Smith and Wesson Internal Lock Questions.

[Sam1911]

Yes, but accurate.



And, I am one who did eliminate the concern by disabling the lock. So take that for what you will.

 

[pintler]

As Elkins45's experience shows, you want to wring out any problems you find. I have a 329PD that I shoot heavy loads in. I watched carefully for lock problems, and haven't seen any. For backpacking in Grizz country, the 329PD is a pretty specialized item, and pre-lock ones are pretty scarce . For that application, it's put up with the lock or do what I did before the 329 came out - leave the heavy gun at home.

We watched my wife's airweight J frame carefully, too, and have had no problems in several thousand rounds.

But in this regard, to me, lock problems are just one of the things to watch for. I bought a new 629 that was failing to fire maybe once in two or three hundred rounds. I investigated, and suspected the firing pin was a little short (or there was debris keeping the pin from it's full travel, or something). I sent it back to Smith and they changed the firing pin and no more ignition problems. Tolerances can stack like that. The best guarantee your gun will work in the future is that it has worked in the past. My policy is to make sure my guns work by shooting them a lot. I trust a with-lock gun I've put 5K rounds through more than the no-lock one I have only put 500 rounds through.

That's not an air tight guarantee - I had an old reliable Marlin 1894 that one day decided to shed the last 1/8 inch of its firing pin. Worked this shot, down for the count the next shot. That would be bad in the middle of a fight - which is one of the reasons I try to avoid fights .

MrBorland's point is good, as well. And, in fairness to the lock haters, many people feel that 'target gun' features like trigger stops shouldn't be on carry guns, and that's a valid viewpoint. Some people think you should pin 1911 grip safeties, so there is one less thing to go wrong. Personally, I don't, because I think the actual rate of 1911 problems avoided by pinning the grip safety is small enough to accept - just like I accept the small risk of a first time internal lock problem on a well tested gun.

If, someday, you find my mauled body holding a locked 329, you can say 'told you so' .

 

[fastbolt]

I have a M&P 340 which I was told had been pulled from the original production run (ordered as an armorer in '05, I think). It ran normally using an assortment of Magnum and .38 Spl (standard pressure and +P).

I went through a revolver armorer class a little later. I was unable to find another revolver armorer in that class who had experienced a problem with the ILS (lock), or who had had a verifiable problem reported to them where they could examine the revolver. A couple of the armorer students were from large agencies where snub revolvers were in-use by their people. (No shortage of older 'traditionalist' revolver shooters who didn't like the ILS, but no actual problems reported.)

The armorer instructor said he'd not yet encountered any LE revolver armorers in his classes who had reported actual ILS problems, either.

So, upon my return I stripped down my M&P 340 and made sure the locking arm's torque lock spring had been installed properly during production (spring leg properly secured in its machined groove in the frame, anchoring the locking arm). For practice, I even ordered some spare locking arms and torque lock springs and replaced both (a 'revised' spring was available).

I've used that first M&P 340 (I now own a pair) as a frequent 'range beater', off-duty (and retirement) weapon and as a 'practice' gun for armorer skills. (This has included cutting and replacing extractors, practicing using the factory-made cutting tool and checking for carry-up.)

I later bought a newer version when the No-Lock model was introduced, just as an excuse to have a pair of them (Like I own a pair of 642-1's ).

That first one has seen a LOT more use than the newer one. It'll probably raise some eyebrows here, but I still usually opt to carry that well-used, older one - with the lock - for my normal carry needs.

It's demonstrated itself to me, over the course of firing more cases of ammo than I've bothered to remember, as being reliable ... and it's well-worn trigger action is smooth, too. Covered in nicks, dings, rub marks and scratches, though.

FWIW, as a revolver armorer I've inspected and observed the use of a growing number of assorted J-frames, including many equipped with the ILS. None of the those (and often abused ) guns have exhibited problems with the ILS.

I have, however, had to identify and correct a number of other problems here & there, especially involving improper owner maintenance and older style production revolvers that had wear or tolerance/ fitting/production issues.

The ILS isn't something that keeps me awake at night anymore.

 

[Rule3]

This is a forbidden topic anymore on the SW forum. It has been beat and bashed to death. Deal with it or don't.

A few of the early ones did. They have no problems now.

If you do not like the lock remove the internal flag which disables it. You do not have to remove the external part on the frame and fill any hole, I have removed many of them and also put them back in for those that wanted them.

The Ruger system is even more ridiculous, Although you do not see it as it is under the grip (stocks) So who is going to remove the grips to engage the lock and then put the grips back on. The lock itself is probably a simpler design.

