Great point. I'm a big fan of semi-autos, and don't own a revolver, but I will probably get one as a BUG. I'm gonna want something that I know if I have to go for it, it's gonna work. Adding more and more parts, especially parts designed to make the gun stop functioning, isn't great for reliability.
Internal locks
- Thread starter haymaker
- Start date
Great point. I'm a big fan of semi-autos, and don't own a revolver, but I will probably get one as a BUG. I'm gonna want something that I know if I have to go for it, it's gonna work. Adding more and more parts, especially parts designed to make the gun stop functioning, isn't great for reliability.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Anyone have any evidence that a lock has ever malfunctioned?
I hate internal locks, but...
Reliability issues with internal locks?
I don't like the idea of internal locks. It's just a ploy to appease the un-appeasable gun haters. But for all the bashing I've read over the years, I cannot recall a single factual case (or any case, for that matter) where an internal lock resulted in a failure to function.
I might "crazy glue" my locks if there was a reason to do so, but anger at their presence is not a good enough reason (for me). Can anyone here please link us to a documented case? ( Please... no third hand stories twice removed.) Thanks in advance...
Reliability issues with internal locks?I don't like the idea of internal locks. It's just a ploy to appease the un-appeasable gun haters. But for all the bashing I've read over the years, I cannot recall a single factual case (or any case, for that matter) where an internal lock resulted in a failure to function.
I might "crazy glue" my locks if there was a reason to do so, but anger at their presence is not a good enough reason (for me). Can anyone here please link us to a documented case? ( Please... no third hand stories twice removed.) Thanks in advance...
Over on smith-wessonforum.com under the revolver categories there are threads talking about guns actually locking up while being used. A post dated Jan. 17, 07 titled "lock feature question" has a link to these threads (or posts). I was just wondering is S&W are the only ones having malfunctions.
We have three with the dreaded/infamous locks, no problems to report so far, though I would not have them if it had been an option; good used j frames are less common than hens teeth.
I think built-in locks and safetys are foolish and increase the probability of a failure during a criticial moment.
I think built-in locks and safetys are foolish and increase the probability of a failure during a criticial moment.
Thank you haymaker. Here is a link to an actual lock-failure:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/500103904/m/228102718/r/208102818#208102818
I've done a bit of searching and I find that, as best as I can tell, there are very few actual, documented failures related to the internal locking mechanism. There are a few cases that are referred to many times, giving the appearance that it occurs more frequently that it actually does. Still, a single such event is disturbing.
I think we all agree that the darned locks should NOT be there... but that's life these days.
We all know that there is no such thing as a total lack of failure to fire, failure to feed, or failure to eject in any gun ever made. (I had a S&W J-frame lock up tight on the second round... had nothing to do with the internal lock. I also had a Kahr K9 stove-pipe repeatedly even after it was "fixed” at the factory - and that gun has no internal lock.)
So, should we abandon carry guns that have locks and carry only those that do not? Should we all carry New York Reloads (a back-up gun) because even guns without a lock fail? Should we carry sawed-off 12 gauge shotguns because there are documented accounts of .45s and .357 magnums that have failed to stop a BG? YES!!! I say YES!!! (And, boys… if ya’ll don’t mind, would one of ya lead me back to the bar stool next to that Blonde I was sitting next to ‘afore I fell off my seat?)
http://smith-wessonforum.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/500103904/m/228102718/r/208102818#208102818
I've done a bit of searching and I find that, as best as I can tell, there are very few actual, documented failures related to the internal locking mechanism. There are a few cases that are referred to many times, giving the appearance that it occurs more frequently that it actually does. Still, a single such event is disturbing.
I think we all agree that the darned locks should NOT be there... but that's life these days.
We all know that there is no such thing as a total lack of failure to fire, failure to feed, or failure to eject in any gun ever made. (I had a S&W J-frame lock up tight on the second round... had nothing to do with the internal lock. I also had a Kahr K9 stove-pipe repeatedly even after it was "fixed” at the factory - and that gun has no internal lock.)
So, should we abandon carry guns that have locks and carry only those that do not? Should we all carry New York Reloads (a back-up gun) because even guns without a lock fail? Should we carry sawed-off 12 gauge shotguns because there are documented accounts of .45s and .357 magnums that have failed to stop a BG? YES!!! I say YES!!! (And, boys… if ya’ll don’t mind, would one of ya lead me back to the bar stool next to that Blonde I was sitting next to ‘afore I fell off my seat?)
After the internal lock on my friends S&W 629 locked while firing I filed off the stud on the flag in my 686. A personal defence gun that can lock itself is not safe and can get you killed. I have other S&W revolvers with the lock. I havn't disabled the locks on them because they are not intended for self defense, so if they lock themselves while shooting it won't cause death or serious injury to the user.
elwaine - If you mean evidence, as in photo's of damaged/failed parts, or an agency report, detailing the event, no, I'm not aware of the existance of either of those. I guarantee we'll not see any such evidence, or an admission by Saf-T Hammer on the issue. When NC DOC's problems with their M-64 revolvers occured last year, (and made the national newspapers) Saf-T Hammer denied any problems with locks, and any other "feature". I'm unaware of any change in their position.
