True enough, but to clarify; in this case, @kidneyboy used the (admittedly strong) term “pathetic” to refer to an argument, rather than anyone directly.
Intregal Revolver Locks
- Thread starter Catpop
- Start date
- Status
True enough, but to clarify; in this case, @kidneyboy used the (admittedly strong) term “pathetic” to refer to an argument, rather than anyone directly.
You are missing the point - The people complaining about locks are a small but annoyingly noisy group with zero influence on anything S&W does. Revolver sales increase every year. What is the descriptor for someone that whines about something they can't change?
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,250
On about every youtube review and within their comments, forum post, etc, the overwhelming consensus is that the lock is unwanted. Even people who deal with the lock, usually also meantion they do not want it there.
Enough people keep "whining" it will eventually get changed, or someone else will come in and fill the void. If everyone just "shuts up" about it, it most definitely will not change. At the very least, S&W might keep the lock, but release a lockless alternatives for the same model..
A small but "annoyingly noisy" group was ALSO "whining" about a Glock 19 sized M&P for years as well, and even though it took some time, S&W eventually listened. Part of that can be attributed to them listening to their customers, and the other part was them wanting to compete with the competition. I'm sure that if S&W customers stayed toght lipped and had the attitude that their voices don't matter, S&W most likely would have never made changes...
Last edited:
Failures may be real but they are statistically insignificant. All mass produced products have a failure rate.
It doesn't matter what this (almost) nobody group thinks of the lock. The guns are selling regardless. This (almost) nobody group also seems statistically insignificant.
If politics put the locks on the revolvers go out and vote next election.
mcb
Member
This is the part of the internal lock discussion I don't get. I think very few, if any, of us can actually have a meaningful effect on whether S&W offers the lock or not. Even collectively we seem to have limited effect. Yet these arguments always degenerate into an argument about what S&W should or should not do or what OTHER people should or should not do about the lock.
In reality the lock is here, it does not appear to be going anywhere. All you can do when considering YOUR OWN purchase of a S&W revolver, is research the lock, and then decided if your are buying pre-lock (or of the limited offering of lock-less J-frames), buying post-lock and living with it, buy post lock and removing/disabling the lock or not buying S&W at all. Have I missed an option?
No amount of arguing changes your options in buying a S&W revolver. I would bet $5 on the fact that S&W is not monitoring this forum as part of the future produce planing process.
Why do some get insulted when someone else selects an option different than their own choice? All you can do is put the FACTS out there and let other people decide.
In reality the lock is here, it does not appear to be going anywhere. All you can do when considering YOUR OWN purchase of a S&W revolver, is research the lock, and then decided if your are buying pre-lock (or of the limited offering of lock-less J-frames), buying post-lock and living with it, buy post lock and removing/disabling the lock or not buying S&W at all. Have I missed an option?
No amount of arguing changes your options in buying a S&W revolver. I would bet $5 on the fact that S&W is not monitoring this forum as part of the future produce planing process.
Why do some get insulted when someone else selects an option different than their own choice? All you can do is put the FACTS out there and let other people decide.
"statistically insignificant"? If you DESPERATELY need your gun to function on a dark street some night and it will not - that's not "insignificant". It does not matter how many times you believe these locks fail - it only has to happen one time.
Deanimator
Member
Home invasions are "statistically insignificant" in Cheshire, Connecticut... unless your name is Pettit.
From a Gun Nuts Media article a few years ago -
"Lawyers + publicly traded company = the lock stays. Regardless of how it would play out in terms of sales, there’s basically no way to convince a publicly traded company that walking back a “safety feature” would play well on the NASDAQ. Even though it would actually increase sales, publicly traded companies like S&W tend to be risk-adverse, and for good reason. They have a duty to deliver returns to their shareholders, which is harder to do when CNN is running hit pieces on “gun manufacturer makes guns less safe.”
While I disagree with the increased sales comment ( look at the numbers folks) this is as good an explanation as your going to get.
"Lawyers + publicly traded company = the lock stays. Regardless of how it would play out in terms of sales, there’s basically no way to convince a publicly traded company that walking back a “safety feature” would play well on the NASDAQ. Even though it would actually increase sales, publicly traded companies like S&W tend to be risk-adverse, and for good reason. They have a duty to deliver returns to their shareholders, which is harder to do when CNN is running hit pieces on “gun manufacturer makes guns less safe.”
While I disagree with the increased sales comment ( look at the numbers folks) this is as good an explanation as your going to get.
