S&W642 - I just removed my ILS lock. It was easy!
- Thread starter Benelli Shooter
- Start date
- Status
Benelli Shooter:
For the moment, forget the cosmetic issues, and the fact that the company’s previous management committed some capital sins.
The real issue is risk: How much are you willing to take. There is general agreement in both camps that lock failure seldom happens, but on the other hand it has happened.
Speaking only for myself, my attitude is that the only risk I’ll take is that which cannot be avoided. To whatever degree the lock presents a risk it can be avoided by having a weapon that doesn’t have, and never had a lock.
Others however take the position that the risk posed by the lock is so infinitesimal, that it should be considered non-nonexistent.
So to pick an option you have to decide where you personally stand. If you are going to go with the lock it’s a toss-up between an unaltered lock, and one where the lug has been ground off the flag. To remove the flag and not replace it with something, increases rather then subtracts from the risk, but only to a tiny degree.
I feel sorry for those that agonize over the lock issue because I have found an easy, simple solution, but my answer is like a pair of shoes – one size doesn’t fit all.
For the moment, forget the cosmetic issues, and the fact that the company’s previous management committed some capital sins.
The real issue is risk: How much are you willing to take. There is general agreement in both camps that lock failure seldom happens, but on the other hand it has happened.
Speaking only for myself, my attitude is that the only risk I’ll take is that which cannot be avoided. To whatever degree the lock presents a risk it can be avoided by having a weapon that doesn’t have, and never had a lock.
Others however take the position that the risk posed by the lock is so infinitesimal, that it should be considered non-nonexistent.
So to pick an option you have to decide where you personally stand. If you are going to go with the lock it’s a toss-up between an unaltered lock, and one where the lug has been ground off the flag. To remove the flag and not replace it with something, increases rather then subtracts from the risk, but only to a tiny degree.
I feel sorry for those that agonize over the lock issue because I have found an easy, simple solution, but my answer is like a pair of shoes – one size doesn’t fit all.
Guillermo
member
Would help u out resto guy but darn it, I don't have any to sell you. Then again I would rather own a Rohm than an IL Smith & Clinton.
Me too.... I have the same problem. Much as I'd like to seperate Resto from his c-notes, I couldn't find any hardware in my stuff that had the lock. I was thinking that if I picked something out and drilled a hole above the cylinder latch thumbpiece maybe he wouldn't notice the difference...
Ya' think????
Ya' think????
Guillermo
member
well Fuffster...save the drill bits and sell me your old Smiths for a C note each
please
please
captain awesome
Member
http://www.familyfriendsfirearms.com...p/t-68058.html
there you go. I posted something similar about my 500 s&w a little while back. This guy did a really great job with his. I am going to do this to any il smiths I buy from now on. I haven't started filling the hole in my 500 yet, but will soon. Couldn't tell you anything about the difficulty factor. Seems relatively simple but then again matching the texture/finish exactly on a brushed stainless gun might prove to be challenging. I may just mirror polish the whole thing. It might be easier that way, and no doubt the gun would look better that way. Is yours blued or stainless?
there you go. I posted something similar about my 500 s&w a little while back. This guy did a really great job with his. I am going to do this to any il smiths I buy from now on. I haven't started filling the hole in my 500 yet, but will soon. Couldn't tell you anything about the difficulty factor. Seems relatively simple but then again matching the texture/finish exactly on a brushed stainless gun might prove to be challenging. I may just mirror polish the whole thing. It might be easier that way, and no doubt the gun would look better that way. Is yours blued or stainless?
Jim Watson
Member
You could tap the hole and put in a plug screw. It would look like an action screw even though it didn't do or hold anything. You can get a plug for the crossbolt safety on Marlin lever actions that does that.
dkk73
Member
I removed the lock on our 629 in toto (since it was open on top anyway) but not on my 442 (don't want to accumulate more crud inside the action since it's deployed in "high lint" environments ).
When/if I get around to removing the assembly (in toto, again) I think the optimal way to plug the hole is by finding/machining a plug that is wider on the outside than inside, and large enough overall that it must be press fit into the hole. If I find a stock item that serves, I will certainly post the info. Possibly a retaining pin of some sort could be ground down to size. If you have a lathe, you are in like Flint and don't need me to tell you what to do!