I've read the threads supplied above, and talked to other shooters. My opinions on the internal locks, are based on my experience. The experiences of others may lead them to other conclusions. If anyone took mechanical engineering in school, they will remember the basic tennants of adding parts (complexity) to simple mechanical devices, reliability decreases. I spend considerable money making sure my handguns are reliable. I've no need for any handgun that isn't. The inclusion of the unnecessary internal lock, and it's extra parts, in a handgun, disqualifies it as carry gun, for me. YMMV.
If one uses their revolvers, or pistols for that matter, as paper punching or competition game guns, the internal lock is probably of little consequence. If the IL fails and your gun locks up, you've lost time/points, wasted a trip and been annoyed, better luck next time.
For those of us that carry handguns for self defense, or as part of their employment, it's an altogether different matter. The stakes are much higher. I would never recommend an internal lock equipped handgun, as a carry piece. Sure, all handguns can fail, from any myriad of things, and probably will yada yada yada. Well, that may be true, but in my case, I can guarantee that the failure will not be from an internal lock. Again YMMV.
Oh, and yes I've personally seen, first hand, a Saf-T Hammer revolver lock up. It was a model 329, 44. It's first trip to the range, fired three shots, and locked up. The flag next to the hammer, was slightly raised, the hammer was partially back, the cylinder could not be opened. The owner (a lawyer in the court house who knew me, and shoots at my range) was shooting it in the lane next to me, and asked for assistance. We (RO and I) tied a rag between the hammer and frame, took the side plate off, and disasembled the revolver, to get the remaining 3 rounds out. The owner sent it back to S&W under warranty. It returned with a paper, showing the work performed. It simply said, "replaced spring, returned to spec". He promptly traded it at the next gunshow for a pre lock 629. Regards 18DAI.
I've read the threads supplied above, and talked to other shooters. My opinions on the internal locks, are based on my experience. The experiences of others may lead them to other conclusions. If anyone took mechanical engineering in school, they will remember the basic tennants of adding parts (complexity) to simple mechanical devices, reliability decreases. I spend considerable money making sure my handguns are reliable. I've no need for any handgun that isn't. The inclusion of the unnecessary internal lock, and it's extra parts, in a handgun, disqualifies it as carry gun, for me. YMMV.
If one uses their revolvers, or pistols for that matter, as paper punching or competition game guns, the internal lock is probably of little consequence. If the IL fails and your gun locks up, you've lost time/points, wasted a trip and been annoyed, better luck next time.
For those of us that carry handguns for self defense, or as part of their employment, it's an altogether different matter. The stakes are much higher. I would never recommend an internal lock equipped handgun, as a carry piece. Sure, all handguns can fail, from any myriad of things, and probably will yada yada yada. Well, that may be true, but in my case, I can guarantee that the failure will not be from an internal lock. Again YMMV.
Oh, and yes I've personally seen, first hand, a Saf-T Hammer revolver lock up. It was a model 329, 44. It's first trip to the range, fired three shots, and locked up. The flag next to the hammer, was slightly raised, the hammer was partially back, the cylinder could not be opened. The owner (a lawyer in the court house who knew me, and shoots at my range) was shooting it in the lane next to me, and asked for assistance. We (RO and I) tied a rag between the hammer and frame, took the side plate off, and disasembled the revolver, to get the remaining 3 rounds out. The owner sent it back to S&W under warranty. It returned with a paper, showing the work performed. It simply said, "replaced spring, returned to spec". He promptly traded it at the next gunshow for a pre lock 629. Regards 18DAI.
It's true that parts in a no-lock gun can fail. The catch is those parts are necessary for the gun to function. An internal lock is not necessary for the gun to function yet,it adds a chance of failure. I don't care if that increased chance is 1% or 99%, an unnecessary chance of failure is unacceptable in a firearm.
Both those suggestions are made by nationally known instructors around the country on a regular basis. In fact, at one S&W Academy course which specialized in the snub-nose revolver, the instructor (who is not an employee of S&W) told the case to avoid the new Smiths because of the lock problem.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Several years ago there were alot of stories about a certain cell phone manufacturers batteries exploding. There were tons of posts on the cell phone and gadget boards, lots of of pics of exploded batteries, story after story posted about people being injured, etc.
After a few months, it turned out it was two guys who worked at a Car Toys store posting all the stories and pictures of "exploded" batteries (they shot them with a .22 rifle).
They didn't like the fact that a certain carrier disable features of a certain model phone so they set out to sully the name of the carrier and manufacturer.
