What's your attitude about S&W Revolvers with the Integral lock?

[22lr]

Sadly I see it as the future for all firearms. In fact id buy one with a lock if it A:worked well and B:if it was built so that it wouldn't fail/or if it failed you could still fire the gun. Gun companies need to address the issue of if the lock breaks will the gun still work, and then build a lock that wont break. If they did that id actually pay more for a gun with that feature (ive got several little kids in the house).

 

[S&Wfan]

Well, my name says it all, S&Wfan!

I'm addicted to getting great S&jW revolvers!!!

That being said, I'll NEVER, EVER HAVE ONE with the damned lock! To many fine vintage ones to choose from!

T.

PS: I WILL buy more new S&W revolvers . . . but only without the lock. Too many reported gun lock ups with the locks!

 

[jaydubya]

I voted "neutral". I have two S&W revolvers with locks and MIM parts, and have put more than 2,000 rounds through each. Neither has ever failed to shoot. EVERY autoloading rifle, shotgun, or handgun that I have ever shot has failed to go bang now and then. I would suggest to the more virulent lock-haters that they turn in their autoloading rifles for bolt action, their autoloading shotguns for double-trigger doubles, and their autoloading pistols for police turn-in Model 10s. Just a request for consistency.

I note that my category, "neutral", is by far the leading individual category, and almost equals all the more negative categories put together.

Cordially,
Jack

 

[revolverforums]

I have two smiths with locks and the only reason I own those two is they never made the 500 without the lock or the SSR without the lock. The lock serves no purpose at all and the only thing it has done is killed S&W's market share but I think they are slowly catching on to that and starting to produce limited numbers without the locks again.

I will never buy one with a lock if a model is made without the lock, I'll wait until I can find one without the lock to buy.

 

[Smith357]

I would suggest to the more virulent lock-haters that they turn in their autoloading rifles for bolt action, their autoloading shotguns for double-trigger doubles, and their autoloading pistols for police turn-in Model 10s. Just a request for consistency.

Did it years ago. I don't own any bottom feeders anymore, nothing but wheelies and bolts for me, but my shotgun is a Browning O/U used strictly for playing clay games.

 

[IrvJr]

I dislike the like a lot, but will still buy an S&W with one in spite of the lock. I have a J-frame with the lock and it has been reliable and it is a very well made gun.

 

[fastbolt]

As with many polls I come across, none of the options available seemed to specifically suit how I felt I wanted to respond. I chose one anyway, since this isn't anything other than casual conversation online and won't affect anything at all.

I fall in a group of folks similar to many guys I know who would rather have the option of choosing a S&W revolver without the ILS. It's 3 metal parts and 2 springs for which I have no personal need (4 metal parts if you count the key required to operate the ILS).

However, I own several S&W revolvers, one of which is equipped with the ILS, a M&P 340 Centennial. I would've bought it without the ILS if it had been an option.

Two of the other more recent S&W revolvers I bought were a 37-2 & 642-1. Both were produced after the introduction of the ILS in the S&W revolver line, and were limited in availability. I bought them because I like Airweights, especially the 642-1, and they were available without the ILS. The newer 642-1 complements an 'original' 642-1 I picked up and which became my favorite off-duty J-frame ... and then my favorite off-duty weapon overall. I thought I might as well have a spare, considering how much I enjoy shooting it, and because the similar pre-ILS model suddenly became available.

That said, my M&P 340 hasn't offered me any trouble regarding the ILS. I've fired several hundred rounds through it so far, and have allowed a number of other instructors to try it on many occasions, with more than a hundred-plus of those rounds being full power Magnum loads. No unintentional ILS engagement. Accurate little wheelgun. It had a couple of other minor QC type issues which I resolved myself (as an armorer), but none related to the ILS.

I've handled and fired some other ILS-equipped J-frames, too, and have observed a number of LE and non-LE users shoot them, and I haven't experienced or observed any ILS-involved problems to date. I know a number of other LE folks carrying various J-frames equipped with the ILS, some of whom are also instructors and shooters. Nobody has yet to experience an ILS-related problem.

NMSP issues the 637, I believe. I just heard of another major city agency which is apparently going to issue an Airweight or Airlite to their folks. I've asked a couple of different folks at S&W if any LE contract orders for J-frames are being produced without the ILS, and I've been told each time that the guns they've heard being shipped are normal production models which have the normal features, including the ILS. I wouldn't expect these folks to have personal knowledge of each and every order that has been placed, or may be placed, however. Who knows?

I recently talked to another S&W revolver armorer who expressed his enjoyment in shooting several hundred rounds of full power Magnums through a 340PD. Enjoyment, huh? Anyway, the point is that he didn't report any ILS-related issues with his gun, and he said he was planning to pick up an M&P 340.

There are folks who have posted their experiences regarding problems they believe are related to the presence of the ILS and its unintentional engagement during shooting. They can be found among the internet forums.

There are some other issues that can occur in a revolver which can 'lock up' the action, and as a LE armorer I've learned to withhold my opinion about what may have happened (or didn't happen) in some situation until I've either had the opportunity to examine and inspect a firearm reportedly experiencing a problem myself, or listened to someone else whom I trust and respect who had the opportunity to personally examine the gun. Too many things can happen which can be mistaken for something else, and people sometimes seem prone to jump to conclusions. I've long since lost track of the times one of our folks brought me a gun with some definitive statement about the nature of "the problem", only to discover that it was something else entirely. Or else there wasn't any problem with the gun at all, but something had occurred involving the shooter, the ammunition being used, the shooter's maintenance practices (or lack thereof) or the conditions under which the gun had been used at the time the gun had experienced 'the problem'.

