Removing the lock on a 642!

[MLeake]

Given that the company that makes the ILS bought S&W several years back, I don't see the locks going away anytime soon, at least not across the board; and I am not surprised they might not want to publish stories of lock failures.

That said, I have not heard of many, and most of the ones I have heard about involved magnum recoil in Scandium guns.

I don't see a plus side to the ILS, though, and I dislike it both aesthetically and on principle. I sold my only ILS gun last month. All my S&Ws are older, or new but no-lock.

 

[Webleymkv]

At one point I owned six ILS-equipped S&Ws...then It Happened to an acquaintence. He was dry-firing his 360 at the time. If it can happen, even once, while dry-firing, I have no confidence in the design. I sold all of my ILS-equipped S&Ws (most of which were the Scandium Ultra-Lightweights that seem disproportionally represented in Auto-Lock instances) and slowly replaced them with older and often heavier models.

If you have no confidence in a gun that has the potential to experience even one malfunction, then I'm surprised you own any guns at all. Many, many things can potentially cause problems with a S&W revolver (or any other revolver for that matter) such as a backed-out ejector rod, dirt under the extractor, or a broken firing pin.

Also, I feel that the ultra-lightweight scandium magnums are really just pushing the limits of the design in several ways. A gun with recoil so ferocious that you have to worry about bullets jumping crimp, a blast shield that needs to be replaced at the factory periodically, and which can't fire bullets lighter than 120gr lest the topstrap be eaten up is probably going to wear out most of its components faster and is, IMHO, more drawback than benefit.

The S&W site once had a thread that went on for pages about Auto-Lock occurrances, and the many who chose to argue pro or con. While the arguers outnumbered the people who had actually had It Happen to them, there were (IIRC) well over a dozen, and perhaps two dozen instances. The board subsequently changed ownership, and the new owner made his opinion known without saying a word--all of the evidence disappeared overnight, and any further discussion was shut down rapidly. I don't spend much time there anymore.

Anonymous internet forum posts are not a particularly reliable means of tabulating information for several reasons. In particular, the honesty of the poster cannot be verified, the poster's understanding of the incident cannot be verified (a problem with locks up a S&W revolver could easily be mistaken for an auto-lock by someone not familiar with the design), and one person can post about the same event multiple times under different handles giving the impression that one event is many.

Quote:
On the other hand, I have a Taurus with a lock that is subtlety placed in the hammer of the gun that does not trigger a negative emotional response.

Actually, if you look at the design, the Taurus' lock works on an axis 90* from the recoil (ergo, the lock is designed to be unaffected by the recoil impulse), where the S&W lock is on the axis of recoil. So...in my case at least, it is not an "emotional response", but a fact-based, mechanical engineering-supporteded response.

The lock "flag" on a S&W, which is the part that actually blocks the movement of the hammer, rotates up and back into engagement and down and forward out of engagement. When the revolver recoils, the gun moves up and back as well so inertia would be forcing the lock "flag" down and forward out of engagement. Also, the stud on the lock "flag" must be lined up with a recess in the hammer in order to be put into engagement. When the hammer if fully forward against the firing pin, as it would be at full lockup when the gun is fired, the recess in not lined up with the stud and thus the "flag" is blocked from up/back movement.

This leads me to believe that on the extremely rare occasion that an auto-lock does occur, it is the result of defective and/or improperly fitted parts rather than the design itself. This is reinforced by your report of an auto-lock when a gun was dry fired as the recoil arc has nothing to do with dry fire as there would be no recoil. The Taurus and Ruger designs (or any design for that matter) are no less susceptible to defective/improperly fitted parts than the S&W design is, but they are less noticeable to the casual observer.

 

[rodfac]

Well said, Webley.....Rod

 

[MLeake]

Webley, good post, but begs the question - why add unnecessary parts that add complexity and increase (if only slightly) chances of a malfunction?

How many of us use the lock?