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,250
Buttttt... They already started offering some revolvers without the lock just as they offer semiautos without safeties. I disagree and it remains to be seen if they do not start offering more or even all models without a lock in the future.
I'm not a fan. I dont think it would ever fail on me, but if I draw a gun for self defense like the 642 is designed for, I dont want anything else working against me. I may bobble the draw, i may squeeze off a round 2' before i actually get the barrel on target, i may short stroke the trigger or even let the gun buck out of my hand. I dont need to invite the universe to kill me with any delicious amount of, "Man, this just ain't your day, partner" ironic lock failure.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,051
12 years ago, when I joined this forum, the IL was a hot issue, along with the use of MIM parts. If the new S&Ws did not fall apart with every shot, they were gonna lock up! Just you wait and see! Everyone boycott S&W and they will immediately remove the locks!
Since every one else in the gun industry started to use MIM, that whine has disappeared. S&W is better off today than they were back then. Who's marketing strategy is better? Like with the use of handloads for SD, I still see nuttin' but descriptions of what could happen, even tho it don't.
No....I don't need the lock and I don't use it. Yet it has never stopped me from buying a new S&W. Some of my calibers and some of my models I like, were not available as pre-locks. Not a biggie. My newer S&Ws with the locks have been every bit as reliable and generally more accurate than my older pre-locks. What am I missing?
Fit and finish? If one wants a gun as a piece of art, than I agree, you will never again see deep bluing on a gun, or a hand fitted revolver, priced for the average working man. Me, I look at guns as tools. They need to work and they need to work well. I prefer stainless to blued. While wood is pretty, synthetics are more durable and weather resistant. I want a gun to go bang when I pull the trigger and I want it to hit where it's pointed. Kinda like a good bird dog. Pretty may matter to the wife, but it don;t mean a thing in the field. Even the ugliest dog in the world is beautiful when on a staunch point.
This argument is never going to go away. Buy what you want and respect the right of others to buy what trips their trigger. Decades of arguing this on the internet has not solved anything except waste band width.
Since every one else in the gun industry started to use MIM, that whine has disappeared. S&W is better off today than they were back then. Who's marketing strategy is better? Like with the use of handloads for SD, I still see nuttin' but descriptions of what could happen, even tho it don't.
No....I don't need the lock and I don't use it. Yet it has never stopped me from buying a new S&W. Some of my calibers and some of my models I like, were not available as pre-locks. Not a biggie. My newer S&Ws with the locks have been every bit as reliable and generally more accurate than my older pre-locks. What am I missing?
Fit and finish? If one wants a gun as a piece of art, than I agree, you will never again see deep bluing on a gun, or a hand fitted revolver, priced for the average working man. Me, I look at guns as tools. They need to work and they need to work well. I prefer stainless to blued. While wood is pretty, synthetics are more durable and weather resistant. I want a gun to go bang when I pull the trigger and I want it to hit where it's pointed. Kinda like a good bird dog. Pretty may matter to the wife, but it don;t mean a thing in the field. Even the ugliest dog in the world is beautiful when on a staunch point.
This argument is never going to go away. Buy what you want and respect the right of others to buy what trips their trigger. Decades of arguing this on the internet has not solved anything except waste band width.
thomas15
Member
Personally I don't care what anyone likes, dislikes, owns, shoots or recommends. All I care about is what I have and do.
The truth of the matter is for now at least if you want to shoot in a competitive environment then with two (small) exceptions, it's S&W L or N frames period. I have been shooting competitive revolver for 3 years, I'm in a geographic location that has probably more than average numbers of competitive revolver shooters, I have easily sent 50,000 rounds down range with my competition revolvers, all three have the lock. I'm not one of them but I know some of the serious competitive revolver shooters in the NE, share range time with them, speak to them, listen to their stories. They all shoot revolvers with the lock. None of them talk about the lock that seems to dominate the thinking of many on this forum.
I have seen strain screws back out, rebound springs break, firing pins break, grips fall off, sights break, yoke screws fall out, side plate screws fall out and so forth. I have never seen, heard of or experienced a problem with the dreaded lock. At places like Brian Enos forum or Revo-Nation FB no one talks about the lock. No high volume competitive revolver shooter that I know of makes a buying decision based on the lock.
