Guillermo
member
poetry
pure poetry
Wheel Gun Internal Locks Poll
- Thread starter PolymathPioneer
- Start date
- Status
poetry
pure poetry
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
Although I voted, No, I would purchase one revolver with a lock that would be a Taurus Tracker in either 45 colt or 45 ACP. That is the original 45 before the STUPID Judge.
Fishslayer
Member
S&W has already begun phasing out the IL.
Good move.
captain awesome
Member
I have purchased 3 of them, and voted no. I removed the lock on 2 of them, sold one of those at a 20% PROFIT from new(the guy liked the fact that the lock was gone) and the last will very likely be a collectors piece and go up significantly in value so i decided to leave it.
The reasons I voted "No" are these; I do not like the way the lock looks, I do not like the fact that they have caused even one failure in the past, I do not like how proud Smith and Wesson is of themselves. I do not like them SAM I am. Third reason, why? Because the current offerings of revolvers seem sub-quality compared to their older counterparts I have purchased. I am not old enough to have purchased a pinned and recessed Smith revolver new from a store, but I have gotten my hands on some of them (most well used) and it doesn't take a genius to see the difference in quality. Even compared to the well used ones, the brand new ones (even from the so called performance center) just seem inferior, tolerances, fit and finish, triggers, all seem to be inconsistent or inferior to their elder brethren in my safe. I see these differences and then see that Smith and Wesson seems to think their guns are worth half again or more than that of their primary competition. To me that little lock symbolizes all that I have said about these guns. That has been my experience with the ones I have purchased. Your experience may differ.
That being said while my vote was no, there is one, and only one revolver Smith and Wesson makes that still intrigues me enough that I may some day pony up the dough for. Is it likely? I couldn't say. Will it happen soon? Definitely not, after all they may just pull there heads out of their you know whats some day and remove the blasted hole on all their guns, I am in no hurry. For now I will just stick with those wonderful works of art S&W once made.
The reasons I voted "No" are these; I do not like the way the lock looks, I do not like the fact that they have caused even one failure in the past, I do not like how proud Smith and Wesson is of themselves. I do not like them SAM I am. Third reason, why? Because the current offerings of revolvers seem sub-quality compared to their older counterparts I have purchased. I am not old enough to have purchased a pinned and recessed Smith revolver new from a store, but I have gotten my hands on some of them (most well used) and it doesn't take a genius to see the difference in quality. Even compared to the well used ones, the brand new ones (even from the so called performance center) just seem inferior, tolerances, fit and finish, triggers, all seem to be inconsistent or inferior to their elder brethren in my safe. I see these differences and then see that Smith and Wesson seems to think their guns are worth half again or more than that of their primary competition. To me that little lock symbolizes all that I have said about these guns. That has been my experience with the ones I have purchased. Your experience may differ.
That being said while my vote was no, there is one, and only one revolver Smith and Wesson makes that still intrigues me enough that I may some day pony up the dough for. Is it likely? I couldn't say. Will it happen soon? Definitely not, after all they may just pull there heads out of their you know whats some day and remove the blasted hole on all their guns, I am in no hurry. For now I will just stick with those wonderful works of art S&W once made.
fallingblock
Member
No lock for me....
I greatly dislike the concept of an internal lock on a defensive device.
The fewer parts (especially unnecessary parts that can lock the gun without warning) the better.
I quit buying S&W after removing the locks from the last two I bought.
Why should we be forced to buy a political statement?
I greatly dislike the concept of an internal lock on a defensive device.
The fewer parts (especially unnecessary parts that can lock the gun without warning) the better.
I quit buying S&W after removing the locks from the last two I bought.
Why should we be forced to buy a political statement?
Stainz
Member
Most of my S&W revolvers have the IL. To say no because of the lock would have kept some fine newer S&W's out of my collection - not acceptable here. Not only have I not had a problem, but neither, apparently, has S&W. In ten years of it's inclusion, S&W has yet to spend a dime defending themselves in a lawsuit concerning a malfunction. Each of us can vote the way we wish in the important poll - with our wallets.
