Let's get to the bottom of the revolver lock issue once and for all

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am surprised at how vigorously some will deny any and all reports and attempt to whisk away all reports of the lock's mechanical failure with the sweep of a few keyboard keys. Simply denying the veracity of the reports or calling them anecdotal, or saying that your gun hasn't failed *yet* in 2000 rounds of shooting doesn't mean there is no problem or that you won't experience a lock-related failure of the gun to function. I suspect some who own S&W's with the lock will defend it even in the face of evidence contrary to their position, primarily to boost their own confidence in what they own.

It seems as though most people really dislike the look of the lock on the guns and I agree I prefer the look WITHOUT the lock. But of much greater importance to me is the increased potential for reduced reliability. No gun is fail-safe and 100% reliable. There are many things that can go wrong. Why accept yet another mechanical mechanism and spring in the gun which increases the opportunity for a problem?

While I will agree that the likelihood of a lock-related hang-up is probably quite low, I much prefer the reliability odds with the pre-lock models: there is ZERO possibility of a lock-related hang-up on a S&W which does not have the lock.

I think if an individual doesn't mind the lock and wants to buy a S&W with the lock, fine for him... it's his money, his life, his risk... if he's happy with that, so be it... FOR HIM.

BUT not for me. For several reasons: 1) increased potential for reliability problems, 2) don't like the looks of the hole, 3) longer term value retention/appreciation is likely to be better on pre-lock models.

Here's my take on it... the RELIABILITY reason is the main one for me. In the realm of defense firearms, reliability is more important than ANYthing else. And anything that can be done to simplify systems, reduce complexity, and reduce likelihood of problems can and should be done. Especially if it's a simple and easy thing to do, like choosing to buy a pre-lock model rather than buying a model with the lock!

For a target-only gun, I have no real worry about the lock (aside from not appreciating the looks and my expectation that resale value may lower on S&W with locks). But on a gun which might be used for defense (including a gun to be used in the wild for hunting potentially dangerous animals), the picture is much different.

For me it's very simple, really. I recognize that the vast majority of S&W's with locks probably won't experience lock-related problems whatsoever. BUT, a number of folks (with more reports showing up over time) have had unwanted functional hang-ups related to the presence of a lock in their revolver.

I have no doubts whatsoever that there have been lock-related problems on S&W's which made the guns unable to fire!

If I had a gun with the lock, I'm going to wonder if it *might* happen on a gun I own, particularly when I need it the most. This is just something I'd prefer not to even have to consider. I don't like having to add thoughts like that to my already over-stimulated brain.

When one buys a S&W without the built-in lock, the lack of the lock virtually guarantees there is no possibility of failure due to that particular element. So no need to even think about the possibility. One less concern to carry around in your head. Nice!

I've read about enough problems with the locks to realize that having the built-in lock does add yet one more element that CAN go wrong. WHEN THERE ARE ALREADY NUMEROUS, UN-AVOIDABLE RISK ELEMENTS THAT CAN GO WRONG FOR A PERSON USING A GUN IN A DEFENSE SITUATION, I see no point in accepting any additional AVOID-ABLE risk-elements when I don't have to. So I buy only pre-lock S&W's. And I'm thrilled with them.

Fortunately, one doesn't have to accept the added risk of using a gun with the built-in lock... one can simply buy S&W's which don't have the locks. Thereby, one can completely side-step the issue and potential for trouble. One less potential worry to have on your mind.

And a really nice side benefit is that the guns look nicer without the lock and I believe that pre-lock Smiths will appreciate significantly more in value AND be in greater demand in the future than Smiths with the built-in locks.

With so many strong arguments for buying pre-lock S&W's, that I find it hard to understand why some people are so accepting of models with the lock. But we're all different and think differently. That's just the way we are.

I'm happy for folks who buy new S&W's with integral locks; their purchase helps support a company that I like and leaves more pre-lock models on the used-gun market for those of us who prefer them.

I choose to support S&W by sending my pre-lock guns to their Performance Center for service and modifications and by buying their other products and accessories. But I doubt I'll be buying any S&W guns with integral locks... not while there are still so many wonderful pre-lock S&W's available to buy, and usually for lower cost than a new one. Check back in on this in about 5 or 10 years and I'll bet the nice pre-lock Smiths are worth WAY more than models with built-in locks.
 