Very well said^^^
The truth of the matter is for now at least if you want to shoot in a competitive environment then with two (small) exceptions, it's S&W L or N frames period. I have been shooting competitive revolver for 3 years, I'm in a geographic location that has probably more than average numbers of competitive revolver shooters, I have easily sent 50,000 rounds down range with my competition revolvers, all three have the lock. I'm not one of them but I know some of the serious competitive revolver shooters in the NE, share range time with them, speak to them, listen to their stories. They all shoot revolvers with the lock. None of them talk about the lock that seems to dominate the thinking of many on this forum.
I have seen strain screws back out, rebound springs break, firing pins break, grips fall off, sights break, yoke screws fall out, side plate screws fall out and so forth. I have never seen, heard of or experienced a problem with the dreaded lock. At places like Brian Enos forum or Revo-Nation FB no one talks about the lock. No high volume competitive revolver shooter that I know of makes a buying decision based on the lock.
Very well said^^^
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,250
Do competitive shooters typically shoot heavier magnum loads are do they shoot mostly lighter reloads, 45 ACP, 9MM, 38 Special etc? The problem seems to occur with heavier hunting or self defense loads that competitive shooter tend to avoid for obvious reasons. ... Most people that are concerned about and do not like the idea of the lock, especially since there IS more than one CREDIBLE documentation of the lock failing, plan on carrying for life or death situations and not for competition purposes.. That might be another reason why the lock isn't a main concern in the competitive demographic even though a quick search does show that the topic of the S&W lock has in fact come up on the forums you mentioned from time to time.
Last edited:
mcb
Member
One other thing I will bring up as it seem pertinent to this thread. Lots of response include some discussion of probability or "the odds" of the lock failing in their argument for or against the lock.
First we don't have any reliable statistical data on lock failure rate. At best we have anecdotal evidence of some failures but absolutely no hard statistics on frequency of failure, none. I think we can all agree the odds of a lock failure are relatively low but even then I would guess if we tried to estimate the failure rate with our limited data our results would span at least two orders of magnitude if not three or four orders of magnitude. I think S&W customer service and engineering department might do slightly better (but unlikely to be publicly released) but it would still have a fair bit of uncertainty in the number due to a lot of missing data even they can't get like round counts, modifications, abuse, environmental etc.
Second and more importantly it is fairly well established that when you take extremely high or low probability events and couple that with extremely dire or extremely beneficial outcomes for said high/low probability events the human psyche is notorious for completely misinterpreting the probabilities due to the potential outcome (lots of scholarly articles on this). Vegas, lotteries, insurance, extended-warranties etc all make serious money on humanities inability to properly process odds in the face of extreme (perceived or actual) outcomes.
So even if we had a highly accurate failure-rate probability number for the S&W Revolver's internal lock and it was super super vanishing low, in the face of someone's imagined potential death, on the streets, in a gun-fight, with drug-lord-rapists, due to an inoperative S&W revolver due to a lock failure it does not mater what the odds are if they are greater than zero someone is going to freak over them. Just the way the human mind works...
First we don't have any reliable statistical data on lock failure rate. At best we have anecdotal evidence of some failures but absolutely no hard statistics on frequency of failure, none. I think we can all agree the odds of a lock failure are relatively low but even then I would guess if we tried to estimate the failure rate with our limited data our results would span at least two orders of magnitude if not three or four orders of magnitude. I think S&W customer service and engineering department might do slightly better (but unlikely to be publicly released) but it would still have a fair bit of uncertainty in the number due to a lot of missing data even they can't get like round counts, modifications, abuse, environmental etc.
Second and more importantly it is fairly well established that when you take extremely high or low probability events and couple that with extremely dire or extremely beneficial outcomes for said high/low probability events the human psyche is notorious for completely misinterpreting the probabilities due to the potential outcome (lots of scholarly articles on this). Vegas, lotteries, insurance, extended-warranties etc all make serious money on humanities inability to properly process odds in the face of extreme (perceived or actual) outcomes.
So even if we had a highly accurate failure-rate probability number for the S&W Revolver's internal lock and it was super super vanishing low, in the face of someone's imagined potential death, on the streets, in a gun-fight, with drug-lord-rapists, due to an inoperative S&W revolver due to a lock failure it does not mater what the odds are if they are greater than zero someone is going to freak over them. Just the way the human mind works...
Last edited:
True enough - people tend to obsess things that are highly unlikely to threaten them (e.g. a bear attack) while ignoring much more real threats (e.g., obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc).
Still, in the risk/consequence equation, if the consequence is infinite (i.e. the consequence is death or permanent injury), it logically makes sense to remove the risk altogether, even if the risk is small. Our risk of getting hit by lightning is small, for example, but we still take steps to avoid the risk. For those carrying IL-equipped S&W for SD and concerned about potential lock malfunction, it would make sense for them to ease their mind by reducing that risk, either by choosing another gun or by removal of the lock.
