Ruger LCR or Smith & Wesson 342PD
- Thread starter Azreael
- Start date
- Status
Master Blaster
Member
I have a 642 with the lock, I fired about 2500 or so fullpower .38+p rounds and a few lswc target rounds through it in the first two years I owned it. It never locked by itself. BUT I decided to remove the lock anyway a year or so and 800 rounds ago. It continues to function flawlessly.
To remove the lock you take off the sideplate and remove the hammer, the lock flag is underneath the hammer. Remove the lock mechanism and replace the other parts.
I particularly dislike the lock on the 642 because the lock flag is not visible as it is on other models.
To remove the lock you take off the sideplate and remove the hammer, the lock flag is underneath the hammer. Remove the lock mechanism and replace the other parts.
I particularly dislike the lock on the 642 because the lock flag is not visible as it is on other models.
shooter429
Member
The problems with the locks
I have had personal experience with both ILIF and crimp-jump problems with the Airlight guns with locks. On the other hand, the Airweights and all steel versions with locks have been perfectly reliable for me even with the hottest loads (including my own).
In short, the locks are fine in the heavier guns, but they can and do fail in the Sc/Ti versions with heavy loads.
I personally think the 686s with the locks, for example have better actions and handling characteristics than the GP100s, for example. All Rugers seem to be a bit rougher and a bit less expensive than the S&W counterparts, but I have yet to actually try the newest Ruger offering. At this time, I will stick with the j-frames as they are well-built, well-proven and currently available.
If you are concerned about it you can get a 442 W/O the lock or any stainless version with them.
Hope this clears things up.
Shooter429
I have had personal experience with both ILIF and crimp-jump problems with the Airlight guns with locks. On the other hand, the Airweights and all steel versions with locks have been perfectly reliable for me even with the hottest loads (including my own).
In short, the locks are fine in the heavier guns, but they can and do fail in the Sc/Ti versions with heavy loads.
I personally think the 686s with the locks, for example have better actions and handling characteristics than the GP100s, for example. All Rugers seem to be a bit rougher and a bit less expensive than the S&W counterparts, but I have yet to actually try the newest Ruger offering. At this time, I will stick with the j-frames as they are well-built, well-proven and currently available.
If you are concerned about it you can get a 442 W/O the lock or any stainless version with them.
Hope this clears things up.
Shooter429
I have one of the recently reissued no-lock 442s and love it, and you can rest assured I'll sure keep it. It is a very fine weapon.
I'll also buy a Ruger LCP as soon as I can find one. Based on the reports of some guys I trust that have one, I believe that it is a very fine weapon too.
Les
I'll also buy a Ruger LCP as soon as I can find one. Based on the reports of some guys I trust that have one, I believe that it is a very fine weapon too.
Les
Remove the lock and you are asking for trouble if the gun is ever used in a shooting!
Having said that, my binitial impression was that the LCR didn't do anything that the Smith Air-weights didn't already do and the Smith's certainly look better. However, as the LCR makes it way into the hands of some of the gun writers they are tauting the trigger as best ever in a small snubbie and say that the pistol seems to reduce felt recoil. Given that the bad trigger and felt recoil are two negatives with the J Frame I may give the LCR a look.
Having said that, my binitial impression was that the LCR didn't do anything that the Smith Air-weights didn't already do and the Smith's certainly look better. However, as the LCR makes it way into the hands of some of the gun writers they are tauting the trigger as best ever in a small snubbie and say that the pistol seems to reduce felt recoil. Given that the bad trigger and felt recoil are two negatives with the J Frame I may give the LCR a look.
Last edited:
WardenWolf
member
My family has an old S&W Airweight Model 38, similar to some modern incarnations. I'm not a fan of the overall design of S&W's small-frame revolvers. Granted, the newer ones are doubtlessly a lot more comfortable, but the J-frame grip just does not do it. We are looking to replace the old Airweight with a new LCR as soon as they are released. Also motivating this is the fact that we're certain the junky little Airweight would blow up if we accidentally put +P ammo in it.
Master Blaster
Member
I will take that unsafe piece of junk off your hands sight unseen for $50, just PM me.
WardenWolf
member
No, it's not a joke. The newer lightweights are better.