I have gun safes. Locks (ILS, cable, etc) see no use at all with my guns.

 

[rodfac]

Good reply as well Mleake. And I'd opine that S&W rolled over for the lawyers in their midst, taking a dubious route to avoid law suits. The locks installed on my guns are left "Off" as well, and I'd prefer them without...but the fact remains that in my experience, they've not been a problem. Rod

 

[dahermit]

Like I said, looks. If you don't like the look of it, that's fine as long as you're honest about it. I personally think that a full underlug on anything but a Colt Python is hideous, but I don't go around telling people that guns with full underlugs are of sub-par quality or unreliable. Looks is a matter of personal preference that there's no point arguing about. The people I take issue with are the ones that try to justify their personal preferences by blowing the lock stories out of proportion.

I do not buy any S&W's with locks. S&W has lost me as a customer. They can get me back as a customer if they drop the locks. It is a moot point why I dislike the lock. I do not, " go around", telling people they are unreliable or exaggerate the problems people have had with them. If people wanted/needed a gun that was safe from teenagers and children et. Al., they could open the cylinder, put a cable-padlock through the barrel it would have worked just as well and would have been a arguably better alternative to loosing those of us who were customers over the issue. Some of us believe that if sales of the I.L. models fall low enough, S&W will go back to making only non-I.L. models. If they did, there would not likely be an out-cry for the return of the I.L.
It is pointless to condemn those of use who refuse to buy the guns with the I.L. as emotional, cry-baby radicals just because you have no issue with them.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by MLeake

Webley, good post, but begs the question - why add unnecessary parts that add complexity and increase (if only slightly) chances of a malfunction?

How many of us use the lock?

I have gun safes. Locks (ILS, cable, etc) see no use at all with my guns.

Well, the state of Maryland appears to require them for all newly-made revolvers sold there. I could also see them being somewhat useful if one needed to temporarily secure their handgun in a car or hotel room while they went to a hospital, government building, or other such place where handguns are verboten. You could, of course, do the same thing with a cable lock or padlock, but the little ILS key is easier and more convenient to carry around.

I don't really like or dislike the lock. I don't use it, but it doesn't bother me either. I am not willing, however, to limit the selection of handguns I'll consider buying to those available without locks nor will I pay the premium that is often wanted for a pre-lock gun if I can get a newer lock-equipped one for a better price.

Quote:
Like I said, looks. If you don't like the look of it, that's fine as long as you're honest about it. I personally think that a full underlug on anything but a Colt Python is hideous, but I don't go around telling people that guns with full underlugs are of sub-par quality or unreliable. Looks is a matter of personal preference that there's no point arguing about. The people I take issue with are the ones that try to justify their personal preferences by blowing the lock stories out of proportion.

I do not buy any S&W's with locks. S&W has lost me as a customer. They can get me back as a customer if they drop the locks. It is a moot point why I dislike the lock. I do not, " go around", telling people they are unreliable or exaggerate the problems people have had with them. If people wanted/needed a gun that was safe from teenagers and children et. Al., they could open the cylinder, put a cable-padlock through the barrel it would have worked just as well and would have been a arguably better alternative to loosing those of us who were customers over the issue. Some of us believe that if sales of the I.L. models fall low enough, S&W will go back to making only non-I.L. models. If they did, there would not likely be an out-cry for the return of the I.L.

It is pointless to condemn those of use who refuse to buy the guns with the I.L. as emotional, cry-baby radicals just because you have no issue with them.

I think you took my post the wrong way. I never said, nor did I mean to imply, that you go around telling people that ILS guns are unreliable or exaggerate problems. You are honest enough to admit that you dislike ILS guns because you think they're ugly and I can respect that.

I don't condemn everyone who refuses to buy an ILS-equipped revolver. I only take issue with those who do try to portray them as unreliable or attempt to exaggerate the rare problems in order to justify their own emotionally-based preferences, but I do not include you in that group. The types of people that I'm talking about aren't difficult to spot as they often also use childish invectives like "Safety Wesson," "Smith & Clinton," "Hillary Hole," or "wind-up gun."

