older S&W concealed hammer snubbie for all the headaches you are going to go through...We do have a commerce section.

 

[SaxonPig]

"With all due respect, this matter does not concern me even slightly."

Then go for it, dude.

Me, I've seen lawyers at work. No thanks.

 

[Hawk]

Disabling factory features always generates a fair amount of discussion here and there seems to not only be a wide range of risk tolerance but also not much consistency.

Disabling a BHP magazine disconnect doesn't seem to get folks as wired up as pinning the grip safety on an 1911 although the latter was routinely done by Jeff Cooper.

Some folks that see disabling a safety as taking unnecessary chances have no problem with carrying handloaded ammo.

Killing the IL is generally lower on the scale than carrying Xtreme Shok ammo or installing "Punisher" grip panels.

Personally, I have no problem with removing Kimber firing pin block parts but stop short of handloaded ammo.

Personal decisions. One decides if one is more concerned about run-amok lawyers or self-engaging locks and acts accordingly.

I find that the older I get and the broker I get the less I worry over what some plaintiff's attorney might trot out. My personal discomfort hierarchy would put a slide show of Extreme Shock's web site at the top of the list of stuff I wouldn't want played at my trial with a pinned grip safety near the bottom. I expect most others' priorities would be the reverse.

Common sense would indicate that disabling the S&W IL would not increase liability any more than tossing the supplied padlock in the trash - it's a storage feature, not a safety feature. Regrettably, common sense has less than nothing to do with what might be expected of some personal injury lawyers or overzealous prosecutors.

 

[nj.piney]

that flag is your hammer drop safety. if you remove it the gun will not be drop safe. if you should release the hammer without your finger on the trigger the gun will fire . do not remove the flag.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Remove safety features on carry/duty weapons...

DO NOT remove or modify safety/security features on any weapons you plan to use for carry/protection/duty.

Massad F Ayoob, noted weapons/tactics instructor, sworn LEO and legal expert in many, many court cases advises against handgun modifications that remove safety features.

As posted here before, a slick lawyer/DA/police detective may try and twist you up and you could face serious criminal/civil charges for these acts.

Try explaining to a jury(most of whom no little or nothing about weapons) why you wanted to remove a handgun's safety feature.

Don't do it!

 

[rcmodel]

that flag is your hammer drop safety.

The lock & flag have absolutely nothing at all to do with the S&W rebound slide drop safety, or hammer block drop safety.

If there are any adverse effects from removing the lock, drop safety is not one of them.

rcmodel

 

[nj.piney]

i took the description of flag to mean the bar that prevents the hammer from contacting the firing pin, if i am mistaken i stand corrected. thanks for the correction rc.

 

[cocojo]

The flag is has nothing what so ever to do with the hammer safety system. The flag is located behind the hammer on the left side. This information is from a friend of mine at S&W and told me just to remove the flag period nothing else. Do not remove the safety bar associated with the hammer blocking system. This sytem has nothing to do with the lock. The flag is locked on the latching system you will see it after the hammer is removed.

 

[brockgl]

The flag is has nothing what so ever to do with the hammer safety system. The flag is located behind the hammer on the left side. This information is from a friend of mine at S&W and told me just to remove the flag period nothing else. Do not remove the safety bar associated with the hammer blocking system. This sytem has nothing to do with the lock. The flag is locked on the latching system you will see it after the hammer is removed.

Well no more worries for me! I just removed the stupid thing! It was really that easy! No need for grinding at all. The 642 being enclosed enables you to remove the flag piece with the ONLY noticeable change on the exterior being a TINY little hole. The little hole actually looks like a lube hole or something (And can actually serve to lube the inside of the gun now and then without taking the revolver apart). I left the other parts in, since there is no real need to remove them, and I didn't want a BIG hole to be visible on the outside. Anyway, I am now worry free, and I have the flag piece to reinstall back into the gun if ever I have to send it in for warranty work. It was a super easy fix! Though, I would definitely recommend CAREFUL disassembly. I had never taken apart a revolver before. But it went without a flaw--no shooting springs or anything. Thanks for the responses!

 

[buttrap]

Only way in the real world you would have a issue with removing the thing in a court is if you dropped it and it went off. A person needs shot the law does not care if the gun had a frigging fog horn and baby seat removed first. Where I live a lawyer would get sued for being stupid to even try to think of a case like that one...PS it aint Jersey like Mass tends to work in though.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff, who has been there and done something once and awhile would observe:

The chances of getting into legal trouble for modifying a lock (which is not a safety device in the conventional sense of the word) is remote, but not impossible. A lot depends on the political climate in the area where one lives.

The reason no one makes a conversion kit to eliminate the lock is because the kit manufacturer would be wide open to lawsuits from anyone involved when something went wrong. Make such a proposal to any insurance company and see if you can get liability coverage.

The quick and easy way to solve the lock issue with any revolver is a drop of red LocTite in the right place.