How about the lock on the Taurus hammer?

 

[HankB]

Massad Ayoob reported on lock failures in at least one of his gun rag columns. My 340Sc self-engaged the lock once. And the S&W forum used to have (haven't been there for a while) numerous reports of lock failures.

My conclusion is that the locks DO malfunction - but instances are fairly rare, and very difficult to reproduce on demand.

BUT . . . why would anyone WANT to introduce another failure mode into a piece of their potentially lifesaving equipment when no benefit comes with the risk?

 

[orionengnr]

By my count, that is three actual failures in 30 replies. And some people made multiple replies, so it is actually more like three in 24...or one in eight.

I'm sure this is not a representative sample, but it is far more that the "less than one in 100,000" as stated early in the thred.

I know one guy who had it happen to him, and I've read of others. Again, that is nowhere near one in eight, but far more frequent than one in 100,000.

Yes, I remember the S&W forum thread a number of years back. It was quite lively, but there were a number of documented instances. A new owner took over the forum, deleted that thread and put the quietus on further discussion.

OP, you have been given some good info and some good options--remove it, disable it or ignore it. Anyone who owns one has made their decision.

 

[fastbolt]

Another issue that often muddies this topic is how DA/DAO revolvers (which require attention) can sometimes seemingly experience a 'locked up' or seized condition for other reasons than the ILS.

Stubbing due to a hammer sear not being fitted quite right (or an owner 'modification', polishing, etc) can happen. There are other mechanical conditions that can cause this sort of symptom, as well.

A shooter-induced problem can be short-stroking the DA trigger, which can sometimes cause some shooters to sometimes think their triggers/hammers have become "locked up).

The other day I watched a fellow new to revolvers actually short stroke a DAO trigger in a manner which just exactly caused a fast and smooth 'throw-by' condition to occur (he missed a live round as the cylinder rotated past the stop notch's timing) when he didn't allow the trigger to recover during some rapid shot strings. Fortunately, I was watching his trigger finger (checking for his following directions on trigger use in rapid shot strings), so I saw him short-stroke the DAO trigger and send the cylinder spinning past the 'next' live round before he unconsciously got his trigger under control. He never realized what had happened until I'd explained it to him.

Then, there are the ammo-related issues that can slow or stop cylinder rotation (thick and/or out-of-spec case rims, bullet pull, pierced primers, improper closure of the extractor due to debris under the 'star', etc).

I've listened to other firearms instructors and armorers express much the same experiences.

I've also listened to how the factory revolver repairs techs have received new style revolvers back for repair due to owner complaints of "Lock Problems", but found something other than the lock which required repair (and which had been causing the problem).

They've had many years to identify and address any issues with the design and operation of the ILS.

Personally, from an aesthetic perspective I dislike the ILS and how it "sticks out" on the frame side of the revolver (as opposed to the sideplate side) ... but it does make it easier to access and use by those owners who like the feature. Hiding it underneath a grip stock makes it less accessible to owners.

As an armorer, it also means I have to keep some extra parts on hand in the unlikely event I ever have to repair the ILS. Another parts drawer taken up. Also, installing that itty bitty torque lock spring in the locking arm is a pain (they don't come as an assembly). It's REALLY small, and forcing the short dog leg part of the spring past the REALLT small nub that holds it in the locking arm involves some deft manipulation of that small spring (and a large magnifying lens lamp).

Last I heard, the company was still planning to continue acting on advice of their lawyers to keep the ILS in the revolvers with exposed hammers. The internal hammer models (think Centennial style) are variably offered in styles, meaning ILS & No-Lock, which means they're selling both as fast as they can make them.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The Ruger system is even more ridiculous, Although you do not see it as it is under the grip (stocks) So who is going to remove the grips to engage the lock and then put the grips back on. The lock itself is probably a simpler design.

You don't understand Ruger's intent in placing the lock under the grip. Of course nobody is going to remove the grip to activate the lock. On the underside of the grip there is a small indent cast into the plastic. If you intend to use the lock, you remove the grip and drill a hole in the grip where the indent is so you can use the key. If you don't intend to use the lock you leave it unlocked, the way it comes from the factory, and ignore it. And there is no ugly hole in the grip.

I have two New Vaqueros with the lock under the grip. I have never drilled the hole and have never engaged the locks.

My main dislike with the newer S&Ws are the MIM parts. I know all the arguments for... but I had two hammer blocks break on my Model 60-9. S&W Customer Service finally sent me one of the old style mfg parts to replace the last one and I have had no further problems. They even admitted that there had been problems with this particular part.

