S&W internal locks ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to say that I for one think the whole internal lock thing is a bit over thought of. I have a M&P 340 that I love I don't worry about it's lock,I've owned a few s&w guns with them and never had a problem. Now I'm not saying it doesn't happen I'm saying it's rare. Anything mechanical can fail but to my knowledge my gun the M&P 340 has never had a history of ILS failure.

I'm sure ILS failures happen but again it's not the norm. just because it's happened a few times doesn't mean it's everyday occurance. That would be like saying that because a few 2005 Toyota camerys had their airbags inadvertently deploy,doesn't mean every 2005 camery's airbag will do this.

Now as I said my partiular gun and 340 series guns Ingeneral have been out long enough and with enough owners using them on these forums,we would heard about a failure by now. Look at all the 340M&P thread and all that guns owners,not one has had any issues with their guns lock.
 
Last edited:
megatronrules,
No one said it's a common event. Consider this, you fire 1000 rounds in your M340 and then 1000 more without a problem. You get very unlucky one day and the lock does fail but when it fails you are trying to stop a dog on the street from attacking a family member. They get bitten and all because a little spring broke, a spring that shouldn't be there. What I'm saying is yes, parts do fail but the ILS is unnecessary. They call it a safety device but it's really a storage device which can be done just as well with a trigger lock. Even though parts do fail why add unnecessary parts that if they fail they completely disable a gun meant for self defense? Like I have said before, if the default state was unlocked instead of locked the ILS would get much less resistance from me.

BTW, why is this thread back from the Abyss?
 
JFrames-1.gif
I prefer my Smith's without locks but mostly because they seem to be more sought after if I choose to sell/trade them in the future.


I've got a question out there for the LEO types,Are any PD issued guns equipped with locks either semi or wheel?
I always wonder about that in a thread like this.
 
Lock failures are rare, but well documented. If you are OK with taking the risk that your lock might fail at a bad time, why not just take the risk that you won't neeed your gun in the first place?

It has been said that perfection in design is acheived not when there is nothing else to add, but when there is nothing else to take away. Adding a lock is an unnecessary complication of a good design.
 
Are any PD issued guns equipped with locks either semi or wheel?
Click to expand...

Don't know about issue guns, but the 642 is a pretty common BUG or off-duty carry gun. I don't know of any special LEO versions without locks, though certainly there are no-lock guns out there. It's a safe bet that many, many cops are carrying 642 with locks.
 
Last edited:
I notice that not a single documented and verifiable example of a lock failure has been presented here.

How many have failed? One? Two? Fifty? Where are they? Where is the record?

This is like the ultimate urban legend. It's almost funny.

Also, some say that you'll be crucified in court if you remove a lock and use the gun in self-defense or the gun is used by a child to hurt someone.

But you'd also be crucified in court if you had the lock and failed to lock it......so, having it removed is no worse than having it and not using it to lock the gun.

This lock controversy is a strange issue and a lot of the rhetoric about it seems highly illogical.
 
How many have failed? One? Two? Fifty? Where are they? Where is the record?

This is like the ultimate urban legend. It's almost funny.
Click to expand...

You havent been looking in the right places. If you go to S&W forum, there are multiple accounts of lock failures, and these are from people who love S&W's. Incidence is low, but to suggest that this is all made up is incorrect. If it makes you feel better or validates your personal opinion to believe this is not a problem, then I would recommend you look no further for documentation of the problem.

I believe there are accounts documented here also, I think a person named Erich described his problems a while back.

To suggest that a man made device cannot fail is ridiculous.
 
While they are rare, lock failurers have been documented on various forums, including this one.

I have no serious objection to the lock, because I can quickly address any problems. :evil:

But revolvers that have the lock also have other cost-cutting features and changes that aren't possible to change. To avoid both I purchase earlier production that don't have either. I have little or no interest in anything that's intended to be a weapon which has in it things that are mandated by either lawyers or bean-counters. Others are welcome to make their own choice.
 
Seems the Scandium type guns in magnum calibers are most likely to have the problems with the locks from what I've read so far.
I also don't care for the post lock MIM parts.
 
If you go to S&W forum, there are multiple accounts of lock failures
Click to expand...

I only see anecdotes and not exactly multiple anecdotes about lock failures, which could be flights of imagination for all I know.

Oh boy......MIM parts have now been brought up.

I wonder if the MIM part failures are better documented than the lock failures??

:D

I understand the basic distaste for the locks, but I never see more than a few anecdotes about actual failures.
 
I don't see any reason for conflict either. Those who don't have any concerns about the lock or cost-cutting construction can buy what they want at any retailer. Others who view such things differently have the option of buying older guns on the used market (although many "used" guns are really like-new-in-box. Those that see the world from this perspective may even find what they want for a lower price. In this country we still have the right too choose, and that’s the way it should be. I see the lock as a moot point and don’t worry about it. ;)
 
I can see why some people don't like the lock, but I don't think we should just accept these bogus claims of lock failures as truth, either.

