Internal lock?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good point!

Good point, harmonic. One main reason why I carry a revolver instead of my XD, say, is RELIABILITY of the revolver. But if I can't bet on being able to dispatch from a revolver the next round because the IL could well "do it's stuff", - to add yet another "statistic" to the already THIRTY WEBpages - how do I justify the RELIABILTY advantage? All that EXTRA money to S&W for what?
 
I don't want to get into an internet flame and it is not my intention to argue, but I am a member of that forum and if you could sort out the 30 pages of clutter and heresay, you could probably condense it all into one page. I agree that one failure of that kind is to many, but not all the the 'reports' were even lock related. I know because I READ every page ( too much time on my hands---LOL) and many of the posts had nothing at all to do with the IL failure and most, not all, were Sc framed guns.
 
Been lurkin' around awhile and figured it was time to join up with you fine gentlemen on this fine site. Apologize for such a wordy first post but I missed out on all the fun last couple of years.

I wanted to share my recent experience with a new Smith. Having only owned and fired semi-autos this was to be my first revolver and the only one that interested me was the 3" 686+. After a couple of months of research here and elsewhere I became quickly educated in the issues surrounding the newer Smiths i.e the lock, MIM parts, two piece barrel and overall lack of quality. Of all those "problems" the one that concerned me the most was the last - poor quality control. Not good for a premium priced firearm. So... I started looking for an older 3" model. None to be found and gun prices on the rise daily. A CS-1 would have been perfect-good luck on that one. Managed to find just one priced around $1k but no other 3 inchers. Searched for a long time then decided to chance it and buy a new one with the barrel length I wanted. Waited for it to arrive with crossed fingers.

I was pleasantly surprised when the gun arrived. Very good quality indeed. Fit, finish, lockup, DA trigger all excellent. My late father was a mechanical engineer, part time gunsmith and ran his own foundry so I have a fair knowlege of what constitutes good metal work. I think he would have given this gun an A- at worst. Maybe I just lucked out with this one. Have fired several hundred rounds with complete satisfaction.

Sometimes the old saying "Don't make 'em like they used to" is very true - I have a WWI Colt M1911 made in 1913 I shoot occassionaly that I wouldn't trade for any Kimber or newer Colt. But to read over and over about how the new S&W revolvers are junk is, well, ridiculous. Junk is a strong word. I've looked at a lot of the older smiths and they are some fine guns but this new one is also marvelous. Time will tell if the MIM parts shatter or the hammer locks (I doubt it} but quality control was highly functional the day they made this particular 686.

As for the cosmetic issue of the lock hole, it's pretty subjective. I think a lot of the time people get used to how things are (were) and find certain changes objectionable. I just ordered a beautiful set of Craig Spegel grips yesterday...but wait...there's a big hole in the center of the grip where the
screw goes. Awwww-ruins the whole thing now :). Exposed screw heads in the side plate aren't particularly lovely but nobody cares because "They've always been there".

The political angle is important to consider but the fact that I could purchase this gun legally and fire it when I choose makes it somewhat moot as of this late date. Let's all deal with the issues before us now. If Smith takes the lock away that's great. If not .....
 
Reassuring

I find the statement "I know because I READ every page," reassuring. So, this brings me back to the question, "Should I go ahead and get the 642?", you know the Si gun. Or should I go for the Taurus 85?

Thanks for the very enlightening responses.
 
but I am a member of that forum and if you could sort out the 30 pages of clutter and heresay, you could probably condense it all into one page. I agree that one failure of that kind is to many, but not all the the 'reports' were even lock related. I know because I READ every page
Click to expand...

I'm also a member of that forum and there were a heck of lot more than a single page of actual failures. I, too, can read and I read every page. The thing that amazed me was how fast the thread grew of narratives of actual failures.

You're absolutely wrong.

But we don't need lost data files from the S&W forum for documented cases of failures. Massad Ayoob has written about IL Smiths that he personally knows of that failed.

Buy the gun. Don't buy the gun. I could care less. But I'm not buying what you're selling.
 
how do I justify the RELIABILTY advantage
Click to expand...