Interesting. I only have one lock/MIM parts gun, the Model 617-6 that I used in my photo essay about the comparison between a Model 17-3 and the Model 617-6. The hammer block in my 617-6 is clearly a stamped part, not a MIM part. In this photo, the Model 17 hammer block is at the rear, the 617 hammer block is at the front. This Model 617 was made in 2003.

 

[MrBorland]

BUT . . . why would anyone WANT to introduce another failure mode into a piece of their potentially lifesaving equipment when no benefit comes with the risk?

No one even remotely suggested they wanted such a device.

The issue is whether it actually warrants as much concern as some give it. Functionally, it's been a non-issue issue to me and many others, so I give it it's due concern. In one case, I did what others recommend - I pre-emptively removed it, but only because I was inside the gun for tuning anyway.

 

[Rule3]

Look up the history of the LOCK and why it was introduced.

Think of the millions of guns with locks that SW has produced. How many cases of documented failure have been posted.

Much like Mr Ayoobs stating to not use handloads How many documented cases have there been in self defense shootings

On the other extreme then buy a Glock as we all know they go off by themselves due to their safe trigger system

My 44 Mag, several 357 Mags and 460 SW Mag have not locked up on me, Guess it's just a matter of when.

 

[BLU]

I believe that the ILS has a very small chance, (nearly 0%), of locking during recoil, (or any other unwanted engagement). That being said...

I'm too old not to believe in Murphy's Law so I removed the locking device so it will have an absolute zero chance of engaging.

 

[PRM]

Driftwood, the last hammer block that broke on me was a MIM part see pic in my post. When S&W sent me the second replacement it was a stamped hammer block. From the phone conversation I had with their Customer Service, this was a common enough problem that they went back to the stamped VS the MIM on this part. Although somewhat thin where it was breaking, I was somewhat puzzled as to what internal forces were coming together to snap them??? The stamped version corrected any further issues and mine is a carry/range gun. That has several years ago, don't remember the exact date. My gun is a 1997 mfg.

 

[rondog]

I have a new 6" 586-8 with the lock. It's just for target shooting, I have many others in line ahead of it for defensive tasks. But I'm intrigued now about this ILS removal and "The Plug". Where can I find out more about this lock removal and hole plugging?

 

[barnett]

Some good videos on YouTube about removing the lock.

 

[rondog]

Ah, good old YouTube! Sometimes I forget. This seems like a good one, but only covers one of the parts and doesn't address plugging the hole.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RVPYgohVCNM

And this plug from Midway - will this work on all S&W handguns with the ILS? Or would my 586-8 require a different one? http://www.midwayusa.com/product/13...-m-and-p-compact-9mm-luger-357-sig-40-s-and-w

 

[JB_3]

From what I have read about legal repercussions from disabling the internal lock I would not remove it.

I think I am going to take my chances with the 629, and if it does lock up I can always throw it at my target.

 

[BLU]

I've learned to live with what some have called 'the Hillary Hole'. I did take the internal portion of the lock out. Should I get fickle and decide to sell it, I'll reinstall it. I'm not messing with the external appearance. I hate the look but I can live with it.

JB_3... We are a litigious society and it's really hurt innovation in America, but, what could they, (successfully), sue you for? I've read some of the dumbest lawsuit awards that are clearly moronic, but, I'm new to the subject you mentioned. I did a Google search for them but came away with nothing. I did stumble across this phrase in Wikipedia though: "Smith & Wesson announced in March 2009 that it would begin phasing the internal lock out of its revolver lineup." So... if it's true, anyone interested in a Clinton Era S&W329PD .44 Magnum?!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson#Internal_locking_mechanism

 

[grter]

Great great youtube video on removing that internal lock. If this works then the problem is solved.

Although I would still be upset at S&W for creating potential legal and warrenty issues for performing this very needed repair of a serious safety issue that can get someone killed if they needed to protect themselves in a dire situation by installing an unsafe prone to failure locking device on a defensive arm just to appease the flavor of politics of the season in the first place.

S&W should take note that videos like this and the people who make them are likely to save their butts from lots of lost sales due to their stupid decision to install such a poorly designed device on their revolvers.

If I were S&W I would not push my luck by screwing over customers who repair their guns and use them for the world to see. Because of this video I now know if I ever purchase a revolver I will definately consider a Smith & Wesson. If S&W disowns people who do this then it might just leave a sour taste in my mouth as well.

PS No it's not a "feature" that I would learn to live with.