I suspect some who own S&W's with the lock will defend it even in the face of evidence contrary to their position, primarily to boost their own confidence in what they own.
Click to expand...
The term of art for this is 'cognitive dissonance'.

I've chimed in on this subject before, but G98's and DHart's post sum up my feelings pretty succinctly. I own in the neighborhood of a dozen wheelguns, a dozen pistols, and a couple'athree dozen long guns - not one has an integral lock. I cannot foresee a time when I would be tempted to buy a firearm with an integral lock and I certainly will not have one for critical use.
 
Last edited:
The term of art for this is 'cognitive dissonance'.
Click to expand...

Either that, or all this evidence is the same two or three people with stories that don't necessarily even make sense in terms of how the lock actually operates. I've had trouble with a 686 and 66 with unscrewing ejector rods, and no problems with locks. Maybe I'll sit here and wait for everyone to go out and buy S&Ws without ejector rods and scoff at those who ignore my first-hand experience. All I know is, once I take my ejector rods out, I'll never have another ejector rod malfunction.

The question to ask about this anecdotal evidence is "Do guns with the locks have "random" non-predictable failures at a greater rate than Smiths without the lock?"
Click to expand...

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for someone to answer this question, but it's a good one.
 
My 642 hasn't failed after several hundred rounds Neither has my 66. But i still "unlocked" both guns. Why? Because mechanical objects fail. The lock failures are documented. Why throw another obstaclel into the equation?
 
"I have to agree that locks are here to stay and had locks been employed in certain situations children who are dead may still be around growing up."

Please....... not "it's for the children". If an individual adult is wreckless, negligent and careless enough to leave a loaded firearm within reach of a child I wouldn't bet the farm that they would have the responsibility to "lock" it before doing so.

We are all going to have to deal with this kind of stuff because of our legal system and how it is being abused. Sworn enemies of firearm manufacturers have intentionally tried to destroy them through bankruptcy from legal action. Manufacturers "win" cases all of the time but the cost of "winning" is millions of dollars a year. Firearms "accidents" are a gold mine for personal injury attorneys. These locks and all of the other gizmos coming down the pipe are nothing more than "jury devices".

If a kid shoots and maims his neighbor play mate because his mother's crack head boyfriend left a 38 special laying around then there is a huge difference to the gun manufacturer's defense as to whether or not that gun had a "lock" designed in it.
 
Well..... since this is the defenitive thread, I'll throw out my two cents.

I hate the locks.

There is no subsitute for common sense and responsibility.

If you need a lock.... then buy one and use it.

A gun with a lock becomes essentialy a pretty rock..... the world already has enough rocks.

I plan on staying away from S&W rocks....er I mean Internal locks.
 
I don't think asking for evidence from fellow forum members is "whisking" away all reports with a few key strokes. I can't possibly shoot as many shots in my life as is done repeatedly by everyone combined in one weekend. If any, and I repeat any, failures or shortcommings of any weapons used here were to occur on any basis of regularity, they would be broadcast on the forums like a wild fire. I like a nicely polished gun as much as the next guy. Got a couple myself, but it's the functionality I'm interested in. I just can't see why people don't or won't understand why someone needs more justification to trample on a weapon system other than a few accounts of failure, when those accounts haven't been proven out, and where hundreds of thousand of rnds and or handlings per day haven't brought the slightest hint of even a small group of occurances. For those people that can't get over the fact that extra parts mean extra failures, by no means, continue buying prelock models. I buy them. And no, there won't be extra for you. Myself and thousands of others are in the preowned market. Yes, used guns are cheaper, but their return value increases a lot more than the value of new anythings. Your welcome. I promiss to continue to snap up what I can in order to keep that trend(higher prices on good used guns) on the rise. But I will continue to buy new ones also, and we know about those prices too. So until someone can be analytical enough to show me why these weapons are failing and untrustworthy, I shall continue shooting my .500's and continue putting locked Smith's(and Rugers,sks's and whatever else I like) on my layaway lists.
good shootin
kid





'
 
One last point... I think that it is sophomoric at best to assume that an item, 'The Lock', which is not even a functional part of the firearm, could fail and cause some functional component part of the firearm to malfunction. It is simply an adjunct component which, when engaged, will block the movement of the hammer. Sure, it's detent spring is small - and could rust into pieces, allowing the block to possibly engage... probably under recoil... but the rust would probably have already caused other failures, ie, firing pin or trigger return spring, as well. A typical MTBF analysis of the lockwork of a modern S&W revolver wouldn't even include the hammer lock.

