RussB
Member
grind the nub off the lock plate then...
S&W lock conundrum
- Thread starter bikemutt
- Start date
- Status
I've owned several with the lock and many without. To be honest I could care less about the lock and don't use it.
It's the purists and the low-lifes that own old beatup S&W revolvers that complain about the lock and MIM parts.
And to be honest I think the newer guns shoot better. I have one which is my favorite, a 29-8 MG and it's always been my favorite.
It's the purists and the low-lifes that own old beatup S&W revolvers that complain about the lock and MIM parts.
And to be honest I think the newer guns shoot better. I have one which is my favorite, a 29-8 MG and it's always been my favorite.
"Repeatedly"??
Whats your source for this info?
Was it repeatedly in the same airweight 357, or was it many different guns (models)?
I have heard of a couple, on the internet, so if you have repeat examples (compared to production numbers) I would be interested in hearing about verified failures.
Has it actually happened to you? Or is that just something you read on the internet?
MyGreenGuns
Member
My .38spl has the Hilary-hole. I took it out once, after hearing this rumor. I didn't like the hole it left, didn't buy the plug, just re-assembled it.
The only time I ever used the lock was when I was practicing drawing from concealment.
My 637 is alloy. I shoot +P, sometimes very quickly. I've never had an issue. I bought it from my brother, he never had an issue.
The only time I ever used the lock was when I was practicing drawing from concealment.
Only on the internet. And its always, "Well this guy told me that his friend ... blah blah"
What is your source of this info, please?
My 637 is alloy. I shoot +P, sometimes very quickly. I've never had an issue. I bought it from my brother, he never had an issue.
rbernie
Contributing Member
I've got multiple 638s, a 649, and multiple 60s with the Hillary Hole (not to mention a Governor and a passel of 686s). None of them have ever self-actuated in tens of thousands of rounds.
We have had a very few number of threads posted by members who had a gun lock up, and some of them submitted photographs that supported their claim.
In my view the best weapon is the simplest one. Removing unneeded optional features reduces the possibility of a critical malfunction. My position concerning internal locks would quickly change if they were the only way to secure a handgun, but such is not the case.
The strongest support for mandatory inclusion of internal locks comes for those who don’t own guns, and prefer that others didn’t either. I make a point of not letting their opinions dictate my choices.
In my view the best weapon is the simplest one. Removing unneeded optional features reduces the possibility of a critical malfunction. My position concerning internal locks would quickly change if they were the only way to secure a handgun, but such is not the case.
The strongest support for mandatory inclusion of internal locks comes for those who don’t own guns, and prefer that others didn’t either. I make a point of not letting their opinions dictate my choices.
kilibreaux
member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 115
Yet another thread about a NON-issue that has been overblown by no-nothings on forums who pontificate as experts, with every scathing comment intended to disparage anything "new" in favor of anything "old."
The 1911 was "new" once...I'm sure back then the same mindset existed with local "experts" pontificating on how it would never hold up and jam all the time...wrong.
The Glock was new once...and I personally KNOW the local "experts" diss'd it as being cheap plastic, weak, "throw-away," never hold up...WRONG.
Back when Ruger was "new" the "experts" proclaimed "cast frames" were weak and cheap...yet Ruger quickly became THE choice of those who handload for brute power...experts? WRONG AGAIN!
THEN, when RUGER brought out the transfer bar system...yep, the "experts" jumped in to proclaim them to be INFERIOR..."ruinning the action," guaranteed to break, only the OLD MODELS are worth anything...those SAME Old Models they had disparaged only a decade before. Didn't matter that the New Model could carry all six chambers loaded with total safety, AND quicker to manipulate for loading since all one needed to do is open the loading gate!
S&W had the firing pin on the hammer for EONS...actually a BAD system, but eveyone was used to it...and of course the "experts" would, and did disparage moving it into the frame and switching from a rebounding safety system to a "transfer bar" system (just like those "idiots" over at Ruger did!).
