smith and wesson lock

[Doug S]

I know this has been posted a zillion times recently, but the S&W forums have a sticky listing instances where the locks have malfunctioned. Even though it seems to be a relatively infrequent thing, it does happen enough for concern. Also, contrary to some things I've read, it does seem to happen with some guns other than the ultra light weights. I know there is at least one example of this happening with a 642 listed on the thread.

I recently was happy to find a pre-lock for a decent price. It may never have been a problem, but I figured that would be one less thing to worry about.

 

[Redhawk1]

4 years with a S&W 500 mag and thousands of rounds of heavy thumpers, and never a problem.

 

[jeff-10]

does the lock do anything that could make the gun less reliable or durable?

Heh.

Whats better 9mm or 45ACP?

 

[Old Fuff]

What's a 9mm ?????

 

[Drail]

A 9mm is a .45 set on stun.

 

[btg3]

Hilarious! That really hit my funny bone. (But I'm still gonna carry my 9mm.)

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

From that 14-page S&W forum lock thread on page 10:

Because I'm an engineer, and because I dearly like data, (and because this is the best forum on the web... thanks Para...) I painstakingly went through this thread and pulled together a spreadsheet which summarizes the ILIF posts contained herein (and contained in this thread only). If you want your ILIF counted in the next update of the spreadsheet, post it as described in the opening of the discussion. I may, at some point, look at other forum's discussions on the topic / dig through the numerous posts on S&W forum looking for distinct incidents.

My observations:
First and foremost -- sorry, I gotta say it...
A lot of folks would well benefit from reading the thread in its entirety before posting (pay particular attention to Osprey's original post reproduced below.)

All that being said, here's the data:

Total ILIF's: 20
S&W ILIF's: 19
Tarus ILIF: 1
Other ILIF: 0

Rated Caliber of ILIF's reported:
.32 H&R Magnum: 1
.38 Spl: 1
.38 +P: 2
.357 Magnum: 5
.45 ACP: 4
.44 Spl: 1
.44 Magnum: 5
.480 Ruger: 1

Number of ILIF's attributable to "hot loads"* by caliber:
.38 +P: 1
.45 ACP: 1
.44 Magnum: 1
Total: 3

My general observations having read all the posts in this thread:
1)It appears as though most of the S&W guns involved are lightweight J-frames shooting "normal" loads.
2)Lock or not is a personal preference. The general responses are:
"I ain't buyin' one."
"I bought one, but now wonder about reliability."
"I'll buy one and take out / modify the lock."
"I'll buy one and take my chances."

I will not enter this debate from any point other than a factual one. The facts are above.

I will, on a monthly (or so) basis, update the spreadsheet to add new, properly formatted posts on ILIF's. Please be nice and stick to the original intent of this thread. If you want to discuss the lock, please revive one of the many existing non-scientific, opinionated, threads threads on the forum.

*hot loads are subjective opinion (in most cases, I counted it a "hot load" if the round is near the rated capacity of the firearm... not from a scientific burst pressure standpoint, but if it's a .38 +P, and you're shooting 158gr .38 +P's, you're probably close to the max rated pressure.) I would love to learn more about rated pressures / pressures generated by a particular load / powder, etc.... if anyone would like to educate me

 

[shooter429]

I am one of the first to experience ILIF in the then new 329

Sadly, not the last. They have only occurred in the Ti/Sc Magnums with magnum loads for me. The 329 appears to be the worst offender.

I decided that I would not buy or carry any more ti/Sc with the lock.

That leaves every other all steel and steel/aluminum available. I have purchased several new Smiths since, and have never suffered ILIF on a SS model.

Take it for what its worth. I would not avoid a new SS gun just because of the lock, but I also would much prefer not to have the stinking locks installed in the first place and am interested in pre-lock used guns. I would avoid the airlight magnums with the IL like the kiss of death, cuz it jus might be.

Of course, if you just have to have an 11 oz. 357 or 26 oz .44 you can always remove /disable the friggin thing and avoid the problem. You will still have crimp-jump and other issues to deal with though. To me, they jus aint worth it. Make mine steel, thank you very much.

Shooter429

 

[TAC]

Other than in gun forums, I've never seen a documented case where the internal lock on any S&W revolver caused any kind of problem. If there was even on case, I think there would be a lawsuit, and S&W would remove them from their design. I think most of the claims are rumors, and politics.