Still, I maintain that it is the buyer's perogative to purchase a new lock-equuipped S&W or an older model. I do have older pieces - a 296 and a 2" 10 - for HD/PD. They were purchased new - and simply because of their model, not the lacking of a lock. I don't keep a loaded firearm in my home or on my person anymore, a personal decision obviously modifiable (I'll keep my CCW license current!). That may change in the future - and, when it does, I'll probably add either a new 432 or 642 to my CC 'collection', lock or not. The rest of my S&W's, including the lock-equipped examnples, are for my enjoyment - plinkers, generally. Even in the odd case of a 'lock failure' under such a use, it would at worst be an aggravation. I still maintain that a blanket statement of no locks clearly limits you to older models - and none of the great new items from S&W, and that, truely, is a shame. But, still... it is a personal choice.

Stainz
 
Cortez... have you spent any time researching the lock problems? I don't think anyone has the time to collect it all for you and present it to you. If you want to really learn about it, you'll have to invest the time and energy to research it yourself. Have you spent any time on the Smith-Wesson forum? That's a good place to learn more about it. There is evidence of failures. No one said that asking for evidence is whisking away reports... I don't know why you interpreted that as applying to you. But some people have whisked away reports as false... acting like there was no plausible evidence at all... just because they haven't personally seen any.

I've been clear that my expectation of lock failures is very, very low. I don't think anyone's said anything about widespread failures at all... I even mentioned that I would think that the vast majority of gun owners of Smiths with the lock will probably never experience a lock malfunction. And if no pre-lock S&W's were available and I didn't already have so many nice pre-lock Smiths already, I would probably buy a few Smiths with the lock and take my chances. Fortunately, I don't need to.

I totally agree that for uses other than defense, the potential risk of failure associated with the lock is of little to no consequence. (I mentioned this above.) I do carry guns on a daily basis and keep loaded guns around the house by day and by night while I'm here (live & work here)... so those guns might (extremely low chance, fortunately) be used for defense.

I think it's just a matter of personal preference whether one wants to have guns with the extra mechanism in them or guns which are free of the mechanism and either way, most buyers will probably be ok. But my personal choice in a gun which might be used for defense is no lock at all... I don't want to even have a thought about anything to do with a built in lock. And there are no new Smiths that I'm interested in owning anyway, so for me, it's all good! I'd say if you don't mind having a gun with the lock in it, that's got nothing to do with me, go forth and enjoy! I don't mean to squash your enthusiasm for those guns... they just don't appeal to me. You'll most likely have no problems with it. Personal choice is the name of the game.
 
Last edited:
Is there any reason, past initial testing to make sure it wasn't defective from the get-go, that I should be particularly concerned about a part that sits there and does nothing, rather than all the working parts that grind metal on metal (lubed, of course) every time I fire and dry-fire the gun?
 
I'm not on the Smith and Wesson forum because 6 mos ago I had problems registering. So I decided to sit by and watch. I haven't done research, only listening to all the shooters on the half dozen forums I monitor. Also of the 7 guns stores I patronize, with all the other people that frequent these establishments. I guess I could include all my shooting buddies in a couple of different states. Maybe the magazines that I haven't herd bad things from. All these people, all those firearms, all those locks, neglegable lock problems. I couldn't begin to estimate to possibilities. Hundreds of thousands per month? Probably a little low. I have found that the consumer is the best test bed. How can you disclaim the direct experiences of hundreds of thousands? I can't, but I'm not an expert. Then again I don't hear the experts either. If I had a nickle for every bent rod, backed out extractor, recessed primer... on and on and on. I'd be a bigger gun collector. There are people on these forums just waiting for an excuse to drill whatever gun manufacturor on their hitlist. Not just S&W. Ruger, Taurus Colt. Everyone. If the lock, as ugly and intrusive and demeaning as it might be, had 1 gazzillionth the failure rate everybody wishes it would have, we would be able to smell the Bar-b-que thru the internet. You know it and so does everyone else.
I'm not trying to gore anyone's ox. I frankly don't care. But as I stated before, I some-what depend on other shooters impressions and advice. Feeling good or bad about something, without the backing of proof, is not the kind of dialog I expect from a bunch of guys whose hobby it is to be exacting, dedicated and diciplined. As for you personally, Mr DHart, I think you probably have the nicest collections of S&W's I've ever heard of or seen and you seem to be a man of integrity and good humor.
good shootin
kid
 
