Intregal Revolver Locks

I have a Taurus that came with a lock from the factory. Unlike the S&W, the entirety of the mechanism of the lock was contained inside the hammer. I removed the lock and filled the void with molten lead. I think it helped with light strikes.

I remember reading something about it several years ago, and since my 442 has the lock, I 'googled' and found out that it does happen more than I'm comfortable with; and that also the lock could be deleted. So I watched a video or three about how to delete it.

But I never actually got to the point of deleting it. (I'm kinda lazy). Also, I don't really shoot it much to check for function, but thus far it's been flawless. I just gamble that it won't fail when I do carry it and in the event I actually need it.

I might delete it someday. Or just sell it. I don't know.

Omaha-BeenGlockin said:

The lock

That's why my revolvers are Rugers----and why I refuse to buy a new S&W

Click to expand...

I have a Davidson's New vaquero 45 Colt that has a lock in the grip.

For a while, Ruger used an in-line key lock under the grips on certain single-actions.
Those are long gone.
Denis

6.8KT said:

I remember reading something about it several years ago, and since my 442 has the lock, I 'googled' and found out that it does happen more than I'm comfortable with; and that also the lock could be deleted. So I watched a video or three about how to delete it.

But I never actually got to the point of deleting it. (I'm kinda lazy). Also, I don't really shoot it much to check for function, but thus far it's been flawless. I just gamble that it won't fail when I do carry it and in the event I actually need it.

I might delete it someday. Or just sell it. I don't know.

Click to expand...

The Centennial J frames are all available with or without the ILS. That of course includes your M442. I bought one the first week they were available.

ArchAngelCD said:

The Centennial J frames are all available with or without the ILS. That of course includes your M442. I bought one the first week they were available.

Click to expand...

I bought mine circa 2009, on an impulse, and wasn't aware of the lock at the time.
Normally I research anything I buy, but not that time.

It's also going to tick (to put it nicely), a lot of people off who spent $700-$1000+ on a current model revolver with a lock if S&W removes the lock in the future. Their firearms will lose hundreds in value overnight...

The only S&W revolver I own is a 640 pro which does not have a lock. I want to pick up 627 pc snub, but the lock is one of the main reasons keeping me from doing so....

ArchAngelCD said:

The most credible report was from Michael Bane on his blog. He reported to have filmed a S&W lock stopping the gun from firing while testing. He said he would post it the next day because it was late but of course that never happened. Two days later the original blog disappeared and emails were ignored. I'm guessing S&W threatened to pull their advertising from the many TV shows he has but that's only a guess. (but a good guess)

For some reason, even though S&W has different owners than those who made the deal to install the locks they refused to suspend installing them. They know they are bad and prove it by offering no lock guns to police agencies and in the most popular J frame revolver with Centennial frames.

If the default state was not locked I would not care but it's not. If that tiny spring fails the default state is locked. I guess they don't want to admit the locks were wrong by no longer using them.

Just my 2¢...

Click to expand...

Massad Ayoob also has a first hand account of a failure that rendered the gun inoperable.

Styx said:

It's also going to tick (to put it nicely), a lot of people off who spent $700-$1000+ on a current model revolver with a lock if S&W removes the lock in the future. Their firearms will lose hundreds in value overnight...

The only S&W revolver I own is a 640 pro which does not have a lock. I want to pick up 627 pc snub, but the lock is one of the main reasons keeping me from doing so....

Click to expand...

If you can find one, they did make that model prior to the lock, but it’s crazy expensive for the pre-lock model. Between $2000 and $3000 last I looked!

6.8KT said:

...since my 442 has the lock, ...

I might delete it someday. Or just sell it. I don't know.

Click to expand...

A plugged hole is still a hole. Sell it.

They know they are bad and prove it by offering no lock guns to police agencies and in the most popular J frame revolver with Centennial frames.

Click to expand...

