Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by 460Shooter, Feb 26, 2014.
Nice thing about internet forums, folks don't worry about being identified, nor do they feel they need to always be truthful. Odds are that person who voted he had 5 different lock failures with 5 different guns has never owned a S&W.
So these numbers will not have any real statistically significance. It's just going to be a simple percentage.
Of corse the most obvious flaw is that you have to assume people are being honest.
Somebody with a better memory than mine can correct me if I'm wrong (a distinct possibility according to my ex-wife), but didn't the company who invented the lock and couldn't sell it to anyone, buy S&W in order to get the lock on the market? If that's the case then there is zero chance that the lock is going away.
The first I removed it from was my 642 I did not like the fact that the flag was not visible when locked on a gun I carry for self defense. Idid have one gun bought used a629 mountain gun that did have a lock problem. When the key was turned to the unlocked position the flag would not fall all of the time, it would stcik in the up position. I removed the flag immediately after purchase and no problem since. It could of been because of the slicking up done by the previous owner which had been done very well indeed so I hesitate to blame it on the lock being defective.
637 using MagTech .38 Special non +P had 3 or 4 lock ups. After playing with the trigger and hammer everything would go back into place.
The flag was up just enough to feel it, but not fully in the engaged position.
No trouble with other brand's including the carry brand of 158 grain Hydra Shocks.
I, only have a couple of hundred rounds threw it because itis uncomfortable to shoot.
I, have a couple of billion dry fires.
I, can not count my Classic 27 tendency to become very stiff because I am not sure that it is the lock. But I really hope that is the cause because it will be remedied this weekend.
If not the lock, then I, guess the dinosaurs are right.
They certainly do have the option, and have exercised it at least once that I can personally attest to.
I have a Model 442 Pro (that uses moon clips) that has no internal lock. And it was definitely manufactured since the internal lock became standard for S&W revolvers.
Don't know why they chose to eliminate it for this gun, but sure enough.
This is one of those issues, largely comprised of a combination of reason and emotion.
It’s no secret that I prefer older revolvers (and by “older” I mean those that were made before Bangor-Punta purchased the company from the Wesson extended family in 1965). I can support my opinion with considerable experience and knowledge, but this doesn’t (and shouldn’t) mean that anyone else is required to believe the same.
There should be no argument, because between current, recent and past production – often is great quantities – anyone can find and obtain what ever floats their boat.
While the merits of old vs. new will always be debatable, no one is obligated to march in lockstep with any particular viewpoint. Personally I would be devastated if everyone agreed with me, because the likely result would be skyrocketing prices that would make what I look for prohibitively expensive.
Also I would hope that the demand for currently made guns didn’t drop to the point where Smith & Wesson abandoned revolver production altogether.
Disabled before I ever shot it and yes, that was sarcasm. Why did I disable it? Because it served no functional purpose on my competition gun and was another potential failure point. When you spend as much time, money and effort as I have shooting major matches, you don't leave stuff like that to chance. That's even more applicable to a self-defense gun IMO.
I won't go further at the OP's request.
Sorry, Kodiak -- please adjust the numbers if you like...Otherwise, no biggie...
Yes the company was purchased by Saf-T-Hammer in 2001, they then changed the name to S/W Holding Corp.
So it could be said in some truth that S/W is a lock company, that just happens to include revolvers with some of it's lock purchases
You really have high hopes to "settle this debate once and for all"? Really?
Having been through a S&W revolver armorer class, I had a chance to exchange info with other LE armorers. I've also spoken to different folks at the factory this subject (being curious), including armorer instructors and repair techs. I've also seen a lot of new-style revolvers with the ILS come through range sessions. (None have acted up for their owners, yet.)
A potential problem with taking a non-scientific "poll" of private owners is that you have no way to knowing the actual circumstances involved in any reported instances of ILS "problems", nor the ability of any particular owner to properly & correctly identify a range of problems which they might assume are "lock problems".
I've learned of new-style revolvers being returned for warranty repair for owner-reported "lock problems", but when the guns were examined at the factory it turned out that it wasn't a lock problem at all.
I remember when the owner of a new 617 brought his revolver to us (another S&W revolver and I) because it "wasn't working right". Looking at the gun, the cylinder wouldn't carry up, and the trigger and hammer felt as if they were catching on something, and then quickly they wouldn't move at all. Opening the sideplate, it turned out that the trigger hand spring had become bent, mangled and then "cut", and had eventually jammed the mechanism.
That must have been the time for spring breakage, though, as it was about the same time that another guy brought in his mid-70's vintage M36 nickel because the cylinder wouldn't turn unless you tipped the gun at a downward angle. (Hint) The old-style hand spring had snapped. The broken piece was glued inside the frame by a few decade's worth of goo.
I had an old-style 649 that had the trigger & hammer lock up tight. It was a pre-MIM/ILS model I'd bought new. The revolver armorer of that time easily corrected a couple small problems.
FWIW, I've personally experienced, and witnessed as an armorer & firearms instructor, a LOT more problems with the older style S&W revolvers (60's-90's) than I have yet to see with new-style MIM revolvers. A number of things can occur that can cause a revolver to "lock up", even if it doesn't have a lock.
FWIW, the itty bitty dog-leg spring that anchors the locking arm ("flag", if you'd rather) slips under a recessed spot in the channel in which the bolt moves. I noticed during the armorer class that if you opened the frame, removed the hammer and bolt (as if some owners don't do this to "polish & improve" things ), and then tipped the frame on the right side, the locking arm could shift (of its own weight) and pull the spring leg out from under the recess (no bolt next to it). If the locking arm isn't properly installed (anchoring the torque lock spring's bottom leg), the locking arm has no tension holding it down under recoil forces.
People are going to believe what they want to believe, or what they feel comfortable believing, or what makes them feel good believing ...
That original M&P 340 I mentioned? I later bought another one when the No-Lock model was released. Thought the No-Lock variation was sufficient excuse to buy another one.
The one I shoot the most and carry the most? The one with the ILS (lock). Go figure.
No not really. It's just a tactic to get people to come in to the thread and hit the poll. Like I said in my op, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I just want to gather basic numbers to shed a little light on the IL fears that seem to be expressed by some forum members, in an admittedly simplified poll. You are absolutely correct. A very in depth study with much tighter criteria would be needed to establish truly significant results, but I think that would require a rather detailed online questionnaire. And I'm no web guru, so I'm keeping it simple. If someone else comes up with a better idea, I'm totally in favor of asking a mod to lock this thread, and participate in someone else's data collection. I'm not prideful. Just curious.
Salern322, I'd count those two. Since the concern a lot of folks have is fear of the locks engaging due to regular recoil and use, your count. So go ahead and vote.
No worries JFrame. I appreciate the correction. I'll add one for you based on this post when sorting through the posts. I figure I'll take stock once a week or so of the posts and keep a running tally of add ons.
Given your screen name, should we guess that it was a big caliber with hot loads, most of the formula for known incidents?
Sooo...... Don't keep us in suspense, what happened?
The lock sometimes works and sometimes fails.
Separate names with a comma.