Going back, I'd prefer the option of choosing a S&W revolver without the ILS feature. That's me. I practice safe firearms handling, manipulation, use, prevent access to my weapons by unauthorized persons and I practice safe storage.

Other folks have expressed their opinion that they actually like the option of being able to use and engage the ILS.

Lots of other folks apparently don't have any negative opinions at all about buying a S&W revolver equipped with the feature.

I've considered buying a new M40 at some point. Maybe. It's not like I need one. I have more than enough J-frames to meet my needs for off-duty weapons and later retirement CCW weapons. If do choose to buy one it'll be because I'd like to have another steel-framed .38 Spl (only) model ... maybe the nickel model to replace a nickeled M36 I really liked but follishly traded away long ago ... and the M40 doesn't have the ILS.

Of course, I'm sure there are folks who will eventually surface and claim the grip safety feature can malfunction or cause the gun to fail to fire if the grip isn't 'good enough' to depress it.

FWIW, I think on another forum's website there's an ongoing long thread about the S&W ILS topic in which there's a couple of reported instances of Taurus revolvers supposedly unintentionally engaging and locking up the guns during shooting. Dunno. I wasn't there and didn't have the chance to examine the alleged guns myself. (There are so many of these threads on this subject that they start to blur together after a while.)

Another thought which occurs to me is that as our society continues to evolve and the number of people increase, I wouldn't be at all surprised to eventually see that such internal locking systems are going to be the wave of the future when it comes to safety legislation. You don't really think that the major firearm manufacturers haven't already considered this potential and may be anticipating it, do you?

 

[sidheshooter]

One thing that I have not seen brought up here is the potential legal issues with "fixing" or disabling a lock; I mean, any regular Ayoob reader can probably hear him imitating a lawyer "this guy was such a commando/rambo/killer etc. that he disabled a safety device... blah, blah... I don't know; I'm no Ayoob, nor will I ever be, and I haven't yet seen an article where he specifically addresses the issue, but I still wouldn't mess with a production device that allegedly increases safety in the eyes of the masses.

If you have a lock on your rod, I'd be inclined to say leave it alone for carry.

That said, put me firmly in the "no lock box", for whatever it's worth. KISS and all that; plus going preowned is a good way to just skirt the entire issue altogether.

Numerous revolvers close by, none with internal locks (though a big 'ol safe is just fine by me).

 

[the foot]

The lock is Smith's idea of appeasing the Clinton administration. If you don't like it, don't buy the weapon.

I have one S&W with the lock installed, Model 60. I carry it daily without fear of a malfunction due to the lock.

I know it will perform as advertised, because I shoot it weekly on the range and it has performed flawlessly.

My S&W with the lock performs just as reliably as my Smith revolvers without the lock.

 

[johnnylaw53]

fastbolt, really enjoy your post. i carry the 642-2 off duty and shoot it alot and have never had a problem with the lock

Be safe

 

[Redhawk1]

Who cares, S&W makes great guns, lock or no lock.

 

[anymanusa]

Thank you Oro for that history lesson. that was news to me. Now could somebody post a picture of this hideous gun lock so I know what is being discussed?

By the way, having not seen it, I am completely against it. I have a Ruger P345 and a Rossi/Taurus 6" 357 revolver that both have little allen key safetys that have NEVER been used.

A responsible gun owner won't have a need for them imho.

 

[INMY01TA]

Can't speak for the Smith and Wessons as I don't have one but my new Tauras 66 has a lock. I don't see the big deal. I leave it unlocked and it's like it isn't there. Mines on the hammer tho.

 

[Guillermo]

I will not buy any new product from Smith & Clinton. My last purchase was a Springfield XD45. I might have considered an M&P 45 were it not for their revolver lock.

As long as they put this poorly designed, dangerous lock on their revolvers and continue to ignore their customers they can do without my money.

As to the question, I might buy a second hand revolver with the lock if it was cheap enough. I could trade it and/or disable the lock.

 

[revolverforums]

Can't speak for the Smith and Wessons as I don't have one but my new Tauras 66 has a lock. I don't see the big deal. I leave it unlocked and it's like it isn't there. Mines on the hammer tho.

This shows the lock on my SSR, again if they ever made an SSR without the lock I would have waited to purchase one until I could find one. I have never had it happen but have read reports of the locks engaging from recoil, they do use a a pretty cheesy set of springs in them.

 

[Bellevance]

I guess I come down between neutral and dislike, mostly for cosmetic reasons. The lock is a distinct blemish on an otherwise elegantly designed and perfectly functional revolver. It's also superfluous.

Most of my Smiths are older and don't have the blemish, but my 617 and 686+ are both so equipped. I've put many rounds through each without any problem at all. I regard them as utterly reliable weapons; still, I assign home defense duties to my 19-4. I never use the lock, and I never give it any thought except when a discussion like this comes up.

Seems odd to me, by the way, that the only new lockless S&W you can buy is the Model 40-1. S&W says it's because the Centennial has the grip safety, but that's a bogus explanation, because it doesn't square with their rationale for the lock in the first place--which is for safe storage and child protection. Any child strong enough to pull the trigger can also depress the grip safety. Maybe, I'm hoping, the lock will start to go away in years to come, first on the "classics," and then on the rest of the line...

 

[FoMoGo]

I have owned 2 S&Ws without locks, M27-2 and 629-1, have a M21-4 and am in process of purchasing a M22-4... both with locks.
The lock wont deter me from a purchase... but for a carry piece the lock comes out.


Jim