Stainz
Stainz
PolymathPioneer
Member.
I also read something similar on a post on the Internet the other day from a thread that dated back a couple of years ago but I also read by the same poster that his information was incorrect or only applied to non-wheel guns. Here is the thread: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/64628-locks-will-phased-out-says-s-w.html. I visited the S&W website and found two revolvers for concealed carry that specifically state no internal locking system but other than that all their revolvers have it. Maybe S&W will market no internal locking system as a new "feature" that they charge a premium for.
Do you know of a link where S&W states the internal locking system is being phased out on their revolvers?
M2 Carbine
member
I'll believe it when I see it. Then maybe I will not just walk by the S&W tables at the gun shows.
But it gives the anti-gun crowd a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Yes, in person it's a thing of beauty.
But not being one to hang such on the wall and all my friends have seen it, so it just stays in the bank vault.
One day I'll leave it to one of my friends, who will probably also just leave it in a bank vault.
Last edited:
Guillermo
member
I do not believe that the people running S&W have the intelligence or integrity to phase out the lock.
As evidenced by their actions they are idiotic punks that care nothing about quality, doing what is right or the gun community. They sell overpriced, questionable revolvers and make money doing it.
Of course Harley did the same thing for many years so it is a viable business model.
As evidenced by their actions they are idiotic punks that care nothing about quality, doing what is right or the gun community. They sell overpriced, questionable revolvers and make money doing it.
Of course Harley did the same thing for many years so it is a viable business model.
ColeK
Member
I have purchased revolvers with an internal locks.
BUT, do I use the locks?
HECK, NO!!! I NEVER EVER use an internal lock!!!
BUT, do I use the locks?
HECK, NO!!! I NEVER EVER use an internal lock!!!
fastbolt
Member
Okay, I voted YES, but only because I did buy one with an ILS. It was a M&P 340, and it was only offered (originally) with the ILS.
I've had no problems with the ILS engaging, shooting standard or +P .38 Spl, or a variety of .357 Magnum.
I've not had any of the other folks I've met have any problems with their New Model S&W ILS-equipped revolvers. This has ranged from folks shooting regular Airweights, to the Sc/Ti .38's, to the Magnum Airlites and up to the .500 S&W Magnums.
When I went to a S&W revolver armorer class I asked if any of the other armorers in the class had ever personally had a revolver exhibit an ILS problem (which they could confirm actually involved the ILS). None had. Naturally, a few of the older guys in my age group weren't exactly enthralled with the "aesthetics" of the ILS, but they didn't have any problems with their folks carrying guns with them.
The armorer instructor told me he had never had an armorer bring him a gun which had exhibited a problem with the ILS, either.
The portion of the class which dealt with the ILS was brief, covering how to remove the locking arm (or "flag", as it's called online), and replacing the small torque lock spring in the locking arm, if ever needed (like if damaged by someone doing some unauthorized monkeying around inside the gun
). It's a bit of a pain to manipulate and install the little spring, BTW. (I've done it for practice, just in case I ever need to do it to repair a gun.)
The bottom of the itty bitty dog-leg spring is held in place within a small, lipped recess within the machined groove for the bolt. If the bottom leg were to become dislodged, the locking arm won't be held down. I don't see how it can easily become dislodged ... unless someone were to tinker around, like removing the hammer and bolt, and allow the locking arm to tip and pull the bottom leg free of its lipped recess. I was once told by someone at the factory. that at one time they were looking very closely at production to make sure no assembly problems occurred which might result in the locking arm spring not being positioned and captured as designed.
Each time I've asked different folks from within the factory (repair, sales, customer service, etc), I've been told by each person that they've heard of either no, or very few, problems with revolvers with the ILS. The guys who acknowledge to have heard of an ILS-related problem said that it had occurred early on in the production models.