Next, S&W decides to add a key-lock...it's not meant to be a "safety" at all, but a means of LOCKING the gun to prevent unwanted hands from manipulating it...something anyone with kids (or a crazy wife) might find worthwhile...the key lock simply does not fail...before any key lock fails in combat, ALL revolvers share a host of mechanical defects that will fail...which is why they aren't really to be preferred for combat...but it isn't the key lock I'd be worried about. If, as one poster "theorized" recoil can cause it to activate then I've got THREE S&W's that should be permanently LOCKED UP...a 4" and 6.5" .500 Magnum and an 8.5" .460 Magnum...yet, all three are humming along despite having shot ONLY the most potent loads money can buy, or I can load.
Would I pay over double for a "pre-lock"? Abso<deleted>lutely NOT! EVER! Unless that pre-lock has some genuine collector value...which it MAY have one day WAY down the road, but by then so will the "post-lock" version! Besides, you can buy TWO expensive guns for the price of one, or three somewhat highly priced guns, or 6-7 INexpensive guns...some being mighty fine weapons! You could build yourself as many as FIVE AR-15's for the bloat of that one gun!
Besides, as has been pointed out...REMOVE the lock if you think it's a problem. It's not hard to do because you can remove just the hammer to access the lock without removing all the other parts...something you NEVER want to do on a S&W unless you know what you're doing.
The 1911 was "new" once...I'm sure back then the same mindset existed with local "experts" pontificating on how it would never hold up and jam all the time...wrong.
The Glock was new once...and I personally KNOW the local "experts" diss'd it as being cheap plastic, weak, "throw-away," never hold up...WRONG.
Back when Ruger was "new" the "experts" proclaimed "cast frames" were weak and cheap...yet Ruger quickly became THE choice of those who handload for brute power...experts? WRONG AGAIN!
THEN, when RUGER brought out the transfer bar system...yep, the "experts" jumped in to proclaim them to be INFERIOR..."ruinning the action," guaranteed to break, only the OLD MODELS are worth anything...those SAME Old Models they had disparaged only a decade before. Didn't matter that the New Model could carry all six chambers loaded with total safety, AND quicker to manipulate for loading since all one needed to do is open the loading gate!
S&W had the firing pin on the hammer for EONS...actually a BAD system, but eveyone was used to it...and of course the "experts" would, and did disparage moving it into the frame and switching from a rebounding safety system to a "transfer bar" system (just like those "idiots" over at Ruger did!).
Next, S&W decides to add a key-lock...it's not meant to be a "safety" at all, but a means of LOCKING the gun to prevent unwanted hands from manipulating it...something anyone with kids (or a crazy wife) might find worthwhile...the key lock simply does not fail...before any key lock fails in combat, ALL revolvers share a host of mechanical defects that will fail...which is why they aren't really to be preferred for combat...but it isn't the key lock I'd be worried about. If, as one poster "theorized" recoil can cause it to activate then I've got THREE S&W's that should be permanently LOCKED UP...a 4" and 6.5" .500 Magnum and an 8.5" .460 Magnum...yet, all three are humming along despite having shot ONLY the most potent loads money can buy, or I can load.
Would I pay over double for a "pre-lock"? Abso<deleted>lutely NOT! EVER! Unless that pre-lock has some genuine collector value...which it MAY have one day WAY down the road, but by then so will the "post-lock" version! Besides, you can buy TWO expensive guns for the price of one, or three somewhat highly priced guns, or 6-7 INexpensive guns...some being mighty fine weapons! You could build yourself as many as FIVE AR-15's for the bloat of that one gun!
Besides, as has been pointed out...REMOVE the lock if you think it's a problem. It's not hard to do because you can remove just the hammer to access the lock without removing all the other parts...something you NEVER want to do on a S&W unless you know what you're doing.
Last edited by a moderator:
kilibreaux
member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 115
Sa-WHEET!!!!I've owned several with the lock and many without. To be honest I could care less about the lock and don't use it.
It's the purists and the low-lifes that own old beatup S&W revolvers that complain about the lock and MIM parts.
And to be honest I think the newer guns shoot better. I have one which is my favorite, a 29-8 MG and it's always been my favorite.