The Old Fuff's prefered method to address this issue is to buy revolvers that don't have a lock, and never had one. These also come with "real-steel" (non-MIM) lockwork, beter internal machining, one-piece barrels, deeper rifling (handy with lead bullets) and are generally better finished. Sometimes they cost less too...

 

[Jim K]

I think there could be a legal problem with removing the lock. But I think there would be a bigger one with disabling the lock so an owner could think the gun was locked when it wasn't. True, I don't know anyone who uses the lock, but it is there and I wouldn't want to try to tell an anti-gun jury that it is OK not only to remove it but to deliberately conceal the fact that it has been made inoperative.

Jim

 

[brockgl]

I think there could be a legal problem with removing the lock. But I think there would be a bigger one with disabling the lock so an owner could think the gun was locked when it wasn't. True, I don't know anyone who uses the lock, but it is there and I wouldn't want to try to tell an anti-gun jury that it is OK not only to remove it but to deliberately conceal the fact that it has been made inoperative.

Jim

I am the owner of this gun, and I would NEVER sell it to anyone without a fully functioning and in-tact lock just like the manufacturer intended. I removed the lock mechanism for my own use, because it is MY life at stake if it were to malfunction when I need it to work. However, I kept the lock unit and would reinstall it back into the gun if either A. I decided to sell the gun, or B. I wanted to send it back to S&W for warranty work.

Besides, common sense has long left the juries of this country, and I wouldn't feel safe under their judgment if the topic of discussion were ice-cream cones, much less firearms.

 

[Virginian]

If you shoot a lawyer, just make sure you kill him.

 

[TAC]

I've never seen a documented case where this locking device caused any interference with firing the weapon while in it's un-locked position. Can any one link to a proven occurrence, not just forum talk?

I would think if it only happened one time, S&W would have been sued so severely they would have stopped using it.

 

[Hawk]

I don't believe there is a documented case of the thing self-locking in a self-defense situation. If it did, it might be likely that the owner would find himself deceased with the next of kin unaware of exactly why, thus delaying the much-anticipated "documented during a firefight" case.

There are documented cases of the thing self-engaging during range work. If it does so in that case, it might well do it under other conditions.

But I'd suppose that if S&W shipped 500,000 revolvers during which time 15 cases were documented it might be considered rare. Further if (just taking numbers at random here) 1,000 rounds of ammo are fired in practice for every round actually used in a shootout, the thing hanging up while being used in self-defense is about as likely as the Earth's magnetic field catastrophically reversing while you're crossing the street to pick up a six pack of suds.

But one thing's for sure: the chance is greater than zero and, whatever that chance is, it's infinitely greater than the chance of something similar happening without the lock. That additional chance of failure will be unacceptable to some.

Removing the lock is easier and less conspicuous than covering oneself in lead sheet and aluminum foil to guard against unattenuated cosmic rays. If I was carrying one for personal defense and it had the lock I might even do it.

I remove firing pin blocks from bottom feeders so why not?

 

[SaxonPig]

The problem seems limited to the very hard-kicking calibers built on ultra light frames. The lock is one more mechanical thing to worry about but it seems to me like a very small worry and although I am in the minority I still would never, under any circumstances remove anything that could be called a safety feature from a gun. I have it on good legal authority that a lawyer would investigate the gun after a shooting and a disabled safety feature would be an issue at trial.

Again, no thanks.

You are free to do what feels right.

 

[M'bogo]

The lock is one more mechanical thing to worry about but it seems to me like a very small worry and although I am in the minority I still would never, under any circumstances remove anything that could be called a safety feature from a gun. I have it on good legal authority that a lawyer would investigate the gun after a shooting and a disabled safety feature would be an issue at trial.

Again, no thanks.

You are free to do what feels right.

You should make that ^ your signature line it would save you a lot of time typing it over and over again. How many times are you going to beat that dead horse? Don't take this as a personal attack but how many times are you going to post that same dribble?

The original poster didn't ask for anyone's opinion on what could, might or maybe happen after the fact of removing the lock. He did ask for a good how-to on removing the lock.

M'bogo

 

[SaxonPig]

These forums do get repetitious as the same questions get asked many times. Sorry if I am boring you. Am I the only one? Seems to me I see many members posting the same info over and over as the same questions get asked repeatedly so why single me out? Besides, with only 45 posts have you even been here long enough to be bored with repetitive answers?

You know, when you see the topic is lock removal, or +P ammo, or other such common topics maybe you should just skip reading it since you can assume some repetitive comments will be made.

As for being off topic, I think offering advice in response to a question posted in a public forum is not out of line. I guess you disagree? The advice is free and is worth what it costs. Everyone is free to take it or leave it as they please. Besides, I think it far worse to use the thread as an opportunity for a cheap shot (and please don't tell me not to take your personal criticism personally) at a third party.

Have a real special day.