HankB
Member
It can on a 340SC - I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.
You don’t like S&W locks - Here’s what you can do.
- Thread starter Bullet
- Start date
- Status
J Miller
Member
patentmike,
Only half of your patent picture will come up. Could you edit the post so it will all come up?
Even though I am 100% opposed to these key locks, information and drawings is someting I like to study.
41 Redhawk,
It's terrible to get old, you get soft and wishy washy and can't hold to your convictions any more.
Joe
Only half of your patent picture will come up. Could you edit the post so it will all come up?
Even though I am 100% opposed to these key locks, information and drawings is someting I like to study.
41 Redhawk,
It's terrible to get old, you get soft and wishy washy and can't hold to your convictions any more.
Joe
Master Blaster
Member
ON the hammerless models like my 642 there is no flag to come up, so yes I can engage it without the flag comming up, I need to use that key thingie to do it though.
Internal locks
Just my two cents.......
Maybe we should be after OUR politicians to strive for tort reform, not the firearms manufacturers who are simply trying to survive in relatively small market with extremely high legal costs.
From Rugers billboard warnings, to internal gunlocks thank our legal system.
Just my two cents.......
Maybe we should be after OUR politicians to strive for tort reform, not the firearms manufacturers who are simply trying to survive in relatively small market with extremely high legal costs.
From Rugers billboard warnings, to internal gunlocks thank our legal system.
41 Redhawk
Member
Here is an interesting read:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/530103904/m/290106334/r/146107334#146107334
http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/530103904/m/290106334/r/146107334#146107334
patentmike
Member
I'm saying I don't believe the anecdotal stories. Someone might tell you his plants don't get as much light as they used to before daylight savings time. What is that anecdotal story worth? Whether anyone is a liar or mistaken, or repeating hearsay is more than I can judge. I am looking at how the parts go together. If you don't want to tear one apart, look at the drawings. I can't see it engaging itself, or getting stuck in an impossible position or having parts leap out without affecting other connected parts. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe someone will show me a warranty letter from S&W on how they fixed the self-engaging lock.
As for the drawings, they look OK to my monitor. Here's the source:
http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid...ageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=324FCF6F2B36
As for the drawings, they look OK to my monitor. Here's the source:
http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid...ageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=324FCF6F2B36
DHart
Member
I am surprised at how vigorously some will deny any and all reports and attempt to whisk away all reports of the lock's mechanical failure with the sweep of a few keyboard keys. Simply denying the veracity of the reports doesn't mean there is no problem. I suspect some who own a gun with the lock will defend it even in the face of evidence contrary to their position, primarily to boost their own confidence in what they own.
No matter how much you study the mechanism, you can't be guaranteed that it will not fail in some way. And there is no way that it is as reliable - all other factors being equal - as a gun which does not have the additional mechanism and spring.
I haven't collected a catalog of reported problems to present to anyone, but if you do enough searching in the S&W forum and elsewhere you will find a number of first hand reports of problems with the lock.
This doesn't indicate that lock-related problems are common by any means, simply that the lock is NOT fail-safe. I repeat the position that pre-lock guns are guaranteed NOT to have a lock-related failure of any kind. You can't say that about a gun that does have the lock!
If I had no other choice, I would own a S&W with the lock. But given the option of buying a pre-lock instead, that's where I'd put my money.
No matter how much you study the mechanism, you can't be guaranteed that it will not fail in some way. And there is no way that it is as reliable - all other factors being equal - as a gun which does not have the additional mechanism and spring.
I haven't collected a catalog of reported problems to present to anyone, but if you do enough searching in the S&W forum and elsewhere you will find a number of first hand reports of problems with the lock.
This doesn't indicate that lock-related problems are common by any means, simply that the lock is NOT fail-safe. I repeat the position that pre-lock guns are guaranteed NOT to have a lock-related failure of any kind. You can't say that about a gun that does have the lock!
If I had no other choice, I would own a S&W with the lock. But given the option of buying a pre-lock instead, that's where I'd put my money.
patentmike
Member
DHart, I agree with you.
Not having a lock may be more failure-proof than having a lock. I can't guarantee that a lock will never fail. On the other hand, I can't seem to verify that one has really failed either. I can't get mine to fail. Claims of failure that seem to defy the laws of physics don't prove that failures could happen. I'm done, the horse is dead, I'll stop beating now. Let me just add that if anyone fears that their lock is engaging and disengaging while thier back is turned, maybe they could arrange to ship it to me, especially if it's a M25 Mountain Gun, or maybe a M21, or the last of the 66s, or ...
Not having a lock may be more failure-proof than having a lock. I can't guarantee that a lock will never fail. On the other hand, I can't seem to verify that one has really failed either. I can't get mine to fail. Claims of failure that seem to defy the laws of physics don't prove that failures could happen. I'm done, the horse is dead, I'll stop beating now. Let me just add that if anyone fears that their lock is engaging and disengaging while thier back is turned, maybe they could arrange to ship it to me, especially if it's a M25 Mountain Gun, or maybe a M21, or the last of the 66s, or ...
DHart
Member
hey patentmike... and in a sense I agree with you as well.. in that *most* people who have the guns with locks won't experience a lock-related failure. And of course for a gun which might be used in target or range use, where life is not dependent on reliability, the presence or absense of a lock in such a gun doesn't really matter.
mikey357
Member
...hey, DonnieM, maybe you could get that low-down BROTHER of yours to put in a word with his employer...BTW, how's the Gator huntin' gonna' be this fall???....mikey357
Okay, lots of opinion both ways.
