S&W internal locks ?

[megatronrules]

Lonestarwings I agree with you 100% on this issue I feel as though a lot of the lock stuff stems from the grudge a lot of people still have against S&W for signing a deal with the antis. I also have to wonder how many failures of S&W revolvers are automatically blamed on the guns lock. There are a lot of things that can cause a revolver to "lock up" such as bullets jumping their crimp,a primer coming loose and so on. I feel if doing the numbers one will see this isn't even worth worrying about,there a 99.999% chance the guns lock will never give any problems. The chances of the guns lock failing are about the same as a primer coming loose on factory manufactured ammo and locking up the cylinder,again not worth worrying about.

I know a lot of people like to point to the Michael Bain lock failure,but we don't know what the particulars of that specific case were. It could have been that the lock parts were not fit or manufactured properly or it could have simply been a freak thing in itself. In my opinion the 340M&P is to good of a gun to not use simply because it has an ILS in it. Having said all that I would love to see S&W make these locks optional to the buyer on all their revolvers but I don't loose sleep over it either.

 

[DougDubya]

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.

Like all of them Hi-Points that jam if the wind blows on them funny?

 

[Old Fuff]

Sometimes people that play golf get caught in an unexpected thunder-banger while out on the course, and seek shelter under a tree.

And some of them get hit by lightning! But not many of course. But so far as those who do get hit, it’s a matter of major and sometimes permanent concern.

I’d say that wisdom dictates that one should not play golf in a thunderstorm, even though the risk is very slight. But in any case those that do are taking an unnecessary risk.

Internal locks in firearms represent an unnecessary risk. They are not necessary to insure reliable function, and in fact could hinder it.

If I was to purchase a new Smith & Wesson it would: (1) come with an internal lock, (2) come with an external trigger lock, and (3) come in a hard case that has provisions allowing it to be padlocked. How much is enough?

It is quite true that firearms are mechanical devices that can fail for many reasons. This applies equally to older as well as new Smith & Wesson handguns. But one thing is unquestionable.

None of my older S&W revolvers will become inoperable because of a lock failure.

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.....

For the record, none of the above describes me. I would point out that most of the posts on this thread that are critical of the lock (or locks in general) have specifically addressed the issue of the lock, and not the Smith & Wesson Company. If the company is losing a substantial number of sales (a contention that I would question) then they are in a position to do something about it – if they so choose. As an example of what can be done I would direct them to examine the systems used by they’re two major competitors – Ruger and Taurus, who have managed to install internal locks with no or very little controversy.

Carry on....

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Whether you like the lock or not, it is inarguable that the lock diminishes resale value if you ever decide to sell it. The pre-lock models will always be more collectable.

I think the lightning analogy is apropos here... If you stand out in a lightning storm, the chances are very low you will be struck by lightning. If you stand outside during a lightning storm holding a metal pole, the chances of being struck are still very low, but a little bit more. That describes the situation with the lock.

 

[Logos]

What is lacking from the lock-haters argument is an answer to this question:

Are lock failures leading to an inoperative weapon statistically significant?

If I am .00000000231 times more likely to have a weapon fail......does it mean anything in the real world?

If a lock means the weapon is likely to fail twice in 10,000 years instead of once.....what difference does it make in practical terms?

This is where the lock-haters arguments fall apart.....they are emotional rather than based on reality.

To have a non-emotional case, they must show hard numbers.....the actual number of documented failures that caused a weapon to become non-operational.

Then they must use those numbers to compare failures with guns that worked.

That's how you show whether or not this is an actual problem in the real world.

 

[Choclabman]

Sorry, double tap.

 

[Choclabman]

ILS Failure on 4" 686. Lockup complete. Cylinder, trigger, and hammer would not move. Ammo was 125gr Speer JHP. Flag could be seen raised in hole. ILS had to be turned all on then off to unlock revolver.
Solution.
S&W replaced the cam spring. Service was prompt and courteous. I give Smith and Wesson and A+ on Customer Service.

Once back, the lock 686 was sold at loss. Lock S&W's do not hold resale value. That is a fact.

It was sold because I had no faith it I did not trust, that the same thing would not happen in the future.

Meanwhile my 4 pre-lock S&W revolvers(M36,M19,M586,M29), and 3(GP-100 x2, Redhawk) Ruger revolvers have never given any trouble.

Draw you own conclusions. I do not think the problem is as widespread, as the internet would have you believe. At the same time, it does happen.

 

[.38 Special]

I’d say that wisdom dictates that one should not play golf in a thunderstorm, even though the risk is very slight. But in any case those that do are taking an unnecessary risk.