This isn't ours, but it's the exact gun (and the exact condition):
The primary complaint is that the hammer has a tendency to pinch you, and the gun is unpleasant in recoil with its grip design. And I really do think it would blow up if we fed it +P. There just isn't enough meat on that cylinder. This gun was made before +P ammo came along. It was designed to be the lightest possible handgun that could safely fire the .38 Special round. It's cut down to the wire. Feeding it +P just wouldn't be safe, and would risk a catastrophic failure.
This isn't ours, but it's the exact gun (and the exact condition):
The primary complaint is that the hammer has a tendency to pinch you, and the gun is unpleasant in recoil with its grip design. And I really do think it would blow up if we fed it +P. There just isn't enough meat on that cylinder. This gun was made before +P ammo came along. It was designed to be the lightest possible handgun that could safely fire the .38 Special round. It's cut down to the wire. Feeding it +P just wouldn't be safe, and would risk a catastrophic failure.
I wouldn't use +P loads in it, but have you considered the fact that your gun did not suffer a catastophic failure when it was proofed with loads with a pressure almost 50% higher than +P loads?
By the way, +P pressure isn't that much higher than non-+P, and I have read that it's no higher than regular loads sold some decades ago.
The new ones look thin, too. Are you sure there's any difference?
Here's a quote from Doug38 on the S&W forum. I wouldn't call it definitive by any stretch but it's worth considering.
There's an article on The Snubnose Files in which it is recommended that +P loads not be used in older Airweights. Sounds like good advice to me and I'd go along with it, but I think it has more to do with the likely effects of extended use than the risk if catastrophic failure.
Personally, I do not shoot +P loads in my new +P rated 642. Nothing to do with the gun--it's the recoil. I don't see the need. Standard .38 Special personal protection loads today are far more effective than the old 158 grain lead round nose loads, and I think it's the reputation of those loads that makes so many people think they need +P loads or .357 Magnums.
If that's a round butt gun you can get Hogue grips that will be a lot more comfortable.
PaladinX13
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 747
I have a 340PD and a P3AT. I would never carry the latter without a holster, which makes the revolver better for pocket carry, but the flat auto better in a coat or laptop bag.
Between the two I prefer the 340PD by a large margin. In performing some defense drills (with snap caps, of course), it was much easier to render the auto inoperable by taking it out of battery or torquing it from the hand than it was with the zero-snag snubby.
Guillermo
member
Why would removing a storage device (a poorly conceived, stupidly designed, ugly storage device) be a factor in a shooting?
Master Blaster
Member
OK its unsafe my offer dropped to 47.50.
I will even pay shipping.
I will even pay shipping.
Guillermo, here is a direct answer on this very question by Mas Ayoob, from the firing line forum, 2005-12-01.
"Anyone with a three-digit IQ knows that unscrupulous attorneys may come after them with unmeritorious arguments in the wake of a justified shooting. Telling them "Aw, don't worry about it" is kinda like Sarah Brady telling people, "Aw, criminals won't come after you. You don't need a gun."
People know the crap load of trouble they can get into after the most justified shooting. It can make people hesitate long enough to be killed. That's why I make a point of educating folks how to deal with the aftermath, so they'll know they can get through it and not die from fatal hesitation in the moment of truth.
Why do you think you won't find a reputable gunsmith who will remove a safety device from a firearm? Did you think I scared them? They know what is likely to happen in a litigious society when a money-hungry plaintiff's lawyer or a politically-motivated prosecutor goes after someone who was in a "clean shoot" and tries to make them appear reckless and irresponsible.
The jury will have been cleared of knowledgeable gun folks during voir dire, the jury selection process. When opposing counsel presents their "theory of the case", they will need to establish recklessness. Removing a safety device from a lethal weapon plays right into their hands.
You, the shooter, now have to convince the jury that you know more about the gun than its designer and manufacturer. Pretty high mountain to climb.
In a manslaughter case in Miami some years ago, famed defense attorney Mark Seiden did a case in which the prosecutor made a big deal about the deactivated magazine disconnecter safety on the defendant's Browning Hi-Power, which was in his car at the scene but was not even the death weapon. The case was plea-bargained, and Mark prefers that his client's name not be used to spare him further humiliation, but Mark himself will confirm that it happened.
Haven't personally seen a case involving the S&W lock, but the same principles would undoubtedly apply. Personally, I just make a point of using pre-lock models for my J-frame carry needs.
Decision is yours, folks. It's your life and your future. But get all the information and make a fully informed decision."
