InkEd
Member
Also, why didn't this get posted in the REVOLVER forum?
Internal lock on J frame
- Thread starter Slasher
- Start date
- Status
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,717
Patently untrue. I have read of instances of lock failure in J, K, and N-frames, in Scandium and in steel framed models.
I would remove/disable the ILS in any S&W before using it for carry or SD. It is easily enough done. Putting my money where my mouth is, the only ILS-equipped S&W I own is an M25-13. The prior owner had removed the internal lockwork. I trust it enough to carry it (in the wintertime, when I can conceal it).
Ger1942
Member
I have a 642 I removed the lock. If I sell the gun I'll put it back in. If it's not on my person it's locked up in our safe. If it's on my person why would I want it locked?
sm
member
The whole is equal to the sum of its parts/
Old Fuff, Standing Wolf, others...
I had a new 642 with the lock and actually liked it. You both "know" me as others around do, but I wanted to "investigate and verify" for myself.
I gotta admit, the "new" star extractor, impressed the heck out of me. This gun is in the hands of a LEO, a member here on THR now. (or should be)
The darn gun had one of the best triggers, out of the box, I have personally experienced in a while. It got better with the shooting I did with it...
My deal was simple: "investigate and verify" for myself, not Internet garbage from those parroting information, based on who-knows-what, as they have NOT handled, much less shot one of the "locked" guns.
Yeah, I have my "druthers" but I gotta say the one new with lock, "done good". And the LEO whom is a member here on THR ain't got a problem with it either. (based on phone discussions we have had in the past and present]
Oh I want an "older one" still having been in a court of law, including, but not limited to "witness".
Personally I have my druthers, but, having btdt, including a court of law, I see a place for the newer guns with a lock, when one considers a "jury of one's peers" and so forth.
Side note: I'd kill for one of my old 042's though... loaded with standard pressure, 158 gr , lswc.
Old Fuff, Standing Wolf, others...
I had a new 642 with the lock and actually liked it. You both "know" me as others around do, but I wanted to "investigate and verify" for myself.
I gotta admit, the "new" star extractor, impressed the heck out of me. This gun is in the hands of a LEO, a member here on THR now. (or should be)
The darn gun had one of the best triggers, out of the box, I have personally experienced in a while. It got better with the shooting I did with it...
My deal was simple: "investigate and verify" for myself, not Internet garbage from those parroting information, based on who-knows-what, as they have NOT handled, much less shot one of the "locked" guns.
Yeah, I have my "druthers" but I gotta say the one new with lock, "done good". And the LEO whom is a member here on THR ain't got a problem with it either. (based on phone discussions we have had in the past and present]
Oh I want an "older one" still having been in a court of law, including, but not limited to "witness".
Personally I have my druthers, but, having btdt, including a court of law, I see a place for the newer guns with a lock, when one considers a "jury of one's peers" and so forth.
Side note: I'd kill for one of my old 042's though... loaded with standard pressure, 158 gr , lswc.
Will I hope my principal point is being understood, but I sometimes wonder if that's so. 
There is no reason to argue about the new vs. older Smith & Wesson revolvers. If one finds the newer ones to be satisfactory (as sm apparently does), then he and others that hold the same opinion can buy anything they like in the company's current catalog, and have no regrets.
On the other hand, those who for whatever reason (and the reasons may have nothing to do with the internal lock) prefer the older guns have the option of buying them in the second-hand market, sometimes at advantageous prices.
While I will openly admit that I am an "older gun" fan, I do not, and never have, tried to impose my belief on others, and in fact would get nowhere if I did.
The truth of the matter is that everyone is free to go in whatever direction they want, and select and buy whatever floats their boat.
So why have an argument?
There is no reason to argue about the new vs. older Smith & Wesson revolvers. If one finds the newer ones to be satisfactory (as sm apparently does), then he and others that hold the same opinion can buy anything they like in the company's current catalog, and have no regrets.
On the other hand, those who for whatever reason (and the reasons may have nothing to do with the internal lock) prefer the older guns have the option of buying them in the second-hand market, sometimes at advantageous prices.
While I will openly admit that I am an "older gun" fan, I do not, and never have, tried to impose my belief on others, and in fact would get nowhere if I did.
The truth of the matter is that everyone is free to go in whatever direction they want, and select and buy whatever floats their boat.
So why have an argument?
Axel Larson
Member
My most recent purchase was a Smith 638 and the guy I bought it from had already removed the lock, but if had not been removed I would have removed it, why take a chance. That being said go with a Smith they shoot great and have wonderful double action triggers.
Hangingrock
Member
Smith & Wesson is hypocritical in regards to the ILS. Their version of the 1911 pistol is ILS free and the M&P semiautomatic pistol series the ILS along with the magazine disconnect is optional. If the ILS was such a worthy addition in the name of security/safety then it would be on all product lines.
DickM
Member
This. I bought a 637 with the IL a few years ago, the only one of my couple dozen S&W revolvers to have it. Every time I picked the gun up there was that keyhole staring back at me, reminding me that my government thinks I'm a moron and has the authority to impose laws upon me accordingly. I couldn't stand it and sold the gun soon after. Then S&W came out with a run of non-IL 642s - I bought one for me and one for my wife and we've lived happily ever after.
easyg
Member
This one has the dreaded lock....but it has never failed to go "BANG!!!" whenever I wanted it to.
