Ks5shooter
Contributing Member
Is there a list of current production internal lock S&W revolvers? thanks Don
Internal lock list S&W revolvers
- Thread starter Ks5shooter
- Start date
- Status
gotboostvr
Member
have you looked at S&W's website?
OP
OP
Ks5shooter
Contributing Member
Yes they don't specify and all guns are pictured with lockside not showing.
You can bet if they dont show the left side, it probably has that lock.
An easy way to tell, looking at the right side, is that the hammer appears "buried" in the frame. And those of us who have extensive collections of pre lock S&W revolvers, can also tell it has the lock by the ugly frame contours around the hammer.
An easy way to tell, looking at the right side, is that the hammer appears "buried" in the frame. And those of us who have extensive collections of pre lock S&W revolvers, can also tell it has the lock by the ugly frame contours around the hammer.
gotboostvr
Member
there's only one or two J frame models they produce without a lock currently. A 642 I believe, nothing fancy.
Panzerschwein
member
+1
I can usually tell even if the lock side isn't facing me. Not only is the (very) poorly designed lock mechanism the cause of an unsightly hole in the frame, they also had to recontour the frames to fit the locks inside. It was as if a S&W engineer spent 15 minutes designing the locking mechanism while the board of directors were about to sign over rights to Saf-T-Hammer in the next room!
I for one couldn't care less, none of my S&W revolvers have locks and none ever will.
fastbolt
Member
They only offer some J-frame models with an internal hammer (Centennial-style) without the lock.
S&W ID's the Centennial-style J-frames by calling them No-Lock models. Sometimes they show a pic of the left side so it shows no lock present.
Last time I looked, they presently only offered No-Lock models of the 642, 442 and M&P 340.
I have a pair of 642's (both -1's, meaning no lock), and a pair of M&P 340's. One of my M&P 340's has the lock, as it was from the first production run ('05) and it had been introduced with the lock. Since I liked the model so much, I later picked up a No-Lock version of the M&P 340, more or less as an excuse to get a second one after I retired (to take advantage of the armorer purchase program).
That first M&P 340, with the lock, is my favorite of the pair. It's probably seen a bit over 3,000 rounds fired by now, being a mix of standard pressure & +P .38 SPL loads, and some assorted Magnum loads. It's been nicked, dinged and marked from being a normal pocket-holstered off-duty (and now retirement) weapon, and I even used it as my "practice" gun when I returned from a S&W revolver armorer class. It's seen a fair bit of use, and has served as my "range beater" snub. Having been dry-fired and fired so much, the action has become very smooth (but it retains all factory normal power springs).
I simply like that little J, and I trust it to function normally, regardless of having the ILS (the lock).
I often choose it over one of my 642's, the M&P without the lock, a 37-2DAO, older 649 or a 36. Even though it has the lock.
S&W ID's the Centennial-style J-frames by calling them No-Lock models. Sometimes they show a pic of the left side so it shows no lock present.
Last time I looked, they presently only offered No-Lock models of the 642, 442 and M&P 340.
I have a pair of 642's (both -1's, meaning no lock), and a pair of M&P 340's. One of my M&P 340's has the lock, as it was from the first production run ('05) and it had been introduced with the lock. Since I liked the model so much, I later picked up a No-Lock version of the M&P 340, more or less as an excuse to get a second one after I retired (to take advantage of the armorer purchase program).
That first M&P 340, with the lock, is my favorite of the pair. It's probably seen a bit over 3,000 rounds fired by now, being a mix of standard pressure & +P .38 SPL loads, and some assorted Magnum loads. It's been nicked, dinged and marked from being a normal pocket-holstered off-duty (and now retirement) weapon, and I even used it as my "practice" gun when I returned from a S&W revolver armorer class. It's seen a fair bit of use, and has served as my "range beater" snub. Having been dry-fired and fired so much, the action has become very smooth (but it retains all factory normal power springs).
I simply like that little J, and I trust it to function normally, regardless of having the ILS (the lock).
I often choose it over one of my 642's, the M&P without the lock, a 37-2DAO, older 649 or a 36. Even though it has the lock.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Like said above, only several the Centennial frame J frame revolver are made without the ILS. The M442, M642 and M&P 340 are the models I know of.
BSA1
member
Don,
Are you aware that a couple of folks offer a "plug" that fill the hole in the frame when you removed the internal lock parts?
Are you aware that a couple of folks offer a "plug" that fill the hole in the frame when you removed the internal lock parts?
Driftwood Johnson
Member
"An easy way to tell, looking at the right side, is that the hammer appears "buried" in the frame. And those of us who have extensive collections of pre lock S&W revolvers, can also tell it has the lock by the ugly frame contours around the hammer."
Howdy
Not the non-lock side, but here are a couple of photos I took a few years ago for a photo essay I did about S&W revolvers with MIM parts vs earlier revolvers with forged and machined parts.
This is a Model 617-6. with the lock.
This is a Model 17-3 from 1975 before the lock was dreamed up.
Notice how the contour of the frame near the hammer is slightly different on the 617 than on the 17. The 617 contour is more gently curved, to contain the lock mechanism, making the hammer look "buried" in the frame. More of the hammer of the Model 17 is exposed.
Howdy
Not the non-lock side, but here are a couple of photos I took a few years ago for a photo essay I did about S&W revolvers with MIM parts vs earlier revolvers with forged and machined parts.
This is a Model 617-6. with the lock.
This is a Model 17-3 from 1975 before the lock was dreamed up.
Notice how the contour of the frame near the hammer is slightly different on the 617 than on the 17. The 617 contour is more gently curved, to contain the lock mechanism, making the hammer look "buried" in the frame. More of the hammer of the Model 17 is exposed.
Twiki357
Member
I’m not positive, but I think some of the “Classic” line revolvers are without the lock.
OP
OP
Ks5shooter
Contributing Member
Good info,.already looked into removing the lock. The filler plug is a great bit of info. Thanks to all for info
.
.
Elkins45
Member
Pretty much all of the current guns except one particular line of J frames have the lock. Opening up the gun and removing the lock flag isn't all that difficult. I owned a 329PD for a short while and the recoil would cause the lock flag to engage under recoil. Once I removed the flag the problem went away. I did the same with the 340PD I still own.
Ohen Cepel
Member
Pretty sure they all do have the lock actually. I have looked at many with hope only to hand them back after I see that horrific hole in what is supposed to be a "classic" design.
il.bill
Member
Now I get it! Those pictures make it easy to differentiate the ILS revolvers from the 'no lock' models.
Thanks, Driftwood -
RealGun
Member
To cut to the chase, you might do well to avoid buying any new S&W revolver..
38riverrat
Member
You can add the M640 Pro to the list of "lockless" current production. It is a dash 1. This is a case where they charge more to eliminate an undesirable feature. Real marketing Genius!
They can't put a flag on a Centennial and keep it a "sealed" gun.
Best,
Rick
They can't put a flag on a Centennial and keep it a "sealed" gun.
Best,
Rick
jimbo555
Member
The 43c (22lr )and 351c (22 mag )also have no lock.
bikemutt
Member
Exactly right. I owned one and sold it, I count that among my epic acts of stupidity.
- Status
Similar threads