But again we must consider relative risk. While none of us know for sure, it does seem as thought lock failures are extremely rare. Is it equivalent to playing golf in a lightning storm? Or is it more comparable to people who are so paranoid about lightning that they refuse to play golf at all?

Internal locks in firearms represent an unnecessary risk. They are not necessary to insure reliable function, and in fact could hinder it.

Agreed. But again, what is the real risk? I have many thousands of rounds through several ILS revolvers. I have had several failures to fire. The lock has never activated, intentionally or otherwise. Worrying about the lock, in this scenario, is kind of silly.

Now, along with everyone else, I am no fan of the lock and wish it wasn't there. But I freely admit that my distaste for the lock is based primarily on emotion.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Logos, what you are asking for is not going to happen. There is no way that S&W is going to ever tell us how often they see lock failure.

You don't have to believe Choclabman. He has been a member here for two years and nothing he has ever said leads me to believe he is not to be trusted.

Deny all the first hand anecdotes you want and wait for a statistical analysis that will never happen.

I am curious, do you believe that anyone has ever been struck by lightning while playing golf? If you believe they have been, why do you believe it? Have you seen an official report that verifies and quantifies these lightning strikes? Or is it simply anecdotes?

 

[rainbowbob]

Sometimes people that play golf get caught in an unexpected thunder-banger while out on the course, and seek shelter under a tree...some of them get hit by lightning!

I’d say that wisdom dictates that one should not play golf in a thunderstorm.

Old Fuff: With all due respect, I'd say that wisdom dictates not standing under a tree in a lightening storm. Lightening will seek the tallest object. That's just asking for it.

I'm not sure how this relates to the question of internal locks - but if I can save just one person from being killed by lightening - it will be worth the thread drift.

 

[Old Fuff]

Logos:

If one admits that there is even the smallest shred of evidence that the lock might malfunction, what does it offer a gun owner that justifies taking any risk at all?

The lock is not critical to the operation of the gun(s) it is installed in. It is not the only solution for safe storage of the piece, and might put someone at serious risk if in an emergency, the revolver was locked and the key not close at hand. Other systems of internal locks (Taurus and Ruger) have no record or reputation for failing, and the Taurus has been around for a lot longer then the one used by S&W.

Taurus incidentally offered Smith & Wesson free use of their system, but they declined, and instead went to their later (and inferior) in-house design.

In my view, no one with good sense will incorporate additional risk into a weapon - no matter how small that risk is - unless it is absolutely necessary, or because the feature offers such important advantages that its inclusion is worth the risk.

So please explain what there is about the Smith & Wesson internal lock that justifies its existence? Is there in your view any reason I shouldn’t buy the older guns that I trust, and instead purchase something that I don’t?

 

[Old Fuff]

Rainbowbob:

Old Fuff: With all due respect, I'd say that wisdom dictates not standing under a tree in a lightening storm. Lightening will seek the tallest object. That's just asking for it.

On this point we are in complete agreement. Standing under a tree in a lightning storm is absolutely foolish - and a perfect example of unnecessary risk.

I would submit that anything with a reputation for unexpectedly locking the action of a firearm has no place in any arm that's intended to be used as a weapon - no matter how small the risk might be.

A possible exception might be if the addition offered something of so great a value that its inclusion justified taking the risk.

But in my view the S&W internal lock doesn't have any such value.

 

[Guillermo]

I didn't bother reading but I do know this...Old Fuff is right. He always is.

if Smith were to have a lock that was like that of Taurus which workes perpendicular to the recoil of the gun instead of parallel nobody would care.

That Smith & Clinton's lock engages on the same axis as the recoil it is a moronic design.

 

[Choclabman]

Calling people liars on the Internet. Now that is funny.

4" 686 ILS Failure, cam spring was replaced. That is something, I know to be true.

Have a nice discussion.

 

[rbernie]

Sadly, I had to do a lot of cleanup in this thread. I really don't like to have to delete folk's contributions, but when they become overly quarrelsome or argumentative there isn't much choice.

Gang - we are free to disagree with each other. Invalidating other folk's contributions, on the other hand, is simply not High Road.

Carry on.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Are lock failures leading to an inoperative weapon statistically significant?

If you ask that question, then you also need to ask yourself is there a statistically significant risk you will really need a gun at all. The answer might be no, depending on the level of risk you are willing to take.

 

[Logos]

Obviously there's no point in wasting my time here.

Our reasons for carrying guns have nothing to do with locks. We carry guns because we want to and we have the right. That's reason enough.

I'm going to quit discussing this urban legend until the next time it comes up in a thread.

That should take at least a week.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

So you still hanging with the idea that anyone who has had a lock failure and described it is lying? If it is just an urban legend?