Much ado about nothing, IMO.
easyg
Member
Well, in the government's defense, about half of "the people" are morons.
How else do you think those who made and passed such laws got elected.
"The people" get the governement they deserve.
Guillermo
member
well said
Zundfolge
Member
Its for two reasons:
1) In some rare cases (especially in lightweight magnums) the locks have engaged under recoil (or at least there have been reports that they have, I don't know how valid they are).
2) The locks are there because of what is considered a traitors deal the old owners of S&W (who were Brits) made with the Clinton administration and they're seen as a symbol of capitulation to gun banners by a major firearms manufacturer.
I'm not going to argue for or against either position, but as I type this I am wearing a 340M&P in an IWB holster...and it has a lock (but to be honest I only bought this one because it was a great deal ... I'd rather have non lock guns but purely for value and aesthetic reasons).
Guillermo
member
I do not understand why anyone would even consider owning a firearm with a locking device that works on the same axis as the recoil of the gun.
It is the most idiotic design ever.
Of course I would not own an MIM revolver with a 2 piece, crush fit barrel unless I were to get a price break to make such a poor quality gun attractive.
Or put another way...if I am going to buy a gun of Taurus quality...I should get a Taurus price.
M2 Carbine
member
Yes.
I own a lot of S&W revolvers and I am a big S&W fan but I refuse to buy a Smith that has that lock.
I buy the pre lock Smiths.
DickM
Member
Agreed - but that's the half who don't own guns, right?
Guillermo
member
It is my opinion that the pitiful state of new revolver products available proves your assumption to be inaccurate.
I will go no farther to explain so as to avoid violating the rules of this fine forum.
Never had a problem with the lock on my S&W 442, except for the aesthetics. Looks like heck. Got about 1500 rounds through the gun. Then again, there's always Murphy's Law. The possiblity of a lock-up is always there. If it would have been available at the time, I would have picked the no-lock model, just for peace of mind.
sixgunner455
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,052
I was a bit of an ignorant purchaser when I bought my 642-2. I had no real concept of what the lock was, what it meant, or anything of the sort. I had a 1930 M&P in my safe, and was carrying a 1970 Colt DS, and wanted a lightweight, stainless revolver for deep concealment since I was moving to a very hot southern desert area.
I got a 642-2, for a very good price, and it has been my near-constant companion ever since. When I have checked it as baggage on an airline, it has been locked. Those rare events are the only times I have locked it. I have fired so many live rounds, and so many more thousands of dry-fires, that it has one of the slickest triggers on a Jframe I've ever felt. It has a lot of carry wear. I can't imagine selling or trading it. I feel undressed when it isn't in my pocket.
I got a 642-2, for a very good price, and it has been my near-constant companion ever since. When I have checked it as baggage on an airline, it has been locked. Those rare events are the only times I have locked it. I have fired so many live rounds, and so many more thousands of dry-fires, that it has one of the slickest triggers on a Jframe I've ever felt. It has a lot of carry wear. I can't imagine selling or trading it. I feel undressed when it isn't in my pocket.
My 360PD locked up while dry firing, and it took a gunsmith to unlock it. Taking the lock out, at least the way he did it, cause a weird feel to the trigger. A takeup, then kind of sideways feel, then straight.
If the gun was 300 dollars, I'd buy it again and remove the lock. Local gunshop won't sell it, unless the locks on it.
If the gun was 300 dollars, I'd buy it again and remove the lock. Local gunshop won't sell it, unless the locks on it.
Last edited:
cottonmouth
Member
Locks on guns is like tits on turtles.
J.B.
J.B.
Robert B
Member
Bud's Gun Shop
Why not buy a no lock 642 or 442 from Bud's? You don't have to get an IL. $361 plus FFL transfer. I have dealt with Bud's twice. Excellent dealer.
Why not buy a no lock 642 or 442 from Bud's? You don't have to get an IL. $361 plus FFL transfer. I have dealt with Bud's twice. Excellent dealer.
Yes I would pass on any gun that had an internal lock. They are not suitable for serious purpose IMO.
Thankfully, it appears that the current company calling itself S&W's corporate greed, has finally exceeded its corporate arrogance. They now make lock free J-frames.
I would purchase one of the lock free J-frames over a Ruger LCR. Good luck with your decision! TJ
Thankfully, it appears that the current company calling itself S&W's corporate greed, has finally exceeded its corporate arrogance. They now make lock free J-frames.
I would purchase one of the lock free J-frames over a Ruger LCR. Good luck with your decision! TJ
JFrame
Member
Yes I would pass on any gun that had an internal lock. They are not suitable for serious purpose IMO.
Thankfully, it appears that the current company calling itself S&W's corporate greed, has finally exceeded its corporate arrogance. They now make lock free J-frames.
I would purchase one of the lock free J-frames over a Ruger LCR. Good luck with your decision! TJ
Thaddeus -- I've been a little out of the S&W loop lately.
Other than their "Classic" series, are they making any revolvers without the lock?
.
- Status
