The Million-dollar question about the Smith & Wesson lock

[Webleymkv]

If the hammer is all the way forward, pressing in the firing pin, the flag cannot move. But if the hammer is in the rest position, where it could be driven by the backpressure of the primer, the vibration of the revolver (not recoil as such) could cause the flag to move upward. Now I agree that this requires a lot of things to happen the wrong way at the same time, but in fact that is sometimes the case when a gun is fired, and some are right odd.

The later flags I have seen have a forward extension on the flag that won't allow the flag to move upward when the cam is on the bottom (unlocked) position. (If you look, you will see what I mean.)

So is there a possibility of the gun locking up? Yes, everything has to be exactly wrong at the same time, but IMHO, it could happen.

There's a couple of factors you're overlooking here most notably inertia and friction. When the gun is fired, its recoil will drive the frame up and back toward the shooter. Because the lock flag is only attached to the frame rather loosely, it will resist this change in direction and thus be forced forward and down as the gun recoils thus pushing it out of engagement.

Also, as the hammer falls when the trigger is pulled, the friction of the side of the hammer rubbing against the lock flag will push it forward and down out of engagement as well. About the only way I can see the lock flag being pushed up into engagement without being acted upon by the cam would be if it were so poorly fitted that the friction between it and the hammer dragged it up and back as the hammer was being cocked.

Also, do you happen to know about when the forward extension was added to the lock flag? Both of the ILS revolvers that I have ready access to are 2007-2008 vintage and neither have such an extension.

 

[tipoc]

There have been running threads over to the S&W forum on the locks failing. So occasionally they do.

On S&W and the locks. Remember that the first locks did not appear on S&W guns till after the Clinton administration left office and the agreement on the locks was no longer in force. It was also after Saf-T-Hammer bought Smith and Wesson. Which took place in 2001. So the Tompkins group which had made the agreement no longer owned it at the time the locks first appeared.

Note:

Quoting from the Phoenix Business Journal of May 14, 2001

Scottsdale-based Saf-T-Hammer said it will be incorporating its safety features in Smith & Wesson fireams, including the .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum made famous by Clint Eastwood.

As part of its acquisition of the firearms company, Saf-T-Hammer will be changing its name to the Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., according to Saf-T-Hammer chairman Mitchell Saltz.

Saf-T-Hammer already had a role in the development of the locks for S&W before they bought the company outright from the British firm Tompkins.

One reason why the acquisition went through is that Saf-T-Hammer's president, Bob Scott, formerly was vice president of business development at Smith & Wesson, according to Saltz.

"He knew the operation hands-on without spending a whole year learning it," Saltz said.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2001/05/14/daily1.html

This is well summarized in the wikipedia entry for S&W:

On 11 May 2001, Saf-T-Hammer Corporation acquired Smith & Wesson Corp. from Tomkins PLC for US$15 million, a fraction of the US$112 million originally paid by Tomkins. Saf-T-Hammer assumed US$30 million in debt, bringing the total purchase price to US$45 million.[12][13] Saf-T-Hammer, a manufacturer of gun locks and other firearms safety products, purchased the company with the intention of incorporating its line of security products into all Smith & Wesson firearms in compliance with the 2000 agreement.

The acquisition of Smith & Wesson was chiefly brokered by Saf-T-Hammer President Bob Scott, who had left Smith & Wesson in 1999 because of a disagreement with Tomkins’ policies. After the purchase, Scott became the president of Smith & Wesson to guide the 157-year-old company back to its former standing in the market.[8]

On 15 February 2002, the name of the newly formed entity was changed to Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation.

The current ownership of S&W had no obligation to enforce the terms of the agreement but it had been their intention of doing so prior to the purchase of S&W. That's why they carried it out. The Saf-T-Hammer group is still the center of the ownership group.

tipoc

 

[Brutus]

Don't want any gun with an unnecessary feature, wouldn't mind the lock so much if it wasn't such a eye sore, they could have hidden it inside the grip.
Just the thought of having a device that could fail is a total turn off.

 

[Leejack]

If I was in the market for a new Smith, the lock wouldn't stop me from purchasing it. Nobody likes gun locks except for commies and lawyers (and perhaps people with small children around), but worrying about it is yesterday's news.

 

[rodfac]

I"ve got three Smiths with the cursed lock, and 10 without...and see no difference in function...no problems with the locks, nor with those without the locks. I don't like the decision to put them on, but see no great conspiracy in that decision either...just Smith's reaction to their legal Dept's advice.

Rod

 

[ferretray]

Not a chance I'll ever own a S&W with the ILS. Each to their own.

 

[AdamSean]

Just remove it. There are a couple of youtube videos that walk you through it. I do it on all my Smiths.

 

[jolly roger]

Only one I have with a lock is a 21 44 Special nickel. Excellent accuracy and no lock issues..yet. A lot of rounds through that gun.

 

[michael t]

Their just to many nice older S&W revolvers looking for a home. They can be bought at a good price and I feel better than anything S&W makes to day . Its not just the lock its the over all cheapening of the pistols.

I buy only older S&W models with 2 numbers . Like 13, 15 ,36 ,37 , 29 , or I will find a pre Mode 10 now and them. . You all buy the new ones I will stick to older ones. I like a firing pin on hammer and pin barrels . I pocket carry a older 36. Yes you can carry a steel frame in pocket Was done for years and years . I have Don Hume pocket Holster He again Iam old fashion I want leather holsters .