I think its rather silly to spend over double for the same firearm simply not to have a lock. If its a handgun to shoot, the difference is minimal. If its a handgun you plan to stare at in a case, buy the one that's most appealing to your eyes. I wouldn't spend extra money to avoid the lock. Its simply not a big enough deal to cause me to justify the price jump.
tomrkba
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,370
1) My 625 did it once when new. As I recall, it did not do it again during a range session, though I only fired 500-600 rounds through it. My 625 was a range gun only and my reloads barely broke 800 FPS.
2) Michael Bane posted it on his blog and on Down Range Radio that he can cause it to occur with a heavy bullet loaded to near max or max charge shot from the lightweight alloy frame guns.
3) Dennis Reichard, gunsmith at Sand Burr Gun Ranch who did the work on my Model 24, is referenced in Bane's original post as reported to Bane through Ayoob.
So, it is not just "I heard this from random people". I trust what my revolversmith says. Bane said he has it on video, but S&W is a major advertiser on his shows...we all know how that goes.
Lock failures can occur, but I believe it is unlikely to occur with common practice ammo and quality defensive loads. I would be concerned about it if I were shooting hot hunting loads from Double Tap, Buffalo Bore and so forth. I do not know if S&W updated THE LOCK's design in the past seven years.
Overall, THE LOCK is a storage device meant to satisfy the legal requirements of some states. It is not well designed and is ugly. I have a problem being afflicted with it since my state has no such requirement. S&W is making guns to the "lowest legal common denominator" rather than stand up to those states by refusing to sell in those markets and to state agencies. This is changing now as the California smart gun law is implemented and semi-autos drop off the lists.
2) Michael Bane posted it on his blog and on Down Range Radio that he can cause it to occur with a heavy bullet loaded to near max or max charge shot from the lightweight alloy frame guns.
3) Dennis Reichard, gunsmith at Sand Burr Gun Ranch who did the work on my Model 24, is referenced in Bane's original post as reported to Bane through Ayoob.
So, it is not just "I heard this from random people". I trust what my revolversmith says. Bane said he has it on video, but S&W is a major advertiser on his shows...we all know how that goes.
Lock failures can occur, but I believe it is unlikely to occur with common practice ammo and quality defensive loads. I would be concerned about it if I were shooting hot hunting loads from Double Tap, Buffalo Bore and so forth. I do not know if S&W updated THE LOCK's design in the past seven years.
Overall, THE LOCK is a storage device meant to satisfy the legal requirements of some states. It is not well designed and is ugly. I have a problem being afflicted with it since my state has no such requirement. S&W is making guns to the "lowest legal common denominator" rather than stand up to those states by refusing to sell in those markets and to state agencies. This is changing now as the California smart gun law is implemented and semi-autos drop off the lists.
Last edited:
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I'm a purist, but I haven't been called low-life since my ex-wife didn't get the judge to see things her way.
But we "purists" don't care for the locks because through experience we've come to understand that the more complicated a thing is, the more "Murphy" it gets. Sgt. Murphy dumps in my mess kit often enough without handin' him an invitation.
And while I don't hate all MIM internals like many do...I'm extremely nervous with MIM hammers. MIM can be quite good for many applications...but anything that involves impact isn't one of them.
To date, I've seen two Smith & Wesson MIM hammers broken clean off. While that's not enough to turn me into Chicken Little...it's evidence enough to keep me from depending on one for my life.
I'll stick with the old, beat up rustbuckets that I know and love...like the 1966 production Model 10 and the 1962 Model 27 pictured below. Sorry. I don't have pictures of the other Smiths in the stable.
boricua9mm
Member
Wow! I've never seen anything quite like this! According to multiple posters on this very thread, folks who are concerned about the lock are low-lifes, self-proclaimed experts and "no-nothings."
Seems obvious to me that people have had guns lock-up under firing. It's been documented. The probability of it happening does little to quell the fears of those who don't want the lock. Here in Florida we have 14 deaths due to lightning strikes last year. It is highly unlikely, and I haven't seen anyone struck, I don't personally know anyone that's been struck, so I guess it's safe to go run around in a thunderstorm?
