Lock Trouble

[JoeShmoe]

I've had my 340PD for a couple years. Today when I was shooting it, it locked up on me. The trigger would partially pull, and the cylinder partially turn, but it would not fire. Later when I got home, I realized that it was related to the lock. If I locked it, it would lock tight, and when I unlocked it it would not unlock. If I would lightly tap the but on my bench it would dry fire, and then lock up again. If I lock the lock, and unlock it, it won't unlock until I lightly tap it on the bench again.

Now I know the answer is to send it in to S&W, which I intend to do, but here's my problem. How can I trust it from here on out. This has been my daily carry for a couple years, and it's a great gun. Sure S&W will return it to good working order, but with the lock still in place. If it happened once it can happen again, and I'm not sure I should trust it anymore.

 

[barnbwt]

Remove the lock?

From what I've heard, it's easy, and has no impact on the rest of the gun's function. It's also easily reversible. If S&W says it is indeed the lock, be sure to post here about it; there's a lot of hot air bandied around about whether the locks are good or bad, it'd be good to have a real example for a change

TCB

 

[Radagast]

Internal lock can be replaced with 'The Plug'. Source, rice and how to video below:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/accessories-misc-sale-trade/143299-fs-plug.html


Before doing so, consider Masaad Ayoob's take on the potential liability of removal:
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2009/09/03/internal-gun-locks/

FWIW I've had the lock fail (temporarily) on a S&W 617. From Mr Ayoob's article and from past postings on this forum, scandium guns such as yours are more prone to lock failure. The scandium magnum frames actually twist under recoil, this is probably jolting the lock out of alignment.

 

[JoeShmoe]

It's definitely the lock, and my gun is a prime candidate for lock failure. Lightweight and pretty stout recoil with 357s. I love the gun because it's easy to carry, and I shoot it well, but if I can't trust it, what good is it? I suppose I could do like Massad Ayoob, and just shoot 38+p in it.

 

[Jim K]

I can't say it is not the lock, but with the lock locked on my 642, the trigger will just barely move and the cylinder won't turn at all.

I can think of a couple of other problems it could be, including failure of the center pin spring or binding of the bolt for another reason.

You can easily remove the lock and either fill the hole or just let it be. The only drawback on a carry gun is that if you ever use it, alteration of the gun or removal of any safety device could be used to show irresponsibility and recklessness.

FWIW, while claiming that the locks didn't cause any problem, S&W quietly modified the design to prevent those non-existent problems. The gun returned to you should have the new part.

Jim

 

[Old Fuff]

Without saying anything, S&W has changed a critical spring in the lock when a "lock problem" revolver is sent in. If you return your gun I suspect that this modification will be done to it. If it continues to misbehave I would remove it.

Any liability would likely occur if the gun was left unlocked and not otherwise secured. If a child (or someone else) found it and hurt themselves or someone else you might be held responsible. That issue can be answered with a small gun-safe or lockbox.

 

[Jim K]

I don't know of any direct precedent, but there was a case in Philadelphia where a police officer lightened the trigger pull on his service revolver. He killed a knife-wielding attacker. He was cleared in a police investigation and criminal charges were dismissed, but he was sued in a civil case. Even though the plaintiff's attorney admitted that the alteration to the revolver had little or nothing to do with the shooting, he claimed it showed an attitude of recklessness and disregard for human life, and won. Because the officer did not have authority to alter his service revolver, the city refused to defend him and left him out in the cold, responsible for the full amount of damages.

A change to the lock is not really analogous technically, but in my humble (and non lawyer) opinion, it could provide the same kind of opening in a civil suit even though the shooting might have been considered justified under criminal law. It could be tough to explain to a jury why you removed a safety device.

Jim

 

[JoeShmoe]

Well regardless of what caused it, it's a sickening feeling when your carry gun malfunctions, especially when it's a revolver. At this point my Keltec is more reliable than my Smith. I'm glad to hear there's a modification that may take care of it.