I'd rather buy or not buy based on actual evidence instead of these vague and amorphous anecdotal accounts (and only a few of those).

I bet there's a lot of young shooters out there being turned away from buying excellent guns just because of this urban legend.
 
Well while lock failures are rare, they have happened. Usually what happens is that the lock manages to unexpectedly lock itself. This doesn't seem to be the case with lock systems used by Ruger and Taurus - and the Taurus lock predates Smith & Wesson's.

It should be noted that while Smith & Wesson hasn't owned up to any failurers, it has made some changes in the lock - to prevent the failurers that haven't happened... :uhoh: :rolleyes:

I can see why some people don't like the lock, but I don't think we should just accept these bogus claims of lock failures as truth, either.
Click to expand...

I'll turn this around and ask, "Can you prove beyond doubt that these reports are indeed bogus?"

At least on this forum when a S&W lock thread comes up - and during the past there have been many - both sides of the issue get in they're two-cents worth. This being the case I don't think that:

... young shooters out there (are) being turned away from buying excellent guns just because of this urban legend.
Click to expand...
:scrutiny:
 
I am not sure why you are so willing to claim that these reports are all urban legend. I can think of no reason why gun owners would make false claims about a gun failing.

In general if you look at the reports of lock failure, they generally occur in light weight revolvers with a lot of recoil, such as the airweight 357s. I think it is reasonable to conclude that lock failures sometimes happen.

Any man made device can fail. The lock adds an unnecessary complication that can fail. For sure, if there is no lock, then lock failure is something you dont have to worry about.

The old army acronym KISS applies. "Keep it simple, stupid" should be at the forefront of any gun designers mind.
 
Oh, I think that young shooters are definitely impacted by the pervasive stories about lock failures.....ask your local gun dealer about his experience with it.

Mine thinks he'd definitely be selling more guns if it weren't for the lock stories.

Proving the reports are bogus? That would be proving a negative? No, I don't have to do that. The burden of proof is on those making up the stories.

It occurs to me that the lock is misnamed.

With the way these threads about a bogus topic keep coming up......

it should be named the "Eternal" lock instead of the internal lock.

:D
 
Those who don't have any concerns about the lock or cost-cutting construction
Click to expand...

I have concerns about the reliability of any important mechanical device.

That would include a pre-lock Smith, and even one with the magic pin in the barrel.:)

The reliability of a firearm includes a whole bunch of variables. I understand that tossing in another variable doesn't improve the reliability. However, some beliefs about S&W revolvers border on magical thinking.

I'd just say, use your head. That doesn't mean that lock problems are simply an urban legend.
 
In general if you look at the reports of lock failure, they generally occur in light weight revolvers with a lot of recoil, such as the airweight 357s. I think it is reasonable to conclude that lock failures sometimes happen.

Any man made device can fail. The lock adds an unnecessary complication that can fail. For sure, if there is no lock, then lock failure is something you dont have to worry about.
Click to expand...

I agree.

But when you say there's no reason why people would make up stories about locks failing......ummmmm, I have to disagree.

Sour grapes, S&W haters, internet trolls, people who think locks are a sell-out to the gun-grabbers, people who love to whine and criticize.....

There are plenty of reasons people make up stories.
 
Actually, I have no affiliation with them yet......but I'm hoping they'll read this and send me a complimentary Classic .44 Magnum.

:D
 
Sour grapes, S&W haters, internet trolls, people who think locks are a sell-out to the gun-grabbers, people who love to whine and criticize.....
Click to expand...
I don't hate S&W guns. I've owned them for 50 years...................
SWrevolvers.gif

.........but I still think S&W wimped out and sold out to the gun grabbers.

Anyone who defaces a $4,000 gun like this should be horse whipped.
Smith500.gif
 
I keep hearing people refer to a seemingly mythical thread on smith-wessonforum.com that documents all kinds of lock failures but have never seen a link or found this thread by a search of their site. I also can't find pictures or video of a lock failing. If anyone has these things I'd like to see it.

I do believe it has happened.....when you make as many guns as smith does I'm sure everything imaginable has gone wrong with them. I just don't think it's anymore than a 1 in a million chance of it happening to a particular revolver with a reasonable round count ( < 100,000).

Personally I'm not too worried about it. It's probably a lot more likely that I'll get a squib load or a bad primer on my ammo that I will a lock malfunction on my revolver. Granted, you can clear an ammo malfunction quickly, but I actually think the lock might be useful if I had kids.

I think this is a lot like the "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds" grudge that people hold against ruger. The issue is 99.9999% emotion and .0001% data.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Lightweight J-frames and The Lock?
Replies
14
Views
1K
KLR
K
C
  • Locked
S&W internal lock - bought a snubbie
Replies
13
Views
978
wuchak
W
B
  • Locked
S&W model 36 questions
Replies
16
Views
2K
19-3Ben
1
T
  • Locked
S&W Snub newb - questions?
Replies
2
Views
346
Cohibra45
C
W
  • Locked
New S&W without lock?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Zeede
Z
Back
Top