That's a difficult question to answer. Before the thread on the S&W forum began, the failures I heard about were with the ultra lightweight revolvers that locked up using heavy loads. Those were the kinds of failures of which Massad Ayoob wrote.

But when the thread on the S&W forum started, it wasn't just the lightweight guns. And it wasn't just from using heavy ammo. Locks were engaging from guns being dropped on hard surfaces. (Like that could never happen in a gunfight.)

And if the gun is so reliable, why are there so many instructions for removing the lock? It's because the gun has failed enough to make it suspect.

There are literally tens of thousands of used pre lock Smiths for sale. I can't see the sense in buying a gun over which such a huge dark cloud hovers.
 
I lurk over there, and on a few other gunboards. I do notice that it is ALWAYS the same FEW screen names arguing, or apologizing if you like, for the S&W IL guns.

Idiotic internal locks have no business on a defensive handgun.

Buy what you want, but don't pi.... drip water.. in my ear, and tell me its raining. :rolleyes:
 
Much clearer to me now.

Thanks for that objective input, harmonic. "Locks were engaging from guns being dropped on hard surfaces"??? That's SCARY!!! I would have paid a premium for a gun that PROBABLY be that "useful"???

RELIABILITY in a handgun for personal defense IS crucial for me.

Regarding used pre-lock versions, I'm hesitant. There might be guys who are not hesistant regarding being married to a gal once/twice divorced; I'm NOT one such guy. But is there even a weak analogy here?
 
I own preowned/used guns. If you know what you're looking for, it's no risk. Certainly no riskier than new guns.

Here's a thread that helps you check out, step by step, a revolver. And remember, there's nothing that says you've gotta have a Smith. I like Ruger, too. In fact, when it comes to a trail/field gun, my stainless GP100 with four inch barrel is my choice.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57816
 
I've also noticed that the same few screen names keep appearing to state with virulent passion that the IL's in the newer guns are the spawn of Satan and so what? Passion's a good thing and opinions are like...well you know.

I would have loved to have found -2,3 or 4 with the 3" barrel that wasn't selling for the downpayment on a car but alas there weren't none. So I had to 'settle' for one with the lock or none at all for the present time.

I'm not saying anything like, "Oh, poor me. I'm stuck with the lock so I better start rationalizing that it's a good thing and convincing others that it's a necessary improvement". Far from it. My main concern was with the overall build quality of the newest guns that was reported to be so poor. In my case this turned out to be simply unfounded.

OK...What I really want to know (and can't seem to find after reading hundreds of comments) is out of the hundreds of thousands of revolvers that Smith has produced in the last few years what is the percentage of these guns that experienced the unintended lockup? If it's a really high percentage, then I may be in trouble. If low (or really low) then my chances are better and I can live with lock being there (although if it wasn't there that'd be great also). I know these things fail and there are documented cases. Guns break in all sorts of ways and I'm sure at some of the worst times possible. Is there a documented case of a gun locking up in a defensive situation which resulted in the death of the guy defending himself? I think I'm more concerned with successfully getting to the handgun and presenting it in what could be a split second. My chances there are probably much worse than the chance of a hammerlock.
 
Internal lock 638, the sacrifical lamb

I have a new 638 with the lock and an older one without.

I guess I can use the new +P rated 638 with the offending lock :barf: as a "whipping boy" to see how +P loads perform / feel, then carry them (the +P loads) in the desirable ;) lockless 638 (which was saved from accelerated wear).
 
what is the percentage of these guns that experienced the unintended lockup
Click to expand...

That was sort of the purpose of the "Post Your Internal Lock Failures" thread on the Smith and Wesson forum. A no BS real life account of people whose IL failed.

Before I read that thread, I was of the school that thought such failures were urban legends/internet myths. But then I kept reading post after post of people on the forum who's guns failed.

Then the new owner "lost" the thread.

He's a gun dealer and it just makes me wonder what kind of a relationship he might have with Smith and Wesson.




.
 