Many S&W revolvers spent their life in a sock drawer. Owner dies and kids want to be rid of evil gun. I watched a man in his 80's sell a mint S&W 36 . He was being forced to move into a old folks home and of course no gun allowed . Dealer gave him fair price and then kept for himself.
I have 3 daughter's they all shoot and 2 CCW . They each know what part of my small collection they will get when I am gone. Pistols rifles and shot guns As my father passed on to me I will do same..

,

 

[Walkg]

"Others can do what they please to include not buying S&W. There are some in the gun community who swear they will never buy another Remington firearm simply because Remington did not stick it to New York State and move their factory. We have radicals on both sides of any and every issue."

Did not know that using one's power of purchase to be radical !

 

[Black_Sheep]

It appears that I'm one of the few to experience failure due to S&W's internal lock. A brand new, box stock Model 60-14 locked up on me while shooting double taps. The flag was protruding slightly from the normal "at rest" position and the trigger and hammer were both back slightly, neither would move. It finally "unjammed" after manipulating the hammer while at the same time turning the key in the lock.

I still have the gun and it has performed flawlessly since the nub was removed from the flag...

 

[kcub]

The lock puts them in the same category as Taurus in desirability in my book. Y'all can have mine. I'll keep looking at the ones that used to be made right.

 

[pilpens]

The simple fact is that the lock is a mechanical device that can fail.
It may rarely fail. It maybe that only 0.000001% of locks fail but if the faulty lock is on your revolver, then it is 100% fail on your handgun at that time.
Is it critical? maybe not .... maybe yes depending on use.

Can a lock fail on a handgun that does not have a lock? --- very very not likely.

So, given a choice --- lock or no lock? No lock for me.

 

[44 AMP]

Tyranny of the anti-gun masses...

Why is there any reason to have a lock in the first place?

I have never understood the reasoning behind it. Other than as an impact weapon, an unloaded gun is not capable of being dangerous.

Locking a loaded gun (particularly with a trigger lock) is the act of an idiot. To those who think that they are somehow gaining some kind of an advantage by having the gun already loaded, so "all" they have to do is unlock it, there is no gun commonly used for protection I can think of that cannot be loaded in the time it takes to get the key, insert it, and unlock the gun.

The solution we have always used for all our guns when not under our direct personal control is to have secure storage for either the gun, or the ammunition. Some people do both.

If your life is such that unsupervised children (of any physical age) can get access to your gun(s) and ammunition, you should be changing something major in your storage situation.

 

[Sevens]

If I am forced to play devil's advocate, it's your last sentence.

I don't like -ANYONE'S- rendition of an internal lock and I wish they'd never been invented. However. If I'm searching for a "positive" of them, it would be quite simply that with a small key and a system (not at all!) easily defeated without that key, the end user can render a handgun almost nearly completely safe from being loaded & fired, without the extra work, cost, time, etc etc etc in exploring and implementing proper storage solutions.

In that regard, an ILS can save a small faction of lazy/ignorant folks who fail to secure handguns up from children or others who might be curious/ignorant/reckless.

Lowest common denominator, I suppose. "If it saves only -ONE- child..."

Truthfully, magazine disconnect safeties can be viewed in the same manner. A magazine disconnect safety is a nuisance to many of us, but it absolutely can be the one single device that prevents one idiot teenager from shooting his friend in the face with his Dad's pistol found in a desk drawer.

 

[Webleymkv]

Truthfully, magazine disconnect safeties can be viewed in the same manner. A magazine disconnect safety is a nuisance to many of us, but it absolutely can be the one single device that prevents one idiot teenager from shooting his friend in the face with his Dad's pistol found in a desk drawer.

Actually, under certain circumstances, a magazine disconnect can be seen as a positive attribute. If one is involved in a struggle over control of the weapon, a gun with a magazine disconnect can be rendered inoperable by simply ejecting the magazine. It is for this reason that many police department prefer the feature.

 

[GM2]

My Smith & Wesson Model 686- Plus is the only revolver I have with the locking mechanism. I have fired many rounds through it without any problems. The hole in the side doesn't bother me at all. It is a great revolver and fun to shoot.

 

[Rogervzv]

My Smith & Wesson Model 686- Plus is the only revolver I have with the locking mechanism. I have fired many rounds through it without any problems. The hole in the side doesn't bother me at all. It is a great revolver and fun to shoot.

+1. I have several modern S&Ws that have the lock and have put thousands of rounds through them. Never any failure. These are fabulous guns. All this "lock" talk is internet myth nonsense. But hey, if it makes some people happy not to buy S&Ws, Ruger makes great revolvers too, and they do not have locks.

 

[44 AMP]

under certain circumstances, a magazine disconnect can be seen as a positive attribute. If one is involved in a struggle over control of the weapon, a gun with a magazine disconnect can be rendered inoperable by simply ejecting the magazine. It is for this reason that many police department prefer the feature.

Yes, in those circumstances. But in those exact same circumstances, you not being able to fire the gun since the mag is dropped can be a BAD thing as well. Personally, I prefer having a single shot to no shot but that's just me.

A magazine disconnect safety is a nuisance to many of us, but it absolutely can be the one single device that prevents one idiot teenager from shooting his friend in the face with his Dad's pistol found in a desk drawer.

True. But I think the better single thing is not having the loaded pistol in a desk drawer for the idiot teenager to find in the first place.

But hey, if it makes some people happy not to buy S&Ws, Ruger makes great revolvers too, and they do not have locks.

Actually, some do have locks. Its just not "in your face" the way the S&W lock is.