 

[Rule3]

From what I have read about legal repercussions from disabling the internal lock I would not remove it.

I think I am going to take my chances with the 629, and if it does lock up I can always throw it at my target.

The IL is NOT a safety. When guns came with the Master padlock does everyone have the lock that came with their gun??

The IL is a tamper proof device not a safety. The whole idea is ridiculous anyway, There are so many semi autos that do not have a internal lock, why revolvers?? So they do not have to include a cable lock in the box.

Acquisition by Saf-T-Hammer

On 11 May 2001, Saf-T-Hammer Corporation acquired Smith & Wesson Corp. from Tomkins plc for US$15 million, a fraction of the US$112 million originally paid by Tomkins.[9] Saf-T-Hammer assumed US$30 million in debt, bringing the total purchase price to US$45 million.[10][11] Saf-T-Hammer, a manufacturer of firearms locks and other safety products, purchased the company with the intention of incorporating its line of security products into all Smith & Wesson firearms in compliance with the 2000 agreement.

The acquisition of Smith & Wesson was chiefly brokered by Saf-T-Hammer President Bob Scott, who had left Smith & Wesson in 1999 because of a disagreement with Tomkins’ policies. After the purchase, Scott became the president of Smith & Wesson to guide the 157-year-old company back to its former standing in the market.[12]

On 15 February 2002,[citation needed] the name of the newly formed entity was changed to Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation

Skip a few years and facts:

Internal locking mechanism

Most Smith & Wesson revolvers have been equipped with an internal locking mechanism since the acquisition by Saf-T-Hammer. The mechanism is relatively unobtrusive, is activated with a special key, and renders the firearm inoperable. While the lock can simply be left disengaged, most gun enthusiasts prefer "pre-lock" guns.[37][38]

Smith & Wesson announced in March 2009 that it would begin phasing the internal lock out of its revolver lineup.[39] The company is now producing the original model 442 and 642 without the internal lock.

 

[grter]

Look

I really have nothing against a locking device. They need to make it fool proof or get rid of it.

A keyed safety lock that can be activated by recoil is a real concern.

You don't want it activating while you are for example being attacked by a bear or an armed person trying to kill you or your loved ones.

I am not rabidly against it just fix it and fix it good whatever it takes even if it has to be redesigned. It is not a trivial matter it is serious.

 

[Rule3]

Look

I really have nothing against a locking device. They need to make it fool proof or get rid of it.

A keyed safety lock that can be activated by recoil is a real concern.

You don't want it activating while you are for example being attacked by a bear or an armed person trying to kill you or your loved ones.

I am not rabidly against it just fix it and fix it good whatever it takes even if it has to be redesigned. It is not a trivial matter it is serious.

They don't lock up by recoil, just like Glocks do not shoot people in the foot.

If the lock is an issue it take 5 minutes to remove the flag and spring and it will never work again. The outside key hole does not need to be removed so there is no need for the plug. As I mentioned before I have taken locks out for many friends.

You have more of a chance of being hit by lightening while being run over by a bus than the gun locking when trying to shoot a bad guy.

 

[18DAI]

I use to care about such things as IL's and cheap MIM parts in revolvers made by the current company calling itself S&W. But all it did was give me agita. The fanboys will never stop defending s&w no matter how indefensible their corporate decisions.

What the currebt company calling itself s&w does no longer matters to me. And it has not mattered for over a decade now!

In the last fifteen years I have found and purchased over 27 LNIB pre lock S&W revolvers. I also purchased 8 used LE trade in pre lock S&W's to enjoy at the range and shoot in competition. I've enjoyed them and yet to have one break or present any problems. And the current company calling itself s&w didn't get one thin dime from me. As far as I am concerned Smith & Wesson went out of business in 2001.

Even if they dropped the lock, used forged parts and had a real performance center again I would not bother to buy from them. They have not made a handgun that appeals to me or that I have a use for since 2001. My pre lock 586-5 was the last new s&w product I purchased.

So dont get all spun up around the ejector rod wishing s&w would make nice looking revolvers like they use to. GO out and buy the beautiful pre lock revolvers they already made! Before the price and lack of quality of the current production revolvers drives the price of the pre locks into the stratosphere!

 

[MrBorland]

The OP simply asked about S&W reliability and whether the IL really does auto engage under heavy recoil. I believe they quickly got their answer, and since now we're firmly into the inevitable, beat-to-death and off-topic discussion of S&W (the company), new vs old, etc, etc, and nothing new or useful will likely come of it, I'm going to close this one.