Any trouble with the dreaded lock?
- Thread starter jeremiah
- Start date
- Status
fastbolt
Member
Several of our folks have bought the newer revolvers with this locking mechanism, and nobody's experienced any problems.
Since I'm just a pistol, rifle & shotgun armorer for my agency, and NOT a revolver armorer, I asked the revolver armorer what he thought about them. He owns a couple of the them.
He said the design is mechanically "neutral" ... and then seeing my perplexed expression, he said that he didn't think it should ever be a problem for anyone under normal circumstances (basically meaning unless someone opens the sideplate and tinkers with it). Unlike another safety lock on another make of revolver, I've never heard/read of any reported instances where "recoil forces" caused this particular locking mechanism to "unintentionally" engage ... and the revolver guy said that he couldn't see how that could happen with this ingenious design in the newer S&W revolvers.
It may "offend" some folk's sense of tradition, since there's a new "hole" in the port side of the frame ... and it certainly seems to have offended a few folk's "political beliefs", for that matter ... but it doesn't appear as though it would cause any "problems", and I wouldn't be bothered by its presence if I were in the market for a new revolver.
Has anybody actually heard/read/known of a case where it's been a problem, mechanically?
Since I'm just a pistol, rifle & shotgun armorer for my agency, and NOT a revolver armorer, I asked the revolver armorer what he thought about them. He owns a couple of the them.
He said the design is mechanically "neutral" ... and then seeing my perplexed expression, he said that he didn't think it should ever be a problem for anyone under normal circumstances (basically meaning unless someone opens the sideplate and tinkers with it). Unlike another safety lock on another make of revolver, I've never heard/read of any reported instances where "recoil forces" caused this particular locking mechanism to "unintentionally" engage ... and the revolver guy said that he couldn't see how that could happen with this ingenious design in the newer S&W revolvers.
It may "offend" some folk's sense of tradition, since there's a new "hole" in the port side of the frame ... and it certainly seems to have offended a few folk's "political beliefs", for that matter ... but it doesn't appear as though it would cause any "problems", and I wouldn't be bothered by its presence if I were in the market for a new revolver.
Has anybody actually heard/read/known of a case where it's been a problem, mechanically?
Pappy John
Member
No problems to report here. It occurs to me that with all the indignation expressed over this little pimple, that an enterprising smith could make a lot of money by making little blued and stainless filler discs to precisely fit that hole so that you could only tell it was there by close examination.
Arub
Member
The only problem I had with an infernal lock was with a Taurus M85UL. Went to the range to shoot, unloaded bag, went to load revolver and discovered the dadblame key was at the house. When I got home, I unlocked the UL and have never locked any handgun since.
Other than the lunacy reported in the preceding paragraph, no problems with either Smith or Taurus locks.
Other than the lunacy reported in the preceding paragraph, no problems with either Smith or Taurus locks.
one45auto
Member
I'm one of the indignant, because I have refused to purchase any new revolvers from Smith which feature that abhorrent lock. True, it doesn't affect nor interfere with the operation of the gun, but neither does a pimple affect our ability to walk, run, eat, or sleep. It is, however, a visual irritant and therefore undesirable.
fastbolt
Member
You know, I can remember the howling and indignation over the transfer bar system when it was incorporated by Ruger in their SA revolvers. They're still selling even better than ever, though ...
It wasn't the first such system used in a revolver, not by a long shot, and it won't be the last ...
I suspect it'll be the same with internal locking mechanisms in revolvers & pistols ... the howling & indignation, but then the eventual widespread adoption of similar designs.
It wasn't the first such system used in a revolver, not by a long shot, and it won't be the last ...
I suspect it'll be the same with internal locking mechanisms in revolvers & pistols ... the howling & indignation, but then the eventual widespread adoption of similar designs.
PlayTheAces
Member
I've got a 625 with the lock, and while it bugged me at first, now I don't notice it. It hasn't caused any mechanical problems, and I can't see how it really could as it's not part of the action.
When I first got the gun, I engaged the lock once just to see how it worked. Then I disengaged it, tossed the key in the box, and forgot about it. It's become a non-issue for me.
When I first got the gun, I engaged the lock once just to see how it worked. Then I disengaged it, tossed the key in the box, and forgot about it. It's become a non-issue for me.