_________________________________________________________________
OP, with regards to the 627 pre-lock vs. the current version, I prefer S&Ws without locks. It's not just the lock, but the combination of the lock, the MIM, and the fact that the majority of newer S&Ws I've seen just don't appear to have the same attention to detail & crafstmanship as the pre-lock guns. In my opinion, even the 80s and 90s guns are built with more love than the current run-of-the-mill models.
That said, I just picked up a 627-5; it was built last December. The gun is very impressive. The build quality is on par with that of the older guns I've come to appreciate. I'm hard pressed to find anything on this revolver that doesn't exude quality. I don't like the lock so I will remove it. I was able to bring it home for $1010 out the door.
As a replacement for my Ruger Wiley Crapp, I had been considering a 2.5" pre-lock 686. Around here, as well as gunbroker, those guns are fetching $800. I decided to toss a little more money in and get the new Performance Center gun. To me, the set of features found in this gun are worth the $210 premium over an older, used pre-lock 686 at the $800 mark. I haven't been able to find a decent *new* 686. Every one I've come across has a canted barrel and I think the engraving looks terrible.
The 627 PC snub is really nice. I wouldn't spend double to get the pre-lock version, especially since we're discussing a handgun that's already priced in the 4 digits. Since you're considering the gun, I'll share a little gang of pics...
Seems obvious to me that people have had guns lock-up under firing. It's been documented. The probability of it happening does little to quell the fears of those who don't want the lock. Here in Florida we have 14 deaths due to lightning strikes last year. It is highly unlikely, and I haven't seen anyone struck, I don't personally know anyone that's been struck, so I guess it's safe to go run around in a thunderstorm?
_________________________________________________________________
OP, with regards to the 627 pre-lock vs. the current version, I prefer S&Ws without locks. It's not just the lock, but the combination of the lock, the MIM, and the fact that the majority of newer S&Ws I've seen just don't appear to have the same attention to detail & crafstmanship as the pre-lock guns. In my opinion, even the 80s and 90s guns are built with more love than the current run-of-the-mill models.
That said, I just picked up a 627-5; it was built last December. The gun is very impressive. The build quality is on par with that of the older guns I've come to appreciate. I'm hard pressed to find anything on this revolver that doesn't exude quality. I don't like the lock so I will remove it. I was able to bring it home for $1010 out the door.
As a replacement for my Ruger Wiley Crapp, I had been considering a 2.5" pre-lock 686. Around here, as well as gunbroker, those guns are fetching $800. I decided to toss a little more money in and get the new Performance Center gun. To me, the set of features found in this gun are worth the $210 premium over an older, used pre-lock 686 at the $800 mark. I haven't been able to find a decent *new* 686. Every one I've come across has a canted barrel and I think the engraving looks terrible.
The 627 PC snub is really nice. I wouldn't spend double to get the pre-lock version, especially since we're discussing a handgun that's already priced in the 4 digits. Since you're considering the gun, I'll share a little gang of pics...
Hangingrock
Member
As a consumer I made the decision to discontinue acquiring S&W revolvers when the lock was introduced. Using the MP series semiautomatic pistols as an example what percentage of those are sold with the active lock system? The S&W 1911 series pistols they being S&W didn't even attempt to introduce a lock system on their rendition.
I do want to say, I'd rather no lock if two identical guns present at the same price point. I just wouldn't pay an additional $1000+ to not have the lock when $25 and a little time can remove the system all together and cover the hole. I couldn't justify that cost difference to not have a lock that's never caused me an issue.
OP
OP
bikemutt
Member
Smith 627-5 Performance Center purchased today!
Well guys, I found a very nice looking 627-5 8-shot this morning at a Cabelas in PA. It was listed on gunsinternational.com and I've never, ever called on a gun found there and discovered it unsold.
Today was my lucky day. Then the guy says, but it's on hold until 5:00 pm today. Then he says he'll go ask the guy if he really wants it as he's still shopping. Comes back 2 minutes later and says it's mine
Tell you what, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the lock, I'll be too busy shooting it!