I mention this because it is a good example of not believing what you read on the internet. Especially when the same story seems to be being repeated again and again.
From what I am seeing about the "failed" internal locks, I am not seeing enough evidence to believe it is anything more than a fluke or a deliberate fraud as was the case with the cell phone. Usually the internal lock is not even determined to be the problem but is immediatly blamed.
After a few months, it turned out it was two guys who worked at a Car Toys store posting all the stories and pictures of "exploded" batteries (they shot them with a .22 rifle).
They didn't like the fact that a certain carrier disable features of a certain model phone so they set out to sully the name of the carrier and manufacturer.
I mention this because it is a good example of not believing what you read on the internet. Especially when the same story seems to be being repeated again and again.
From what I am seeing about the "failed" internal locks, I am not seeing enough evidence to believe it is anything more than a fluke or a deliberate fraud as was the case with the cell phone. Usually the internal lock is not even determined to be the problem but is immediatly blamed.
orionengnr
New member
Well, there are several on this thread, and I pm'ed you about an acquaintence who recently encountered a real-live Lock-up.
I've seen several others on THR and TFL.
Are the odds in your favor? Yes.
Did I own several Lock S&Ws before I was aware of this? Yes.
Did I sell them all? Yes.
Will I buy another? No.
I've seen several others on THR and TFL.
Are the odds in your favor? Yes.
Did I own several Lock S&Ws before I was aware of this? Yes.
Did I sell them all? Yes.
Will I buy another? No.
buck460XVR
New member
40 years ago my grandpa refused to buy any gun with an internal safety quoting the same reasons I have heard here regarding internal locks. He continued to use his old model 97 12 ga. pump shotgun, winchester 32 special and a 22 pump, all with outside hammers and no internal safety's. He claimed the failure rate was too high for him to risk missing game. I loved my Grandpa(god bless his soul) but he was wrong....those guns were some of the most unsafe guns ever made. I remember similar snibbling when the first stainless and synthetic stocked guns came out(damn ugly they said, will never own one of them toy lookin' guns, real guns are blued and have wood stocks)....same with removable choked guns(there were claims the chokes would shoot out the end of the barrels when fired with heavy loads)......
Maybe I've been around too long, but it seems some folks just resent change and will find any excuse to avoid it.
Maybe I've been around too long, but it seems some folks just resent change and will find any excuse to avoid it.
Well, I put maybe 100 rounds through my 360PD, dry fired it a couple thousand times, and, it locked up tighter then a drum.
Took it to my gunsmith, and, the lock came out in less then 5 minutes, and, was the cause of the problem.
Both myself, and my gunsmith had put little stock in the chicken little comments about the locks. Figured, like others here, that it was due to some sort poor service, and angry customers.
We are both now converted. I had asked him to remove the lock prior, and, he said shoot it till it locks up, which I did. I figure he thought it would never happen.
From all evidence, I now have a light, reliable carry piece, that I can't think of another gun that would replace it.
Hard to sell at this point.
Since the lock designer is now the owner of Smith and Wesson, it's pretty consistent that they would not admit their design is a POS, and, that the locks are going to continue in the guns.
Don't see any reasons to buy another Smith with a lock. I'd like a scandium framed 1911, but, this whole experience has made me give serious consideration to that idea, not to mention the MIM parts the gun is constructed with. I remember the first gun I shot, a Python 357, and it's trigger was a bunch different from the sandpaper on sandpaper trigger of the 360PD.
Also, the 1911's use MIM parts, and, I've had those break on two Kimbers, a safety, and a slide stop, so I'd have to make sure I could replace all the MIM with forged, which, just leaves me with a gun costing the same as a Detonics.
S
S
Took it to my gunsmith, and, the lock came out in less then 5 minutes, and, was the cause of the problem.
Both myself, and my gunsmith had put little stock in the chicken little comments about the locks. Figured, like others here, that it was due to some sort poor service, and angry customers.
We are both now converted. I had asked him to remove the lock prior, and, he said shoot it till it locks up, which I did. I figure he thought it would never happen.
From all evidence, I now have a light, reliable carry piece, that I can't think of another gun that would replace it.
Hard to sell at this point.
Since the lock designer is now the owner of Smith and Wesson, it's pretty consistent that they would not admit their design is a POS, and, that the locks are going to continue in the guns.
Don't see any reasons to buy another Smith with a lock. I'd like a scandium framed 1911, but, this whole experience has made me give serious consideration to that idea, not to mention the MIM parts the gun is constructed with. I remember the first gun I shot, a Python 357, and it's trigger was a bunch different from the sandpaper on sandpaper trigger of the 360PD.
Also, the 1911's use MIM parts, and, I've had those break on two Kimbers, a safety, and a slide stop, so I'd have to make sure I could replace all the MIM with forged, which, just leaves me with a gun costing the same as a Detonics.
S
S