 

[Jim K]

No argument there. I firmly believe that for a carry gun there are three requirements: 1) reliability, 2) reliability, and 3) reliability. Everything else is of little importance.

JIm

 

[Old Fuff]

The ultimate solution is to buy handguns that never had an internal lock. Of course you could still be liable if you failed to keep the gun in some kind of secure storage, such as a safe or with an external trigger lock.

But if the locking devise was never there it cannot have any affect on the gun’s reliability.

I agree with Jim in the previous post that in today’s legal climate and the general lack of firearms knowledge among potential jury members, any alterations or removal of the lock might be used against you.

On the other hand, Smith & Wesson’s stronger spring may solve the problem.

Now you have to decide on what too do where I don’t. I wish you luck.

 

[Jim K]

They didn't just alter the spring. They added to the lock itself a lug that the cam engages so that the lock is moved positively in both directions. Before, the cam was positive only in raising (engaging) the lock, leaving disengagement of the lock to a spring.

That could have caused a real problem and apparently did so in some cases. Other complaints, like the "flag" that turned sideways, the hammer that flew out of the gun and was found 30 feet way, and the lock that caused the gun to blow up in the shooter's hand were pure fantasy, concocted by some of S&W's detractors including, by one report, a representative of an off shore competitor.

Jim

 

[Hardtarget]

As for civil liability for a removed lock. The lock is not to be used while carrying for self defense. When in storage add a trigger lock...and a cable lock and then put it in the safe. Triple locked when stored should be enough for even the worst anti out there.

Mark

 

[ArchAngelCD]

The Lock on S&W revolvers is not a "safety device", it's a "storage device" so how can you be liable in a GOOD shooting if a storage device is disabled?

Like said above, the ILS is not intended for use while carrying the gun, only when it's being stored.

JoeShmoe,
Sorry you had to fine out first hand the lock is not safe on a carry gun!

 

[Stainz]

The Infernal Lock has been used in S&W revolvers for over ten years. Guess how much they've had to spend defending themselves since it's inclusion? Nada. Zip. Nuttin. Remember, it blocks the hammer movement. No hammer movement, no hand (pawl, ratchet, whatever!) movement, no cylinder movement, and no trigger movement. I'll bet your hammer block safety, the L-shaped in two planes piece you have to line up just right to get the sideplate back on, is the fault. Either you've had the sideplate off, perhaps for a spring change, and didn't line it up properly, although the sideplate generally won't properly line up in that case, or it broke - unlikely, but stuff happens.

As the IL is either on or off - and has a spring to compress to change, making it easily checked with the key, it has no 'almost on' mode. Either the hammer is secured or it isn't. Should the spring break, the gun be dropped, or a lightweight loudenboomer (329, 340) be limp-wristed, they have 'jumped' into lock - but nothing moves! Of course, any of those faults happen to a beloved 1911 and it becomes a paperweight, too. S&W may just have a more stout IL spring now - it would make sense. Might be worth a trip home... and ask for a more stout IL spring. Additional effort in it's normal use won't matter to most - I don't know anyone who uses it!

Stainz

PS The hammer block safety is a drop safety device that has been in S&W revolvers since WWII.

 

[18DAI]

Send it in to S&W. When it comes back, dump it and get a new lock free 340.

 

[JoeShmoe]

Send it in to S&W. When it comes back, dump it and get a new lock free 340.

That's what I was thinking. Lock free, was not an option when I bought mine, unless I missed something.

 

[18DAI]

No, you didn't miss anything. S&W did though. They thought that LE agencies would allow those IL guns as back ups. Some agencies do, but the vast majority do not. The J-frame is still popular as an LE back up/off duty gun. My old agency banned the IL versions. Several other NC agencies do as well.

Now you have lock free variants available, of some more popular model J-frames. Despite the fanboys refrain of "locks are here to stay!"