Last edited:
Harmonic, sorry if I started something, it was not my intention. Loge does have a point in we really don't know the true percentages of documented failures. I am not a S&W apologist, just saying that most of the posts got into other issues like MIM, 2 piece BBLs and they should be blued or my friend had one fail when he picked it up etc and many strayed away from the IL topic.
Myself, I stated I don't like the IL, but I own one, a 629 Mountain Gun and it has been a fine overall weapon and given the choice between a S&W or a Tauri, I pick the Smith.
Any IL, Smith or otherwise is going to create controversy and Smith's created more than enough for everyone.
I say we drink a beer and be friends!
 
Informed decision

For me, carrying a handgun for self-defense IS a SERIOUS matter, one about which I highly value objective information, like that provided by harmonic. Helping me make an informed decision on a mtter of such concern to me - now, THAT'S a friend in my book.
 
Handling a firearm in ANY way including defensive carry is a serious matter. I think we're all in agreement on that one. I agree with Benzene that objective information is what we need - real facts - and unfortunately these seem to be lacking all too often in these particular discussions. Emotionalism tends to overide critical thinking and that's no help at all to anyone trying to find the truth - the reality of the matter.
As I mentioned earlier, I think passion is a good thing. We're all passionate about our guns to some degree - that's one of the reasons we're on this site.
But we have to remind ourselves that "Anyone has a right to their own opinion but not their own facts".

Statistics compiled properly can aid in helping us predict whether a phenomenon will likely occur or not given certain conditions. That's why I've tried to find out to no avail what the true percentage(as close as possible) of lock failures actually is for the million or so Smiths out there that have them. I also read the '30 pages' and sadly went away more confused than ever as to whether my L-frame could fail me in this way. It's kinda like the 'kaboom' issue reported for the Glocks with unsupported chambers. Again, what's the percentage? Are Glocks in general considered reliable as defensive weapons? Many think so.

As I said, I'm more concerned with what's written about the quality of the newest Smiths and here too objective data is hard to ferret out. Usually
there's just generalizations like "Smith's quality control has gone downhill
recently" or something of that order without really telling us what that means.
I'm not talking about the lemons which get a lot of webspace devoted to them. Percentages.

I guess I just don't want people turned away from considering the newer guns for what all too often seem like irroneous reasons and genuine falsehoods. I'm very impressed with mine and would hate to have missed out on the experience of owning it. Guess that's emotional, huh? :)
 
I would hope that any firearms forum owner has more integrity and so values other things besides the relationship with one of his suppliers that he would not deliberately cover up a lethally dangerous design defect in a dubious firearm feature.
 
I would hope that any firearms forum owner has more integrity and so values other things besides the relationship with one of his suppliers that he would not deliberately cover up a lethally dangerous design defect in a dubious firearm feature.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like a businessman has never sacrificed ethics for profit, right?
 
Most of the long time members who were experienced, and not enthralled with the current production revolvers, have moved to other forums. Dissenting opinions are evidently no longer welcome, there.

Hard to find any valuable information that was available, as the archives were evidently "lost" as well. Very sad.
 
I'm also a member of that forum and there were a heck of lot more than a single page of actual failures. I, too, can read and I read every page. The thing that amazed me was how fast the thread grew of narratives of actual failures.
Click to expand...

Yep. I was (and am) a member as well, for the last five years or so. At one point I owned six ILS S&Ws...and then I started reading about the Auto-Lock System. And then it happened to someone I know.

Sold: six each ALS revolvers.

Bought: at least six pre-lock S&W revolvers. :)

Still a member, still a happy S&W owner...but not a chance I'm buying another ALS revolver....ever again.

Yeah, I know how to disable one...but it's like dating a gal with Herpes. You need to take extra precautions...and even then, you'll always wonder...
 
The lock is a moronic design and it is ugly. It is also a symbol of Smith & Wesson capitulating with the Clinton administration.

It might not get you killed, in fact the chances are quite slim.

So if you are fine with a crap design that uglies up your gun and reminds you of a gun company sucking up to anti-gunners, that is your choice.

Personally I would rather send my money to the re-elect Obama PAC but hey, this is Amerika...you have the right to spend money with whatever gun company you want...for now.
 
I'm not concerned over the internal locks as all mine are P/R older models. I'm not in the market for one of the new ones if there's still older ones for sale.

Here's my latest discovery . . M27 no dash (1959)

Rod

M27026.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top