 

[RobertFBurnett]

Not calling it a rumor, but it does seem to be a localized problem, I too have only heard it on the lightweight (scandium? if I'm saying that right) frames, my 686-6 has never budged. Never heard of a .357 N frame doing it either.

If necessity is the Mother of all invention, I'm thinking if we create enough buzz maybe someone could create a kit that would somehow (i'm not the engineer or inventor) neutralize the lock and hide the dot without voiding the warranty? Something simple like a little Loc-tite applicator and a machined plug? Maybe SHOT show 09? I'll keep dreamin....

My $0.02

RFB

 

[shooter429]

Rumor? Not hardly.

It has happened with at least one gun that I have been present for-mine. Take a look over at the S&W forum.

This is the little monster that not, once, not twice but several times seized under recoil (the flag even came up) Tied her up until it turned the key.

[/IMG]

I did not sue, because there were no damages, and frankly, litigation is really a pain in the rear and costs a lot of money.

I am probably one of Smith's more ardent supporters, and even I admit the airlights had problems. I hate the lock, but have learned to trust the SS guns even with it.

Shooter429

 

[DuckhunterinTN]

It seems that this problem is related only to the super lightweight revolvers. Would a 442 shooting .38's be less likely to have this occur?

 

[ktate2002]

Well, this is my first post and on a topic that I've finally resolved in my own mind. It was a fairly easy decision. With almost 30 years in law enforcement (the last 23 years with the USSS and four more to go), my use of firearms and related training has always focused on "setting myself up to win." The S&W locking system does not provide me with 100% confidence that the revolver will function every time. The IL system does not compliment the reliability I associate with a revolver. It puts the revolver on par with a pistol. I'm sticking with my old style J frame for its simplicity and track record.

 

[Alexa]

Okay, so my new S&Ws have the darn locks. So they can be removed, right? So what's the deal about having the hole in the frame, other than it looks like a hole? I mean, it's not supposed to be keeping anything inside, right? It's not like something will come shooting out, will it? So I guess I'm saying, if it's only a "beauty" aspect, I guess I can live with the hole in the frame. Isn't it better than having it lock up at an inopportune time? But of course, having a hole in the frame might cause dirt and other crud to enter the body of the gun and I'm had extra cleaning to do, not to mention extra worries about that crud clogging my guns pores or whatever.

I don't like the stupid locks anyway. We're told to keep it locked, unloaded, and in a locked box. Now I'm no genius, but logic tells me that's not good for EMERGENCIES. When the bad guy comes along, is he going to wait while I find the key to unlock the box, find the key to unlock the gun, and find the bullets and load the darn thing? Me thinks I would be dead before I dug out the first key!

 

[Old Fuff]

Now I'm no genius, but logic tells me that's not good for EMERGENCIES. When the bad guy comes along, is he going to wait while I find the key to unlock the box, find the key to unlock the gun, and find the bullets and load the darn thing? Me thinks I would be dead before I dug out the first key!

There is such a thing as overkill....

If you look around the forum a bit you'll find reports of youngsters and teens shooting themselves while engaged in play with an "unloaded" handgun they found. Such incidents could have been prevented if the gun had been secured. Also you realy don't want to come home and find someome has broken in and now has your gun.

But everyone doesn't have children around, so security should fit the circumstances. As a rule-of-thumb it's a good idea to secure any firearm that isn't under you personal control. Unloading it may or may not be necessary, but again I unload it if it's outside of my control. A revolver speed loader or pistol magazine can make it "hot" very quickly.

What I'm really trying to point out is that you are fully responsible for what may happen with your guns, but how you address this responsbility is your business.

 

[Alexa]

Yeah, well, my point is that I could lock it away but not have to lock it with that internal locking thingy. There are other ways to lock a gun directly and more visibly, with one of those cable type locks that goes through the chamber and into the trigger area, for instance. So if I have my gun in a locked safe or box with a visible lock on it, there wouldn't be all that worry about the internal lock if it wasn't on the gun in the first place, now would there?

Just for the record, there are no children of any age in my house and none that visit. My daughter is an adult, as are all my nieces and nephews who are quite familiar with firearms. Our friends don't bring any children when they stop by.

My point about all the locks was simply that if someone broke in and threatened me, I'd be dead before I could unlock my weapon if I obeyed the "guidelines".