"Anyone with a three-digit IQ knows that unscrupulous attorneys may come after them with unmeritorious arguments in the wake of a justified shooting. Telling them "Aw, don't worry about it" is kinda like Sarah Brady telling people, "Aw, criminals won't come after you. You don't need a gun."
People know the crap load of trouble they can get into after the most justified shooting. It can make people hesitate long enough to be killed. That's why I make a point of educating folks how to deal with the aftermath, so they'll know they can get through it and not die from fatal hesitation in the moment of truth.
Why do you think you won't find a reputable gunsmith who will remove a safety device from a firearm? Did you think I scared them? They know what is likely to happen in a litigious society when a money-hungry plaintiff's lawyer or a politically-motivated prosecutor goes after someone who was in a "clean shoot" and tries to make them appear reckless and irresponsible.
The jury will have been cleared of knowledgeable gun folks during voir dire, the jury selection process. When opposing counsel presents their "theory of the case", they will need to establish recklessness. Removing a safety device from a lethal weapon plays right into their hands.
You, the shooter, now have to convince the jury that you know more about the gun than its designer and manufacturer. Pretty high mountain to climb.
In a manslaughter case in Miami some years ago, famed defense attorney Mark Seiden did a case in which the prosecutor made a big deal about the deactivated magazine disconnecter safety on the defendant's Browning Hi-Power, which was in his car at the scene but was not even the death weapon. The case was plea-bargained, and Mark prefers that his client's name not be used to spare him further humiliation, but Mark himself will confirm that it happened.
Haven't personally seen a case involving the S&W lock, but the same principles would undoubtedly apply. Personally, I just make a point of using pre-lock models for my J-frame carry needs.
Decision is yours, folks. It's your life and your future. But get all the information and make a fully informed decision."
SwampWolf
Member
Another option is the Colt Cobra, a snubbie that weighs no more than a Smith Airweight (though a trifle larger) but carries 20 % more ammunition (six rounds as opposed to five) and no lock. The only drawbacks that I'm aware of is that it's getting harder and harder to locate a nice Cobra that is somewhat affordable (you can still find them in excellent condition from four to five hundred dollars) and extended use of +P .38s is not advisable.
Guillermo
member
Hinton,
Trust me...I will never own a Smith with a lock. In fact, as long as they put this poorly designed lock on their revolvers I will not buy anything from them. (I didn't even look at the M&P when I was buying a striker fire 45...love my XD!)
Still, the only senario that I can see there being liability is if a kid were to get the gun and shoot it when it could be locked. THe removal of a lock in a shooting where the owner controls the gun has nothing to do with the presence of the lock.
Of course I live in Texas where justifiable homicide can be justified with "but your honor...he needed killin'!"
Trust me...I will never own a Smith with a lock. In fact, as long as they put this poorly designed lock on their revolvers I will not buy anything from them. (I didn't even look at the M&P when I was buying a striker fire 45...love my XD!)
Still, the only senario that I can see there being liability is if a kid were to get the gun and shoot it when it could be locked. THe removal of a lock in a shooting where the owner controls the gun has nothing to do with the presence of the lock.
Of course I live in Texas where justifiable homicide can be justified with "but your honor...he needed killin'!"
I just removed the lock from my 342PD. I didn't want to take any chances of it locking on its own. I'm sure the chances were slim but I just kept seeing it lock up during a gun fight in my head. I carried my Kahr PM40 around untill I got the chance to do the surgery.
I met a guy at the range today who had just bought a Taurus snub .357. I think it was all SS. He let me fire it and the recoil was not an issue.
I fired 15 rounds of 158g .38 Rem from my 638 which has CT 405 grips that cushion the backstrap and I have a blister at the base of my thumb. I was franky surprised.
I can handle the recoil. But the blister shocked me.
IMHO I would not want anything lighter than the 638 and I think the 329pd I had considered is now out of the picture.
Added: I have a PM40 also and it's one of my favorite carry guns.
I fired 15 rounds of 158g .38 Rem from my 638 which has CT 405 grips that cushion the backstrap and I have a blister at the base of my thumb. I was franky surprised.
I can handle the recoil. But the blister shocked me.
IMHO I would not want anything lighter than the 638 and I think the 329pd I had considered is now out of the picture.
Added: I have a PM40 also and it's one of my favorite carry guns.
- Status