IMHO, there is little reason to make this another test of gun-political correctness. As someone pointed out, it's all about what risk you want to take where. For me, I don't want to open up a lint access port in my pocket gun, and I'm not worried enough about the lock failing closed to put this above my other recent projects.
But it's solvable, if you really care.
ETA: LCR is a neat little gun, too.
). When/if I get around to removing the assembly (in toto, again) I think the optimal way to plug the hole is by finding/machining a plug that is wider on the outside than inside, and large enough overall that it must be press fit into the hole. If I find a stock item that serves, I will certainly post the info. Possibly a retaining pin of some sort could be ground down to size. If you have a lathe, you are in like Flint and don't need me to tell you what to do!
IMHO, there is little reason to make this another test of gun-political correctness. As someone pointed out, it's all about what risk you want to take where. For me, I don't want to open up a lint access port in my pocket gun, and I'm not worried enough about the lock failing closed to put this above my other recent projects.
But it's solvable, if you really care.
ETA: LCR is a neat little gun, too.
Last edited:
A press-fitted plug in the hole may work in a steel frame, but is questionable in an alloy one. Also if one REALLY press-fits the plug they might distort the frame. As for threading - there isn't much room in the frame's wall.
If someone wants to go in this direction I would suggest a tight fit, in combination with a good adhesive.
But don't take this as a recommendation.
If someone wants to go in this direction I would suggest a tight fit, in combination with a good adhesive.
But don't take this as a recommendation.
Benelli Shooter
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2005
- Messages
- 115
I am going to sell it. I don't trust it and hate the sight of the lock. I hate it worse with a huge hole in the side. When, I took the gun apart, I realized how cheaply these things are built.
It is going on gunbroker today.
I will buy the Ruger LCR and never buy another S&W product again.
It is going on gunbroker today.
I will buy the Ruger LCR and never buy another S&W product again.
I don't know that I'd write off Smith & Wesson. At one time they made revolvers that were the benchmark others were compared to, and of course they didn't come with locks.
During the recent past the small-frame snubby market was divided between Smith & Wesson and Taurus, with S&W in the lead. Now Ruger has come into that market, and whatever market share they may get will come at the expense of the other two.
If the Ruger makes serious inroads, Smith & Wesson will have to make some changes in response, and clearly the design of their lock, and the contention surrounding it, is going to be one factor they’ll have to look at.
The Ruger’s main points are a superior double-action trigger pull, and recoil absorbing stocks. To counter these both Smith & Wesson and Taurus might have to make some substantial design changes. If or when they do that I suspect that S&W will be forced to look at their lock again.
The Old Fuff says, “Never say never.”
Guillermo
member
me thinks Old Fuff is a glass-is-1/2-full kinda guy.
Smith KNOWS how much the lock is hated and they do not care. If it were a purely economic decision they would have removed it long ago.
Smith KNOWS how much the lock is hated and they do not care. If it were a purely economic decision they would have removed it long ago.
I hope that all the rumors of Colt getting back into DA revolvers are true.
If Colt would produce Detective Specials or Magnum carry's they would sell all they could make. Who would care what Safety Wesson chooses to do.
If it doesn't happen maybe a gun maker will buy S&W and start making decent handguns again.
If Colt would produce Detective Specials or Magnum carry's they would sell all they could make. Who would care what Safety Wesson chooses to do.
If it doesn't happen maybe a gun maker will buy S&W and start making decent handguns again.
Not really. They have been selling snubbies hand-over-fist for some time. In fact they are about the only real bright spot in their entire revolver line. In the overall picture those of us that seriously object to the lock are relatively few.
However if sales drop to a marked degree because Ruger's LCR is stealing their thunder S&W isn't likely to sit by and just watch. The same could be said of Taurus.
My point: Never is a long, long time.