As to boycotting ILS guns in hopes that S&W will drop the feature, it's your money and you can spend it as you like. That being said, the lock has been with us now for over a decade and S&W has shown no indication that they're considering getting rid of it, so you may be waiting for quite a long while.

 

[MLeake]

Webley, the ILS does nothing to prevent the theft of the gun itself from your vehicle.

For that, I have a Console Vault with combo lock in my truck, and portable lockboxes that cable lock to seat frames or trunk hinges if traveling and using rental cars.

As far as Maryland goes, their gun laws are a major reason I have never sought employment in Maryland. Seems to me this is true of those states that I think require such devices, in general (NY, CA, MA...)

The group-think that decides such a lock should be mandatory is a symptom of a greater problem.

And, aside from aesthetics, and added (though minimal) risk with no corresponding gain (for me), I resent the locks because such PC group-think lies at the root of the locks' origins. They symbolize something I detest.

 

[Webleymkv]

Webley, the ILS does nothing to prevent the theft of the gun itself from your vehicle.

For that, I have a Console Vault with combo lock in my truck, and portable lockboxes that cable lock to seat frames or trunk hinges if traveling and using rental cars.

The ILS does, however, prevent or at least make more difficult unauthorized use of the gun. As I noted before, there are certainly other devices that can be used to secure a handgun, but the ILS key is smaller, lighter, and more convenient to carry than most of them and doesn't cost anything extra.

As far as Maryland goes, their gun laws are a major reason I have never sought employment in Maryland. Seems to me this is true of those states that I think require such devices, in general (NY, CA, MA...)

I don't much care for the gun laws of Maryland (or the other states you mentioned) either and prefer to live elsewhere. However, not everyone is fortunate enough to choose which state they live in and, if I had to live in Maryland for one reason or another, it would be nice to know that I could legally buy a new S&W revolver if I wanted to.

The group-think that decides such a lock should be mandatory is a symptom of a greater problem.

Agreed.

And, aside from aesthetics, and added (though minimal) risk with no corresponding gain (for me), I resent the locks because such PC group-think lies at the root of the locks' origins. They symbolize something I detest.

Rather than resent S&W or the lock itself, I resent the people who made it necessary to begin with. Specifically, I resent Tomkins PLC and Bill Clinton for dragging the name of one of the greatest American gun companies through the mud and opening the door for the locks to become an issue in the first place. As you yourself pointed out, the lock is a symptom of a greater problem.

 

[coyota1]

the lock is a symptom of a greater problem.

The lock isn't a problem per say. To me it portends the trend in years to come. Our demographics are changing along with tolerance for this kind of misguided attitude that guns think for themselves, and the idiot behind it is just another victim. A separate locking devise would be more effective, but choosing to mar the appearance of a fine weapon seems more appealing to some. Kind of like drawing a mustache and blacking out a tooth on a picture of clinton.

 

[dahermit]

...As to boycotting ILS guns in hopes that S&W will drop the feature, it's your money and you can spend it as you like. That being said, the lock has been with us now for over a decade and S&W has shown no indication that they're considering getting rid of it, so you may be waiting for quite a long while...

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that until recently, all S&W revolvers had the I.L. system, but now there are models that have no lock. If that be true, then there has been some movement in the right direction.

 

[9mm]

I might buy another one at the gun show soon, I seen like 2-3 at each gun show in either SS or Blued/Black finish They are $380ish with no lock. Very rare to come by.

 

[Sarge]

Sarge's standard commentary on internal locks, for anyone interested.

If it bothered me, I'd simply trade into an old S&W w/the lock, or something else altogether.

