Want a S&W 642, but concerned about the lock...

[brockgl]

I am in the market for a snubnose revolver, and the smooth design of the Smith & Wesson 642 .38 has attracted me. I love the DAO design (snagless since it has no external hammer). I really love everything about it. And I am a fan of the .38 special round in a light gun. HOWEVER--and this is a big HOWEVER--I hate the idea of the internal trigger lock! I hate the whole fact that buyers in states that don't require this cannot choose to have a gun without one installed. I also hate the fact that it may (though the chances are very unlikely) malfunction and cause me not to be able to fire it when I really need it! It seems like extra complexity for no reason. Are there any other brands of guns that make a model very similar to the Smith 642 that don't have the lock feature? Am I overreacting to the lock? Have there been any reports of malfunctioning locks in newer manufactured guns?

 

[18DAI]

I don't think you are overeacting to the lock. I myself, spend a lot of money making sure my carry guns are reliable. I also don't reward manufacturers who won't make a product I want to purchase.

Find a nice pre lock S&W. There are many out there. If nothing else, a pre lock revolver will never suffer a failure, due to an internal lock malfunction.

Good luck with your search! TJ

 

[jfh]

I won't demean your perspective on the S&W lock; I would rather be able to buy a new Smith without one.

But, at the same time, I will report that I have purchased six J-frames (M&P 340, 640, M60, used 442, used M36, M63) and a 686P in the last twelve months--all current production save for the M36. All except for the M36 (mf'd. ca. 1968) have trigger locks.

Disregarding the M63 (.22LR, still NIB until later today), I have shot about 12,000 rounds through these various revolvers, with about 1000 through the M&P 340, and 10,000 through the 640. The vast majority of these rounds have Speer 38+P GDSB "replica reloads"--e.g., a 135/140-gr. bullet running from about 860 fps on up to 1060 fps or so. I've also shot limited amounts of 357 Mag ammo, including the Speer 135-gr. GDSB ammo, and the BB 158-gr. LSWC-HP "38+P Heavy" load that does 1000 fps out of a 2" barrel. The latter was shot in both 640 and the 340.

I've not had a single lock issue. So, I don't worry about it any more. While the lock violates our aethetic and philosophical takes, from a utilitarian viewpoint it is not a statistically-significant issue, IMO.

Yes, there have been reports on the locks malfunctioning. See the S&W forum; there's long-running threads there of the anecdotal experiences.

If you want a pre-lock revolver, buy it now--and be prepared to pay a premium price; they seem to be going up daily.


Jim H.

 

[Hawk]

If you're going to obsess over the lock you should avoid it. Nothing worse than carrying something you think is going to randomly bind up on you.

But.

The 642 isn't exactly common in pre-lock configuration. There seems to be more 640s available but they're not the same.

Options include:

1. Get over it. Post your concerns in the "642 Club" thread - I believe the majority of those folks have locks and they seem a happy lot. This is likely the least satisfactory solution if you're averse to the lock.

2. Buy a current production model 40 "Lemon Squeezer". They don't have the lock.

3. Buy a Taurus "CIA"

4. Buy a new 642 and mosey on over to the S&W forum for the low-down on neutering the lock.

I don't care for the "buy used pre-lock" option myself. It's fine if you already know what you're doing and can poke about in the internals or are just buying the thing as a toy. Some of the previous custodians of my revolvers displayed a degree of creativity I could only envy: crane cups installed backwards, fine dremel filligree on the mainspring, that sort of thing.

In a relibility race between a new firearm with lock and some random rescue mission wheelgun in somebody's used counter, the lock would be my choice if I was betting my life on it. If I was collecting it or shooting for fun, it'd be the random lock-free rescue mission article.

 

[welldoya]

I sometimes carry a 642 with the lock and the lock doesn't bother me at all.
Sure I would rather it not be there but most of the lock failures that have been documented are in the larger calibers.
I wouldn't hesitate at all to buy a 642 with the lock.
BUT, if you don't think you can get over it, look around for a 642-1. It's the only one that doesn't have the lock. It will probably cost you as much or more than a new one though.

 

[Striker]

I have a 642 with the lock, and like jfh have not had an issue.

Having said that, XavierBreath recently posted on the subject here.

http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/

While I initially considered neutering the lock, my fix was to liberally lubricate the lock mechanism with red loctite instead. No problems to date (1000+ rounds).

As always, YMMV.

 

[cmidkiff]

You've got to live with your purchase. If you're not happy with it, then it was a bad purchase. If the lock is going to bother you, don't buy one with a lock (there's some good looking detective specials on gunbroker at the moment).

I have 1 S&W with a lock. It's purely a range gun. I have never had a problem with it, but I don't like the locks. I'll be buying one more... a .500s&w. If it had been available without a lock, I would buy one. It's not (and I don't want a single action .500!).

To the best of my knowledge, no S&W lock has ever failed during a defensive action. Heck, Jerry Miculek (sp?) shoots the tar out of smiths equipped with a lock... never heard him complain. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'd say the chances of a lock failing when you need it are no greater than having some other part fail. Good quality revolvers (and the 642 easily qualifies) are extremely reliable.

 

[glockman19]

Lock? What lock? Oh yea that one. I used it once the day I got it and have no use for it.

Just ignore it. It has just as much a likelyhood of engaging as you gun has of discharging itself.

 

[RustyShackelford]

security locks/***?

I agree with this post. Why S&W is so worked up over security locks is beyond me.
I know the S&W company was bought by the same AZ based company that sells trigger locks/safety locks but why put it on all the S&W models?

It could be an add-on or custom shop feature for S&W customers that want it.

Also, many state govts have passed laws against firearm makers being sued so why did S&W keep this dumb policy?

RS