Gun was $949 shipped. That's still cheaper than a present day V-Comp from what I can tell, and it's sure as heck cheaper than a pre-lock PC 8-shot if and when one of those ever come around again.
Well guys, I found a very nice looking 627-5 8-shot this morning at a Cabelas in PA. It was listed on gunsinternational.com and I've never, ever called on a gun found there and discovered it unsold.
Today was my lucky day. Then the guy says, but it's on hold until 5:00 pm today. Then he says he'll go ask the guy if he really wants it as he's still shopping. Comes back 2 minutes later and says it's mine
Tell you what, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the lock, I'll be too busy shooting it!
Gun was $949 shipped. That's still cheaper than a present day V-Comp from what I can tell, and it's sure as heck cheaper than a pre-lock PC 8-shot if and when one of those ever come around again.
Last edited:
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,093
I have several Smiths without the lock and several with. I have shot 100s of heavy +p 158 grainers outta my alloy framed 637 and have yet to have it lock up. For SD tho I run 125's. I've shoot .460 loads outta my X-Frame that were so hot I had to drive the empties out with a wooden dowel. Of course they weren't BBs or DTS...
, even so it has yet to ever lock up because of the IL. I've got thousands of heavy hunting type loads down the pipe of my Lew Horton P.C. 629 Magnum Hunter and the only problems I have is it's just too boringly accurate. Only problems I have had with the cylinders locking up on any of them is the infamous loose ejector rod. IMHO, the majority of "OMG, my Smith locked up on it's own" threads are generally solved when someone mentions to try tightening the ejector rod. My LGS and the gunsmith that works there claims the same. Both claim that all of the guns ever brought to them when folks claimed the lock failed, were due to something else. I'm not saying the lock can't fail....I'm just saying the failure rate is so low that to be concerned about it is a moot point. A dozen years have gone by with tens of thousands of guns with the IL on them, and yet, one has never heard of a single case of lock failure when the gun was needed. In the meantime hundreds of folks have died from getting hit by lightning. Oh...I know, there's always a first time. Again....what are the odds. One needs to make sure their SD firearm is reliable with the intended ammo regardless of who makes it and the platform. Don't like the looks, don't buy one. Don't like what the lock stands for, don't buy one. Don't trust the lock, remove it or don't buy one. Pretty simple.
boricua9mm
Member
Congrats! Did you buy the 5" or the 2-5/8" gun?
OP
OP
bikemutt
Member
5", will post up once I get it.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Proud to be a low-life, no-nothing purist but at least I know the difference between "no" and "know".
I say if you want it and the lock doesn't bother you, get it. Disable it if you like.
For me, it's not just the lock. The lock is one of many reasons why I'm a low-life. I'm a low-life because I don't like injection molded parts that can't be modified, fixed or tuned. I'm a low-life because I don't like two-piece barrels that can't be readily chopped or modified. I'm a low-life because their lettering is ugly. I'm a low-life because their finishes are not very well done. I'm a low-life because old things appeal to me more than new things. I'm a low-life because I choose to be and I encourage others to follow their own low-life path.
I say if you want it and the lock doesn't bother you, get it. Disable it if you like.
For me, it's not just the lock. The lock is one of many reasons why I'm a low-life. I'm a low-life because I don't like injection molded parts that can't be modified, fixed or tuned. I'm a low-life because I don't like two-piece barrels that can't be readily chopped or modified. I'm a low-life because their lettering is ugly. I'm a low-life because their finishes are not very well done. I'm a low-life because old things appeal to me more than new things. I'm a low-life because I choose to be and I encourage others to follow their own low-life path.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
This is a crappy and lame assumption to make about folkes. I personally don't think the lock is a problem or a reason not to buy a gun. I even think the debates people get into over them are silly.
But I sure don't think, and would certainly never call people low lives just for having a personal preference in a firearm. It's free country..... buy what you like, and let others do the same.
MyGreenGuns
Member
"Know" "your" "knot" the only "won".
- Status