First, I don't like the locks. I think its more that can go wrong.
However, how about someone present facts or studies that indicate the percentage of internal S&W locks that fail. For example, is it 1/100, 1/500, 1/1000, or 1/10,000. Anyone have data that can give us concrete numbers?
Considering that many firearms don't work right without locks, I'm curious how much worse reliability the locks actually cause?
Finally, how many of YOU have new S&Ws with locks. Which ones of you all have experienced lock failures?
First, I don't like the locks. I think its more that can go wrong.
However, how about someone present facts or studies that indicate the percentage of internal S&W locks that fail. For example, is it 1/100, 1/500, 1/1000, or 1/10,000. Anyone have data that can give us concrete numbers?
Considering that many firearms don't work right without locks, I'm curious how much worse reliability the locks actually cause?
Finally, how many of YOU have new S&Ws with locks. Which ones of you all have experienced lock failures?
JERRY
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,833
somebody once said...........IF Ayoob actually saw first hand these gun's lock engaging while firing, to save his credabilty he would have given specifics instead of vague storys....i.e. what dept...... and then hand carry the thing back to the factory and advertise publicly their responce to the issue.
until then it seems its all hear say, and nothing specific other than a "large p.d. in a north eastern state"...bla bla bla......
please show me specifics and what s&w said when presented with this allegded problem.
p.s. i have a "locked" version 642, i hate the lock because of the "what if", but havent had it lock itself.
until then it seems its all hear say, and nothing specific other than a "large p.d. in a north eastern state"...bla bla bla......
please show me specifics and what s&w said when presented with this allegded problem.
p.s. i have a "locked" version 642, i hate the lock because of the "what if", but havent had it lock itself.
BluesBear
member
regarding patent mikes images
This is the left half that shows.
This is the right half that doesn't.
This is the left half that shows.
This is the right half that doesn't.
J Miller
Member
BluesBear,
Thanks for posting those drawings.
Joe
Thanks for posting those drawings.
Joe
Ayood did an article about S&W lock failures in the Jan-Feb 2005 issue of American Handgunner. Two of the malfunctions, a 342 & a 340, were reported by Jim McLoud, owner of the Indoor Shooting Range in New Hampshire. The other was a 329 owned by Dennis Reichard, a Rochester, Indiana detective. All three guns were reportedly using full power ammo.
You all have to remember, anything mechinical can and will malfunction.
As for me, i'm breaking out the Dremel and going to work on my 642 & MY 66.
You all have to remember, anything mechinical can and will malfunction.
As for me, i'm breaking out the Dremel and going to work on my 642 & MY 66.
Black Majik
Member
At first I thought that said Denise Richards, my heart almost stopped tickin'!
I think the hole on the side of the frame causes me more grief than the actual lock itself on the S&W revolvers. I dont really worry about them going off when I dont want them to, just like how I dont worry about how my 870's J-lock will activate when I dont want it to.
Good thing I dont own any S&W revolvers with those locks in there. It'd look like a curb rash on a 3 piece racing wheel.
Hardtarget
Member
If you want to remove the lug on your S&W just order a replacement hammer, remove the lug and install it into your gun. If you later decide to sell your gun, reinstall the original hammer and include the altered hammer with the gun. Now the new owner can do as he pleases...to lock or not to lock...that is his option. Is this not the same as the worrying about useing reloads for self defense?
Mark.
Mark.
I look at it this way.
I have a newer 686 4" that I love.
It has the internal lock.
Do I use it?
Yes. Absolutely.
I like being able to secure it one step further when at home.
However....this is strictly a range gun that I keep secured when not target shooting with it.
Would I ever use it for defensive carry? No and I knew that when I purchased it.
I use my 66-4 2.5" w/o internal lock for defensive carry.
In the proper role the locks can serve a purpose, however, if you are intending to use it for a defensive/home/carry weapon I personally would not use a lock equipped one.
The more parts you have the more things there are to break.
I have a newer 686 4" that I love.
It has the internal lock.
Do I use it?
Yes. Absolutely.
I like being able to secure it one step further when at home.
However....this is strictly a range gun that I keep secured when not target shooting with it.
Would I ever use it for defensive carry? No and I knew that when I purchased it.
I use my 66-4 2.5" w/o internal lock for defensive carry.
In the proper role the locks can serve a purpose, however, if you are intending to use it for a defensive/home/carry weapon I personally would not use a lock equipped one.
The more parts you have the more things there are to break.
magsnubby - QUOTE –“I just finished "unlocking" my 66 & 642. It's quit simple actually. Remove the hammer, remove the plate shown in the sketch and grind off the stud that fits into the slot on the hammer. No more lock.”
The stud you ground off is on a plate that is removable? If so could you buy a new plate with the stud and install making the lock operable again?
The stud you ground off is on a plate that is removable? If so could you buy a new plate with the stud and install making the lock operable again?
Bullet,
Correct. The stud is on the plate not the hammer. It looks like you could just remove the plate (or whatever the correct name is) completly. The rest of the lock isn't held in place by the plate. The only draw back to leaving the plate off the 66 is the grove between the hammer and the side of the frame.
Correct. The stud is on the plate not the hammer. It looks like you could just remove the plate (or whatever the correct name is) completly. The rest of the lock isn't held in place by the plate. The only draw back to leaving the plate off the 66 is the grove between the hammer and the side of the frame.
- Status