No locks are available on many models to us "regular civilians"; I own a 642 like that
Worse come to worse, simply remove the lock and get the plug for the Hillary Hole
Folks making WAY too much about this

Drail said:

T........The first time I examined a S&W lock revolver I had to shake my head. To take something as reliable and refined as a S&W lockwork and then intentionally screw it up is just stupid.

Click to expand...

I'm with Drail. The S&W lock is so flimsy, even Rube Goldberg would shake his head.

I've removed it from my main 686 competition gun.

Looking at the mechanism, I understand how recoil torque could flip the lock plate on.

My 642 has a lock, and it took about 10 minutes to grind the lock nub off and polish it smooth. Now I don't have to wonder.

Catpop said:

dickydalton
Can you post a pic of under grip RUGER lock so we can ogle it? Thanks

Click to expand...

Look at post #11 here http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/showthread.php?419050-RUGER-LCR-has-lock-under-grips

It shows an LCR and a single action revolver. The lock keeps the hammer strut from moving, which keeps the hammer from cocking.

I have a T85 with the hammer blocking screw built it. As has been stated it wont move unless i use the little 'wrench'.
Is the S&W revolver lock different in that a spring can unintentionally snap it into 'locked 'position?

If so... that sucks.

chicharrones said:

Look at post #11 here http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/showthread.php?419050-RUGER-LCR-has-lock-under-grips

It shows an LCR and a single action revolver. The lock keeps the hammer strut from moving, which keeps the hammer from cocking.

Click to expand...

But there is no tiny spring to break or dislodge where the lock can set itself. That lock has to be manually set with the key. Again, the S&W lock is always set and has to be turned off with a key and relies on a tiny spring to keep it that way.

I have a Taurus M941 with the internal lock in the hammer. I have not had any problems with light primer strikes and, as far as internal locks go, the best design.

I am considering getting a S&W Model 69. I have no idea why I want a gun that serves absolutely no useful purpose for me so maybe that is why I want it. If I do get one I will replace the internal lock with "The Plug". As commented I consider the internal lock something waiting to fail just when you need your gun to work the most.

460Shooter said:

I think the bottom line is it's another set of moving parts that can fail.

I don't let that bother me though.

Click to expand...

^^^This is where I am at. Since S&W started to put locks on their revolvers, I have heard tens of thousands of re[ports of them failing. When it come down to proof, it's always "well, it was a friend of a friend.....but my friends saw it happen!". With no follow up proof showing it was lock failure....or the reply is vague and incomplete. Can they fail? Sure. Do they fail? Probably. Again, they are another part. In reality, the rate of failure must be pretty low, and lower than other issues. Have yet to ever personally read or hear of an actual incident where the lock failed when the gun was needed....i.e., SD or hunting. Most folks know that S&W's lock is easily removed if not wanted, and thus, any amount of risk of failure is now gone. I have 5 S&W revolvers with locks on them. Probably have 20,000 rounds thru them. This include dedicated hunting revolvers shooting heavy recoiling hunting loads. While the extractor rods have loosened up after a long period of range use and locked up the guns, I have yet to ever have a IL lock 'em up. Maybe we need to eliminate extractor rods on S&Ws............

As for the Bane and Ayoob references......from the "Lucky Gunner" lounge,

Michael Bane. One of the most notable instances of a well-known industry professional “outing” the S&W lock problem. He later admits that having custom work done on the revolver does bring into question the origin of the malfunction.

Massad Ayoob. Another noted author and firearms instructor weighs in on the lock issue. Mas is not a fan, but admits he has carried a lock-equipped revolver, though only after extensive test-firing. He also includes some good thoughts regarding the wisdom of removing the lock on a self-defense revolver.

Click to expand...

How many people have failure to feed on their autos? Jammed up, stovepiped or magazine fell out? Did you trash your auto? Or do you hope it never happens again?

dickydalton said:

How many people have failure to feed on their autos? Jammed up, stovepiped or magazine fell out? Did you trash your auto? Or do you hope it never happens again?

Click to expand...