 

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
...As to boycotting ILS guns in hopes that S&W will drop the feature, it's your money and you can spend it as you like. That being said, the lock has been with us now for over a decade and S&W has shown no indication that they're considering getting rid of it, so you may be waiting for quite a long while...

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that until recently, all S&W revolvers had the I.L. system, but now there are models that have no lock. If that be true, then there has been some movement in the right direction.

My understanding is that they are using up existing pre-lock frames that they had in inventory.

 

[MLeake]

I would love it if S&W would do a no-lock reproduction of the 1917; that is really the only revolver I feel a desire to add to my collection at this point. I do not want a revolver that would look like a 1917, but has a hole in the side, and a re-shaped frame to accommodate the hole.

 

[Sarge]

The Model 22 tempts me something fierce MLeake, being the 1950 Model I'll likely never own. If they ever offer it in 45 Colt, I'll probably end up eating crow

 

[223 shooter]

I simply did what was mentioned earlier , bought a non-lock 642.

 

[RsqVet]

Thinking the smith lock deters theft or misuse is kind of silly. There are people who can defeat any car lock on earth in seconds, how long will it
Take anyone to defeat the IL? I mean really people? Just because the misguided state of Maryland requires them does not mean it
Makes good sense to saddle all of us with them.

Franky my big problem with the lock is not just that I don't want
It, it's that I am not paying what Smith wants for a new gun just to have to take it apart and make it as it should have been from the start. For 100 bucks or free? Ok fine. For 800 or more? I will buy pre lock thanks!

 

[dahermit]

In regard to the internal lock. All mechanical devices have elements in their design that are prone to malfunction. The more parts that can malfunction, the more malfunctions will happen. To illustrate (although a revolver thread), among the parts of a 1911 that are most prone to malfunction are, the extractor (looses proper tension), the ejector (leg breaks off), and the safety plunger tube (becomes loose). If those parts could be somehow improved or eliminated, there would be fewer malfunctions with that gun. Note the Ruger SC1911 with integral plunger tube. It eliminates a frequent source of malfunction making that 1911 a mathematical certainty to have fewer malfunctions than models with standard parts if ignoring for the sake of argument, all other extraneous factors. It is a forward-step in engineering design.

The revolver has few parts or fewer that the 1911 that are prone to malfunction. The extractor rod is known to become loose, but with the invention of Blue Locktite, that is no longer of concern. In short, the fewer parts, the better.

Enter the internal lock. An unnecessary part that has been known to malfunction. What it does, is provide a mathematical certainty that the chances for malfunction is more likely, however slight. It is a backward-step in engineering design, no more, no less.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by RsqVet

Thinking the smith lock deters theft or misuse is kind of silly. There are people who can defeat any car lock on earth in seconds, how long will it
Take anyone to defeat the IL?

Well, I very much doubt that a small child would be able to defeat the lock and I don't thing that even a master locksmith could get an ILS revolver to shoot any faster than one with no lock at all. By that same line of thinking, we should remove the locks from all our cars and houses because some criminals might be able to defeat them.

Originally posted by dahermit

Enter the internal lock. An unnecessary part that has been known to malfunction. What it does, is provide a mathematical certainty that the chances for malfunction is more likely, however slight. It is a backward-step in engineering design, no more, no less.

If I really wanted a revolver with as few moving parts, and thus as small a chance for malfunction, as humanly possible, I wouldn't buy a S&W regardless of the lock but rather a Ruger. You see Rugers lack a rebound slide and hammer block and, with the exception of the Six Series DA revolvers, their ejector rods cannot come unscrewed.

I buy S&W's instead because Rugers, while fine guns, do not fit my hands as well, do not have triggers that I like as well, and are not as pleasing to my eye as a S&W. Even though the S&W has the potential to have more problems, the risk is very small and one I'm willing to take in order to get the gun I like more. Such is also the case with the ILS, the remote chance that I might have a problem with it is not great enough to outweigh the better selection, availability, and sometimes price that ILS revolvers can offer.