Prodigalshooter
Member
Ditto.
J Miller
Member
I can't resist.
I shouldn't even post here.
But here goes.
I have two old S&W's that don't have locks.
I don't have to "justify" buying one to myself and then wishing the lock wasn't there.
I don't have to wonder if every one is right and the lock is neutral or not.
I don't have that tiny little nagging wory of weather or not this gadget will interfeer with my gun when I need it the most.
I don't own any guns with shyster inspired locks. I refuse to buy them.
I don't care who makes them.
Ruger is making guns with them, I won't buy them.
No Tauruses.
No Springfields.......well maybe a 1911, I can take the mainspring housing out and put in an old style one.
No Remingtons.
No anybody elses.
No internal locks on any of my guns. Not now, not later, not ever.
These are my feelings on this issue. Your's may (obviously do) vary.
Joe
I shouldn't even post here.
But here goes.
I have two old S&W's that don't have locks.
I don't have to "justify" buying one to myself and then wishing the lock wasn't there.
I don't have to wonder if every one is right and the lock is neutral or not.
I don't have that tiny little nagging wory of weather or not this gadget will interfeer with my gun when I need it the most.
I don't own any guns with shyster inspired locks. I refuse to buy them.
I don't care who makes them.
Ruger is making guns with them, I won't buy them.
No Tauruses.
No Springfields.......well maybe a 1911, I can take the mainspring housing out and put in an old style one.
No Remingtons.
No anybody elses.
No internal locks on any of my guns. Not now, not later, not ever.
These are my feelings on this issue. Your's may (obviously do) vary.
Joe
denfoote
Member
Ditto with my Taurus M85UL and M605.
Guy B. Meredith
Member
I don't even notice my M66 HAS a lock until someone mentions it. Don't know where the keys are, either.
Penforhire
Member
ditto for my 686+, but PLEASE post if you ever hear of a malfunction!
Tony Mig
Member
I was told by the gun dealer who sold me my 686, that if not completely disconnected, the lock could cause a drag on the action, especially with a DA trigger pull. I don't know if this is an assumption on his part, or educated information, but I know what I'll do with it once I get this gun home......."unlock it, and leave it that way".......
any trouble with dreaded locks
I have a Smith 642 and a couple of Taurus wheel guns and a self loader with those stupid locks. I guess there is a purpose for 'em but i sure can't figure it out. Just make sure you have one of those stupid keys in your gun bag when you go to the range. Don't ask me why, i'll deny everything. And don't listen to the guy beside me snickerin' and pointin' at me.
I have a Smith 642 and a couple of Taurus wheel guns and a self loader with those stupid locks. I guess there is a purpose for 'em but i sure can't figure it out. Just make sure you have one of those stupid keys in your gun bag when you go to the range. Don't ask me why, i'll deny everything. And don't listen to the guy beside me snickerin' and pointin' at me.
Stainz
Member
I am a realist. In fact, heresy as it may be, I like the current S&W's. As to that hammer-lock-zit, I have two S&W's so equipped - a 625 and a 66. My only problem was the time I wasted trying to clean that black spot off above the cylinder release when I was cleaning the 625 a year or so back. That was fixed quite easily - I wear my reading glasses when I clean my firearms now.
Isn't the current owner of S&W 'Safe-T Lock'?
Stainz
PS My Ruger 'Old Army' cap & ball doesn't have a lock...
Isn't the current owner of S&W 'Safe-T Lock'?
Stainz
PS My Ruger 'Old Army' cap & ball doesn't have a lock...
5Wire
Member
Consider this. Where internal locks are required by law, manufacturers have to incorporate them or sell in markets without the law or go out of business. Refusing to buy firearms with internal locks reduces current sales for manufacturers. Extensive sales reduction decreases a manufacturer's ability to remain in business. Therefore, the refusal to by internal lock equipped firearms is equivalent to supporting fewer manufacturers of firearms. The Brady Campaign should be pleased with that attitude.
On the other hand, manufacturers constantly incorporate refinements in design, materials, and manufacturing processes which improve quality, accuracy, and consistency in their products. So, in another sense, refusal to buy guns with "lawyer locks" is contrary to some of the most important reasons for having guns in the first place.