 

[Old Fuff]

My point about all the locks was simply that if someone broke in and threatened me, I'd be dead before I could unlock my weapon if I obeyed the "guidelines".

You are the one that's responsible for your guns. Therefore you make the guidelines. That includes the issue of internal locks.

 

[altitude_19]

Just got through putting my new 325 through its paces at the range. Ran many reloads through it with ZERO malfunctions (and I make it a point to TRY to make the gun malfunction when I'm testing it out). 44 MAGNUM seems to be the culprit. 45 ACP is a fine round, no matter which particular configuration you choose. I run sub-sonic golden sabre JHP through this and my XD and get reliability, expansion, and accuracy WITHOUT over-penetration or excessive wear. Steer clear of the 329s (44 mag) and avoid using +P ammo in the 325. If you do this, you will have one helluva PDW.

 

[Hawk]

While scanning the ATF '06 domestic production numbers I noted that they extrapolated to roughly 450,000 S&W revolvers shipped in the time frame that the S&W forum ILS thread has been running.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that if another mainstream manufacturer, say Kimber, produced roughly 150,000 units in the same time frame they'd have well over a proportional number of "show stopping" issues. In fact, anything over 7 reports of Kimber "show stoppers" would put the problem rate ahead of S&W's. S&W just ships a pantload of reciprocating-challenged handguns.

Makes it hard for me to get worked up based on the number of reports. Granted, my "serious" handgun isn't a revolver, the lock doesn't need to be there so whatever amount of catastrophic failure is attributable to the lock didn't need to be there and it's aesthetically challenged.

But even if we bumped the S&W forum number by two orders of magnitude to take a wild guess at compensating for those not posting to the thread, it's still between 4 and 5 sigma - a number many companies would cheerfully kill for.

Based on raw numbers, gross speculation based on intr4w3b bandwidth and general grousing contrasted with the amount of product shipped, the ILS is probably one of the least troublesome 21st century mechanical geegaws.

But it offends us on a number of levels and, being somewhat of a revolver noob, I readily accept everybody else's angst. I'm afraid though that, sooner or later, I'm going to see something I like that's not available used, or from Ruger or Taurus or Manhurin or Rossi or Korth or Freedom Arms and I'll buy it.

If the lock acts up, I'll buy a lotto ticket - I figure the liklihood of the thing giving grief is on the order of my getting two out of three nasty Pythons.

Sure is ugly though, t'aint it?

 

[moewadle]

What does ILIF literally mean?

Sorry, I think I understand what you are referring to but if you use jargon, on the first entry of it please put in what it means for those of us who have not seen the phrase. I have to learn it someway.

 

[mec]

Sure is ugly though, t'aint it?

I just don't see the ugly unless you are already mad that it's there in the first place because of its political origins,or its potential for failure. Prior to WWII smith hand ejectors looked like this:

Note the hammer pin under the cylinder latch. It is about the same size and visibility as the lock.

 

[Hawk]

Note the hammer pin under the cylinder latch. It is about the same size and visibility as the lock.

Didn't know that.

Knock down my aesthetic objections and I'll probably be all over one when I find something I can't live without.

 

[Old Fuff]

Mec:

If you look inside that old 1905 Hand Ejector you'll find the way it's put together is a lot differenent then you what you see now. That one was built, today they're assembled...

 

[Master Blaster]

Rated Caliber of ILIF's reported:
.32 H&R Magnum: 1
.38 Spl: 1
.38 +P: 2
.357 Magnum: 5
.45 ACP: 4
.44 Spl: 1
.44 Magnum: 5
.480 Ruger: 1

You know I was believing the statistics until I saw that there was a Smith with a problem in .480 Ruger last one in the list.

I removed the ILF in my carry gun that has one.

 

[Hawk]

Nice catch.

While I'd assume that most on this forum and the S&W forum know what they're about I sometimes wonder how many times the lock has taken the fall for a normal garden variety revolver hiccup.

This is speculation on my part but I've noticed a bewilderingly high percentage of owners apparently laboring under the misapprehension that revolvers are 100% reliable 100% of the time.

Is it possible for the lock to engage without the "flag" popping up?

Anyhow, on the stat listing - does the .45ACP seem to be out of proportion? I wouldn’t have guessed it was shipped in the numbers needed to be nearly tied with .357 and .44 magnum.