While I don't use the ILS for safe storage, or to prevent unauthorized access to my revolvers - (I have a gun safe for that purpose) - I can certainly see how some owners would appreciate a locking system that can help them in this regard.
I also suspect that internal locking systems are going to be something that's increasingly with us in the future of privately owned and used firearms.
In the meantime, however ... I bought another M&P 340, this time the latest variation made without the ILS. Yep, a no-lock M&P 340. Now I have 2 of them.
I've continued to carry my original one (with the lock), since it's provided good service to me for the few years I've owned, used, shot and carried it. I'll likely continue to carry it upon occasion, keeping it as a secondary, but most likely it'll become one of my "range beater" J-frames (along with a second 642-1 I bought a while back), while I continue to try and wear it out.
I'm glad to see S&W has been listening to its customers and has been expanding the availability of its internal hammer revolvers (Centennials) made without locks. I wouldn't hold my breath on them making external hammer models without locks, though. Not any time soon, at any rate. I've been repeatedly told that this is due to the advice they've received from their corporate legal staff.
It's seemingly still a matter of some debate, and apparently some small amount of contention, within the company. Oh well. Time will tell.
I'm always a bit suspicious when I read online about an ILS activating itself under recoil. Having looked inside the guns and seen how it works, I always wonder if the bottom spring leg had come loose from someone tinkering inside the gun, not realizing they'd done something which caused the leg to slip free of its lipped recess ... or from it not having been installed right during assembly.
Also, there are a number of other things that can mechanically happen which can "lock up" the gun, none of which have anything to do with the lock. I've seen my fair share of S&W (and other) revolvers have things happen which caused them to "seize" up ... and I'm talking about guns which weren't even made with internal locking systems.
Anyway ...
Given my druthers ... and not needing the ILS to secure my own firearms due to other storage methods I use ... I'd generally choose to buy a revolver made without an internal lock. (Ditto for my pistols, but look at all of those that are being produced nowadays, and look for them to increase.)
Just my thoughts.
I've had no problems with the ILS engaging, shooting standard or +P .38 Spl, or a variety of .357 Magnum.
I've not had any of the other folks I've met have any problems with their New Model S&W ILS-equipped revolvers. This has ranged from folks shooting regular Airweights, to the Sc/Ti .38's, to the Magnum Airlites and up to the .500 S&W Magnums.
When I went to a S&W revolver armorer class I asked if any of the other armorers in the class had ever personally had a revolver exhibit an ILS problem (which they could confirm actually involved the ILS). None had. Naturally, a few of the older guys in my age group weren't exactly enthralled with the "aesthetics" of the ILS, but they didn't have any problems with their folks carrying guns with them.
The armorer instructor told me he had never had an armorer bring him a gun which had exhibited a problem with the ILS, either.
The portion of the class which dealt with the ILS was brief, covering how to remove the locking arm (or "flag", as it's called online), and replacing the small torque lock spring in the locking arm, if ever needed (like if damaged by someone doing some unauthorized monkeying around inside the gun
). It's a bit of a pain to manipulate and install the little spring, BTW. (I've done it for practice, just in case I ever need to do it to repair a gun.)The bottom of the itty bitty dog-leg spring is held in place within a small, lipped recess within the machined groove for the bolt. If the bottom leg were to become dislodged, the locking arm won't be held down. I don't see how it can easily become dislodged ... unless someone were to tinker around, like removing the hammer and bolt, and allow the locking arm to tip and pull the bottom leg free of its lipped recess. I was once told by someone at the factory. that at one time they were looking very closely at production to make sure no assembly problems occurred which might result in the locking arm spring not being positioned and captured as designed.
Each time I've asked different folks from within the factory (repair, sales, customer service, etc), I've been told by each person that they've heard of either no, or very few, problems with revolvers with the ILS. The guys who acknowledge to have heard of an ILS-related problem said that it had occurred early on in the production models.