The Smith & Wesson locks--I have four so equipped out of eight S&Ws--are designed to be benign if unused. If you luck on to something you like without a lock, great, otherwise I say, "Get over it!"
IMHO = $0.02
5Wire
On the other hand, manufacturers constantly incorporate refinements in design, materials, and manufacturing processes which improve quality, accuracy, and consistency in their products. So, in another sense, refusal to buy guns with "lawyer locks" is contrary to some of the most important reasons for having guns in the first place.
The Smith & Wesson locks--I have four so equipped out of eight S&Ws--are designed to be benign if unused. If you luck on to something you like without a lock, great, otherwise I say, "Get over it!"
IMHO = $0.02
5Wire
any trouble with dreaded locks
I've never actually had any trouble with those little pimple lookin' things they're just ugly as stink. Kinda like putting a bumper sticker on the hood of a new Mustang Cobra. Once the action was worked over on my Smith 642 i couldn't really tell any differance between it and my 36 or 60. I'm just an old coot who's a little slow accepting modern technolgy but i WILLNOT refuse to buy any new guns equipped with those little pimples. To many neat guns out there to miss out on. To quote 5Wire 'Get over it!!'
I've never actually had any trouble with those little pimple lookin' things they're just ugly as stink. Kinda like putting a bumper sticker on the hood of a new Mustang Cobra. Once the action was worked over on my Smith 642 i couldn't really tell any differance between it and my 36 or 60. I'm just an old coot who's a little slow accepting modern technolgy but i WILLNOT refuse to buy any new guns equipped with those little pimples. To many neat guns out there to miss out on. To quote 5Wire 'Get over it!!'
5Wire
Member
Penforhire
I couldn't find the post but it had to be six months ago or more in the 1946-to present forum (which remains unsearchable to the present.) Prolly find it by paging through back posts. Or maybe someone else on THR saw it and has a better memory than I do. If I find it I'll put up the link.
The physics of the rotation of the lock makes its accidental engagement possible only under catastrophic circumstances such as a sudden, explosive, clockwise rotation around the lock's axis sufficient enough to have the miniscule mass of the lock cylinder remain stationary--thanks to Sir Isaac Newton-- while the revolver (and, presumably, you) pinwheel in a clockwise direction. Not to worry, anything that could cause that would be unrelated to the revolver and you'd most likely be dead already.
IMO Locktite is NOT A GOOD IDEA especially the permanent stuff. It introduces a substance to the revolver's lockworks much more likely to gum things up. Leave the lock alone. It won't engage unless you turn the key. If you have the key. Or if someone else has a key and they turn it.
Aside: Rather than a zit, think of the lock as a small mole on Sophia Loren's face (or fill-in-the-blank's face.) Just a thought.
There was a post over on the S&W Forum where a gunsmith reported a metallurgical failure of a S&W lock which crystallized, fragmented, and prevented unloading of the revolver. A very low probability occurance.
I couldn't find the post but it had to be six months ago or more in the 1946-to present forum (which remains unsearchable to the present.) Prolly find it by paging through back posts. Or maybe someone else on THR saw it and has a better memory than I do. If I find it I'll put up the link.
The physics of the rotation of the lock makes its accidental engagement possible only under catastrophic circumstances such as a sudden, explosive, clockwise rotation around the lock's axis sufficient enough to have the miniscule mass of the lock cylinder remain stationary--thanks to Sir Isaac Newton-- while the revolver (and, presumably, you) pinwheel in a clockwise direction. Not to worry, anything that could cause that would be unrelated to the revolver and you'd most likely be dead already.
IMO Locktite is NOT A GOOD IDEA especially the permanent stuff. It introduces a substance to the revolver's lockworks much more likely to gum things up. Leave the lock alone. It won't engage unless you turn the key. If you have the key. Or if someone else has a key and they turn it.
Aside: Rather than a zit, think of the lock as a small mole on Sophia Loren's face (or fill-in-the-blank's face.) Just a thought.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Amen!
S_O_Laban
Member
Someone on this forum, mentioned a while back, as soon as they got their gun home a drop of super glue went in the lock rendering it useless. The only real downside to this, I suppose, is if the gun has to be returned for service or it's condition happens to come up in court if you used it in self defence. Something to think about... I guess.
- Status