True that. Attack the argument (and politely, if you will), not the person.
Deanimator
Member
What I'm always bemused by is the unstated presumption that I somehow have a DUTY to give S&W my money, regardless of what they do or what they sell.
I'm old enough to remember their sell-out to the anti-gunners back in the '90s. At the time I was told that keeping turncoats in business was more important than defending my 2nd Amendment rights.
When the contemptibly incompetently designed locks became a feature, I was again told that EVERYBODY put locks (never mind defectively designed locks) in guns and that I somehow had a DUTY to not only buy an inferior product, but to self-censor myself so as no to criticize that inferior product.
Again, something has been going on at S&W for a while, and it's epitomized both by the in your face nature of the lock, AND things like the bizarre placement of the front sight on their M1917 clone. It's like they saw the "H&K, you suck and we hate you" memes and said, "Hold my beer!"
I'm old enough to remember their sell-out to the anti-gunners back in the '90s. At the time I was told that keeping turncoats in business was more important than defending my 2nd Amendment rights.
When the contemptibly incompetently designed locks became a feature, I was again told that EVERYBODY put locks (never mind defectively designed locks) in guns and that I somehow had a DUTY to not only buy an inferior product, but to self-censor myself so as no to criticize that inferior product.
Again, something has been going on at S&W for a while, and it's epitomized both by the in your face nature of the lock, AND things like the bizarre placement of the front sight on their M1917 clone. It's like they saw the "H&K, you suck and we hate you" memes and said, "Hold my beer!"
As these IL lock threads often do, the thread's in danger of going OT with gripes about the company, so I'd like to re-post (and get back to) the original question. Let's stick to discussing just the lock and it's functionality and save the OT rants for another thread
ArchAngelCD
Member.
To be fair, I did not start this thread and would not start a thread like this one.
If the topic annoys you so much why are you participating in the thread? I'm guessing it's to add annoying and whines to the description of others in the thread. Seriously, why are you in here if you have such contempt for the OP and other contributors?
Last edited:
thomas15
Member
I would say that no to magnum loads. I'm of course in no way at the center of all things revolver but I do find myself at various venues and that quite often. I would say that in purely my personal opinion, of which my opinion is just as valid as anyone else, that those that fret over the lock because they shoot magnum loads don't do a whole lot of actual shooting.
And yes it is true that the lock comes up on enos and revo-nation but those who raise up the subject are bringing it up because they read something on the interweb chit-chat boards and those who answer them by saying no biggie are actually those who do a lot of actual shooting. In other words, what I means is that no one whose opinion matters to me talks about the lock.
But again, I repeat, I personally don't care what anyone owns, shoots or recommends. I don't get my advice on hardware purchases from people I don't know.
Last edited:
mcb
Member
USPSA, IDPA and ICORE revolver shooter are shooting moderate loads. All three sports have a minimum Power Factor floors. Power factor is a measure of recoil impulse (neglecting recoil from propellant) and is calculate by taking bullet weight (in grains) times bullet velocity (in feet/second) and for convinces dividing it by 1000.
USPSA has a 165 or 125 Power Factor requirement depending on if you shooting Major or Minor.
IDPA has a lower power factor requirement. 105 for speed-loader fed revolvers and 155 for moonclip fed revolvers.
ICORE is in roughly the same ball park though I am not super familar with the sport.
The above power factors are minimums and most serious competitors are loading ammo above these numbers by ~5 PF as failing to make power factor at a match does very bad things to your score. These power factors are obtainable fairly easily with properly selected factory loaded 38 Special, 9mm, 40S&W, 45 ACP ammunition commonly used in the sport (though most reload for cost saving and to tailor ammo to their needs ie shooting 38 Short Colt in 357 Mag guns). It is well below the recoil of the big magnum revolver cartridges like 357, 41, 44 mag, 454 Casull etc. But your competitive revolver shooters make up for the moderate recoil with sheer volume of shooting. Many of them are shoot thousands of rounds down range in a typical season. A smaller number of them will be doing tens of thousands of rounds in a season.
Last edited:
thomas15
Member
^^^correct in every detail
edwardware
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 4,424
Once you have the hammer out, use tweezers to pluck out the leaf. Use a file to cut the nub off, and a stone to smooth the inside face. Grease, reassemble, and go in peace.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