They most certainly wouldn't carry that gun until the problem was fixed. If it was an inherent problem with the design (like it might be with the S&W lock), they most likely would trash that particular make/model or stopped carrying that brand all together... Plus, are you really comparing a malfunction that can be cleared relatively quickly during a self defense allocation or during competition to a malfunction that'll render the entire firearm inoperable?

Check out the Kuhnhausen S&W Revolvers 5th edition for an honest opinion of the state of current production s&w revolver.

The fanboys of the wind up guns are aghast at what he has to say.

Thaddeus Jones said:

Check out the Kuhnhausen S&W Revolvers 5th edition for an honest opinion of the state of current production s&w revolver.

The fanboys of the wind up guns are aghast at what he has to say.

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?

These locks are a controversial issue & tend to get quite emotional in threads about 'em.

Many specious arguments are raised as to why they're no big deal, and truly they MAY not be a big deal for recreational shooters where a gun that locks itself up at the range is merely a nuisance.

There are, however, some facts to be considered.
One is that they undeniably add complexity to a very good design that is NOT improved in the slightest by their inclusion.

Another is that they DO fail.
While most individual users don't call the S&W Lock Failure Hotline, or their local TV news department, to report lock failures to be included in the national lock failure database; totally dismissing any account of a failure that you did not personally witness yourself is fatuous.

Another is that the percentages, as I noted earlier, ARE LOW, but THEY DO HAPPEN.
The odds are in your favor that your lock-equipped Smith revolver will never lock up on you.
But- there's always that small percentage that offsets those odds, and how can you guarantee you won't land among that group that falls on the wrong side of the odds?
With a lock, you're vulnerable to the laws of chance.
Without a lock, that particular vulnerability does not exist.

Another is the inference that these locks only seem to fail at the range, and never when actually needed, as when hunting or for self defense.
Consider, again, the percentages- a typical range session may involve anywhere from 50 to 200 rounds fired, whereas a hunt or defensive encounter may only involve one or two.
Where, again, do the odds of lock failure point you?
The range may be where the odds are greatest of a lock failure, due to sheer volume, but that in no way suggests that a failure won't happen after you've fired your first shot at a deer or attacker.
Also realize that most of these locked Smiths are not used for hunting, which further diminishes the possibility of a failure in the field.
And that in both of the cases we've been discussing, Bane's & Ayoob's, those happened to new guns.
As in the possibility of a first-occasion failure does exist, which is directly applicable to a buyer obtaining one for home defense & not shooting it much before it might be needed.

Arguments for & against a lock that nobody asked for & nobody needs, and which IS a bad design and which IS known to periodically fail, will continue as long as S&W continues to insist on using them.
The odds are in your favor, but if the lock's there, so does undeniably exist at least the possibility of failure, if not the probability.

We can bicker back & forth all day long, and there will be no consensus.
It boils down to this:

S&W took an unwanted position with these locks.
They are maintaining (for the most part) that position, in the face of strong customer dislike.
They are not admitting any fault with that lock.
They show no signs of backing down.

Many buyers today suffer from DK-DC Syndrome (Don't Know-Don't Care), until or unless they encounter a failure themselves.

Since the only new Smith revolvers offered (excepting a handful of Js) WILL have that lock, if you want new & it's gotta be a Smith then you have no choice, you're stuck with the lock.
You buy the horse, you also buy the horse manure that comes with it, and you deal with the downside.

We all have to make a choice- we play the odds & buy a new Smith with lock, or we don't.
Chances are we'll be fine if we do.
Understanding that somewhere, sometime, somehow, somebody WON'T be fine, and a failure WILL occur.
Whether that somebody is you, and whether it'll be at the range playing or in your hand fighting for your life, nobody can predict.

Once again, all of this has been an extended answer to the original poster's question.
Yes- the locks do fail.
Not often, but yes, they do.
Denis

I wonder what the mean time between failures of the S&W lock compare with the mean time between failures of other components in the firing control system in the revolver.