There is no way I'd trust my life to one of those IL revolvers. Yeah, you can neuter it and buy a "plug". Additional waste of money in my opinion. Even if I did that, the gun is still ugly.

If I wanted to pay to much for an overated gun, then throw away additional funds just to insure it would function when I needed it, I'd still be buying Kimbers.

 

[bigtubby]

I have Three S&W's with locks all have been removed I would rather have to deal with a potential civil suit which will be filed whether the lock is removed or not than have my wife have to deal with a funeral.

 

[sidheshooter]

With S&W revolvers, as with some threads: "in before the lock!"

All mine are no ils.

Everyone is different, but when a gun fails on me like that, I always get it fixed by the maker, then sell it. Life is too short to carry around nagging doubt. Sadly, I seem to be sending most of the guns I buy new back. I can't believe how many issues I've had with modern guns lately.

Conversely, all the ancient wheelies that I've brought in off of GB (mostly K frames, plus one sp101) have worked exactly as expected.

One guy's experience is hardly the rule, but, since I'm the one guy that I have any say over, I get rid of any gun that offers tainted testimony at the range.

 

[JoeShmoe]

I'll be transparent here. When I bought it, I had heard all the criticism of the lock, but I didn't think much of it. I figured, it's Smith and Wesson, so it's got to work right.

I love the gun, I shoot it well, it's a 357, it's easy to carry, but that feeling of the thing locking up, was a big deal. Revolvers are supposed to be reliable, or so I thought.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

That's what I was thinking. Lock free, was not an option when I bought mine, unless I missed something.

A few years back S&W brought back a no-lock J frame but only their Centennial frame revolvers. They first released the M642 Airweight and a few months later the M442 closely followed by the Aitlite M340.

It's too bad they won't release their Bodyguard J frame revolvers without a lock because I would really like a M438 since it's so hard to find a +P rated M38 anywhere!

 

[Old Fuff]

Revolvers are supposed to be reliable, or so I thought.

And they are, or at least were. Unlike pistols, they're mechanical function is not dependent on whatever ammunition is being used, and feeding/chambering/extraction/ejection is a moot point.

But regardless of the kind of handgun, the key is the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principal. Anytime you add any unnecessary component reliability may be lessened to some measure. What you have is something else that might fail that wasn't there before.

If internal locks were absolutely necessary that would be one thing. But the truth is that they are there to offer the manufacturers a legal defense if someone leaves a loaded gun unsecured in an environment where someone (particularly a child) can get it and harm themselves or others. The responsibility and liability should fall entirely on the gun owner, but the fact is that the maker can be (and has been) sued for selling an "unsafe product" to consumers in our liberal bliss nanny utopia. There is also the prospect that left-wing federal, state or local legislatures will pass a statute requiring such devices, so gun manufacturers (such a Ruger) incorporate them in new models, or older ones undergoing major revisions.

Of the major revolver manufacturers Taurus and Ruger seemed to have been able to incorporate lock systems that don't cause problems (knock on wood). Smith & Wesson was first, and dropped the ball. They may, or may not have been able to pick it up again.

In the meantime the Old Fuff will continue to carry what has proved to work over his long lifetime - meaning handguns that don't have superfluous features because they never had them. They may not be the latest/greatest, but they work - and if the truth were known, the Old Fuff isn't the latest/greatest either...

 

[bikemutt]

I get rid of any gun that offers tainted testimony at the range.

Yup, me too. That's why my one and only defensive semi-auto is getting sold today, and it's the brand that never jams, unless it does.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

but here's my problem. How can I trust it from here on out

You can't. As others have suggested, the best thing is to remove the lock. It does nothing for you, nothing at all, and represents a positive risk in a carry gun.

 

[YJake]

I bought a No Lock M442 to void this very issue in an alloy frame gun. I don't mind the locks in an L or N frame as much but would remove those as well if I decided to carry one.

-Jake