While I don't use the ILS for safe storage, or to prevent unauthorized access to my revolvers - (I have a gun safe for that purpose) - I can certainly see how some owners would appreciate a locking system that can help them in this regard.
I also suspect that internal locking systems are going to be something that's increasingly with us in the future of privately owned and used firearms.
In the meantime, however ... I bought another M&P 340, this time the latest variation made without the ILS. Yep, a no-lock M&P 340. Now I have 2 of them.
I've continued to carry my original one (with the lock), since it's provided good service to me for the few years I've owned, used, shot and carried it. I'll likely continue to carry it upon occasion, keeping it as a secondary, but most likely it'll become one of my "range beater" J-frames (along with a second 642-1 I bought a while back), while I continue to try and wear it out.
I'm glad to see S&W has been listening to its customers and has been expanding the availability of its internal hammer revolvers (Centennials) made without locks. I wouldn't hold my breath on them making external hammer models without locks, though. Not any time soon, at any rate. I've been repeatedly told that this is due to the advice they've received from their corporate legal staff.
It's seemingly still a matter of some debate, and apparently some small amount of contention, within the company. Oh well. Time will tell.
I'm always a bit suspicious when I read online about an ILS activating itself under recoil. Having looked inside the guns and seen how it works, I always wonder if the bottom spring leg had come loose from someone tinkering inside the gun, not realizing they'd done something which caused the leg to slip free of its lipped recess ... or from it not having been installed right during assembly.
Also, there are a number of other things that can mechanically happen which can "lock up" the gun, none of which have anything to do with the lock. I've seen my fair share of S&W (and other) revolvers have things happen which caused them to "seize" up ... and I'm talking about guns which weren't even made with internal locking systems.
Anyway ...
Given my druthers ... and not needing the ILS to secure my own firearms due to other storage methods I use ... I'd generally choose to buy a revolver made without an internal lock. (Ditto for my pistols, but look at all of those that are being produced nowadays, and look for them to increase.)
Just my thoughts.
PolymathPioneer
Member.
Very well considered and written post
Fastbolt; thanks for your excellent post to this thread and your participation in the poll.
Fastbolt; thanks for your excellent post to this thread and your participation in the poll.
fastbolt
Member
You're welcome.
Just bear in mind that these are only my own thoughts and experiences.
I know folks (whose opinions I respect) who have different opinions about this subject, and I respect their opinions.
It's often a rather contentious subject, though, and not just because some folks have a complaint with the aesthetics of the ILS design.
Some folks still have an issue with the actions of the former owners and seem determined to take it out on the current holding company.
Just bear in mind that these are only my own thoughts and experiences.
I know folks (whose opinions I respect) who have different opinions about this subject, and I respect their opinions.
It's often a rather contentious subject, though, and not just because some folks have a complaint with the aesthetics of the ILS design.
Some folks still have an issue with the actions of the former owners and seem determined to take it out on the current holding company.
Lucky Derby
Member
It was brilliant placement. They satified the morons/lawyers etc, and put it where it can't be seen or used without modification.
I went to the gun store today and found a brand new 66 for $500 (not sure but seemed like a good deal). I would have bought it, but that Hillary hole is down right ugly. Could S&W have picked a worse spot than right next to the latch to drill a big ugly hole (the focal point of a once beautiful handgun). I had the money and wanted it, but that big doofus looking hole kept staring back at me and I could not open my wallet. I love to shoot my guns, but on cold nights I like to line them up for a cleaning and gaze into their beauty (but I know that hole would just 
me off).
(the focal point of a once beautiful handgun). I had the money and wanted it, but that big doofus looking hole kept staring back at me and I could not open my wallet. I love to shoot my guns, but on cold nights I like to line them up for a cleaning and gaze into their beauty (but I know that hole would just me off).- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