Its kind of a vicious cycle... You say you want proof and documentation of the failure. If anyone does that, you say they are just making it up. How will you ever get to documentation you want if you refuse to accept any data?

We will never have an official statistic on how many lock failures there are. The lock is a man made device, and all man made devices will fail. We can either assume therefore, that some locks will fail, or else that they are the one invention of humankind that is not subject to failure. If that is the case, we need to get the lock designer to work on the cure for cancer or fusion power, not piddly gun locks. He would be a true genius.

 

[LoneStarWings]

Eh, nevermind, I guess the moral of the story is just take the lock out if you don't like it, or buy a ruger/taurus instead.

 

[Old Fuff]

Our reasons for carrying guns have nothing to do with locks. We carry guns because we want to and we have the right. That's reason enough.

When we carry firearms in the context of a weapon, we do so to be able to protect ourselves, our families, and sometimes others from criminal attacks. For that, the most ideal firearms must be above all, reliable under any and all circumstances, and it is absolutely essential that every person who carries a gun have complete confidence in it.

While no firearm is absolutely perfect, those that are least so are the ones that have superfluous gadgets in the mechanism that add to the possibility of a catastrophic failure, no matter how much or little the risk may be, while offering nothing in return that is of indispensable value.

Jeff Cooper once described the ideal as being, “everything you need, and nothing you don’t.” Smith & Wesson revolvers used to meet this criterion. Today they don’t.

The subject of Smith & Wesson’s internal lock has been debated many times on this and other forums. It is unlikely that the matter will be resolved unless S&W either discontinues their lock (which is unlikely) or changes the flawed design of the one currently used.

But there needn’t be any argument. For those that subscribe to Col. Cooper’s view there are plenty of revolvers in both the new and used marketplace that are available for purchase, and either don’t have an internal lock, or if they do it is one with an impeccable reputation for reliability.

Others who have no qualms about the S&W lock can buy a handgun from a wide selection offered by that company. Thereafter individuals in both schools of thought can go about their business with complete confidence.

I find this to be a more then satisfactory solution.

 

[oneounceload]

Eh, nevermind, I guess the moral of the story is just take the lock out if you don't like it, or buy a ruger/taurus instead.

This would have ended 5 pages of bantering had it been on the first page.........

 

[Logos]

Its kind of a vicious cycle... You say you want proof and documentation of the failure. If anyone does that, you say they are just making it up. How will you ever get to documentation you want if you refuse to accept any data?

Data is exactly the problem.

A total lack of data......just a few anecdotes with NO proof or documentation.

Testimony is not proof.

Proof is what documents the testimony.

Thus far we have had none.

I don't believe any unlikely story until I've see proof.

That's not calling you a liar it's just common sense to expect some proof.

As Reagan said, "Trust but verify."

Now I AM done with this silliness and will have no further comment until the next lock thread pops up.

 

[RDak]

Logos: Michael Bane just had an internal lock failure on a small framed revolver that is on video. He will be releasing it shortly. (Michael Bane is a professional who hosts various firearms shows on the Outdoor Channel. He is also a professional writer.)

IMHO, the failures are definitely real and I will never use a IL revolver for concealed carry or home defense that doesn't have the IL disabled.

It is such a simple procedure to disable the lock that it is a no brainer for self-defense S&W revolvers IMHO.

For range guns, I have no problem with the IL.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I don't believe any unlikely story until I've see proof.

What do you consider proof exactly?

People are convicted of murder on the testimony of witnesses. What exactly would you be willing to accept?

There is no government office that studies such failures, and S&W will never tell how many they see that fail.

I have a feeling there is no proof that anyone could provide that you would accept.

 

[Logos]

People are convicted of murder on the testimony of witnesses.

People are not convicted of anything on the basis of internet posts.

Logos: Michael Bane just had an internal lock failure on a small framed revolver that is on video. He will be releasing it shortly. (Michael Bane is a professional who hosts various firearms shows on the Outdoor Channel. He is also a professional writer.)

Small framed revolver stories have more plausibility due to the physics involved. I will be interested to see this video when it comes out.

I will also keep in mind that he's a writer and T.V. personality and people who make their living from storytelling are sometimes motivated to profit from a popular controversy.

However, it may be that he will include a response from Smith&Wesson in his story and that might be revealing.

If Bane does a good story and makes a plausible case (with a fair opportunity for input from Smith&Wesson) it would be valuable information.

It could show that there's a good chance that a lock failed on one small framed revolver.

Which would still leave open the question of whether or not that is statistically significant.

But I'll be watching with interest to see what the man comes up with.