Thaddeus Jones:
Colt recently auctioned off their Archival Collection, that included among other things all of the past revolver production samples, prototypes, patent models and everything else related. The collection went back to the late 1930’s, and its sale clearly showed that the company had absolutely no interest or intention of returning any of them to production. If you want one you’ll have to find it in the used gun market, and the longer you wait the more it’s going to cost.
Colt recently auctioned off their Archival Collection, that included among other things all of the past revolver production samples, prototypes, patent models and everything else related. The collection went back to the late 1930’s, and its sale clearly showed that the company had absolutely no interest or intention of returning any of them to production. If you want one you’ll have to find it in the used gun market, and the longer you wait the more it’s going to cost.
Guillermo
member
Sadly Colt cares less about us that Smith & Clinton. This thread would not EXIST if Smith & Clinton cared about us because Benelli would not be having to remove the darned thng in the first place.
And now...I am going to do something very dangerous but what the heck. I am going to disagree w Old Fuff.
It is cheaper to NOT put the lock on and bring back some customers than keep the lock on the gun. So it is NOT a purely economic decision
And now...I am going to do something very dangerous but what the heck. I am going to disagree w Old Fuff.
It is cheaper to NOT put the lock on and bring back some customers than keep the lock on the gun. So it is NOT a purely economic decision
I took your advice Old Fuff, on the Detective Special that is. I can't find a Magnum carry I can afford now!
While I have an opportunity, thank you for all your sage advice and for sharing your experience in revolvers here. I learn something new from every one of your posts.
Best, TJ
While I have an opportunity, thank you for all your sage advice and for sharing your experience in revolvers here. I learn something new from every one of your posts.
Best, TJ
Pity the poor Old Fuff, 'cuz he's so often misunderstood.
A lot of changes in S&W revolvers were based on economics, because to keep a price point that customers would accept they had to reduce they're production costs. MIM lockwork is an example.
But the lock was not one of them.
However, if the Ruger becomes an outstanding success, both Smith & Wesson and Taurus will loose market share, and and thereby sales.
Bottom line: Sales are the name of the game.
So if Smith & Wesson as well as Taurus see a decline in sales they will likely respond by looking at their current products and what can be done to make them more attractive in the marketplace. At that point the lock may become part of a larger economic issue.
So far as locks are concerned, Taurus doesn't have a problem. S&W might go several ways regarding the lock: (1) Do nothing. (2) Remove it. (3) Redesign it in a way they hope would satisfy everyone. (4) Start an advertising campaign to "sell the lock" to the buying public.
What will they do? Only time will tell. It should be noted that Smith & Wesson, Ruger and Taurus all have internal locks in at least some of their models. It would seem that only Smith & Wesson is loosing sales. If that number increases enough they will notice.
johnchamp
Member
i have the 640-3 & i dont have any lock failures
Thaddeus Jones:
Thank you for the kind words....
In my opinion the .38 Special cartridge is the limit for smaller snubbies. I like the .357 Magnum, but only with a minimum barrel length of 3 inches, and in a larger frame. Some folks get so hung up on power they forget other considerations, like being able to recover fast enough from recoil to deliver quick, accurate follow-up shots. Many users can’t hit the broad side of an elephant beyond 15 yards – especially after the first shot. Others don’t check out whatever Magnum round they are using to see if the considerable muzzle flash blinds them in low light.
The fastest way to stop a lethal attack is to place a bullet precisely in at least one of an opponent’s vital organs, and for that purpose a .38 Special will do fine.
Thank you for the kind words....
In my opinion the .38 Special cartridge is the limit for smaller snubbies. I like the .357 Magnum, but only with a minimum barrel length of 3 inches, and in a larger frame. Some folks get so hung up on power they forget other considerations, like being able to recover fast enough from recoil to deliver quick, accurate follow-up shots. Many users can’t hit the broad side of an elephant beyond 15 yards – especially after the first shot. Others don’t check out whatever Magnum round they are using to see if the considerable muzzle flash blinds them in low light.
The fastest way to stop a lethal attack is to place a bullet precisely in at least one of an opponent’s vital organs, and for that purpose a .38 Special will do fine.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I have a 1950s-era Colt Detective Special, and I don't have any lock problems, either.
- Status