....'The Lock', which is not even a functional part of the firearm...
Click to expand...
This snippet certainly captures the crux of the matter, im my eyes - THE LOCK IS NOT A FUNCTIONAL PART OF THE FIREARM.

I hold in my hands a revolver. I know in my heart, as I hold it here, that it's not SUPPOSED to be safe. It's supposed to be INHERENTLY UNSAFE to anyone on the business end. That's its job. It has no other function. I do not want to use it to call you, to write you a letter, to paint a wall, to diaper a baby, to be a paperweight, or to fix the leak in the roof. Its sole purpose is TO BE LETHALLY UNSAFE to all but he/she who wields it.

Knowing this, I choose my firearms based upon their immediate and unassailable ability to be UNSAFE upon demand, whenever I need to defend my life and/or feed my family. Nothing else. I cannot conceive of a reason why I would want any part or feature on that firearm that does not solely and directly enable it to be immediately UNSAFE upon demand, time and again, with as close to one hundred percent dependability as possible. To desire such a thing flies in the face of the logic of the matter.

When did we lose sight of that simple logic, and try to make safe that which is not SUPPOSED to be treated as/presumed to be safe by definition? :banghead:
 
Kid.. thanks for the note. We're certainly in agreement that for the vast majority of users, the S&W lock will most likely never cause a problem of any kind. I just prefer the older, simpler revos myself. My dislike of the lock and acknowledgement of the *potential* for trouble with it (however small) certainly seems to irritate some folks and I don't mean to do that... I do understand their reasoning that the incidence of failure is probably small enough to be unconcerned about. I also try to exercise good sense, judgement, and analysis in my decision making, but we're all human and bound to see things differently at times. Thanks for your understanding. Best wishes to you.
 
I have some revolvers with locks and others without. From what I have been following on the S&W forum and other forums on this is that most reports of problems are from a guy that heard from a guy. Many stories you hear at gunshops are just that, stories. I don’t know why people insist on making things up but it happens. If I had a penny for every time I heard that the M16 bullet tumbles when it exists the barrel, or that there are up to 5 bullets in a machinegun barrel at the same time, I would have enough money to buy a TR21 Turdsucker Revolver in .44 special. One guy had one that supposedly broke when dropped n the hammer. In this instance, dropping onto the hammer may disable a non-lock revolver as well. Now I am not saying that all stories are true, but I haven’t seen enough evidence to convince me that the lock is this deathtrap waiting to happen. On the centennial guns, there is the danger of not knowing the lock is engaged since there is no indicator but that is not the same as it breaking. I think the chances of the ejector rod unscrewing and coming loose, or the hand breaking or the cylinder stop missing the notch are all things that can happen to revolvers as well. You have more chance of stretching a K-frame with hot .357 magnum loads than you do of a lock engaging unintentionally. Stretching can happen in as little as 500 rounds, this has been documented and was the reason for the L-frame. I do not like the locks, and would be very happy to see them go away. I hope that they will see that Remington is doing fine by stopping production of their 870 locks, and choose to do the same. If they do not, I will continue to look for pre-lock guns when they are available for a certain model. If they do not, I will buy one with a lock. As of now, there is not a lot of hard evidence to support the locks failure. I would much rather they get rid of gold logos on certain guns and get rid of all the stupid presentation cases. Many of us prefer holsters and hate having to sell the wood or aluminum cases on E-bay since they pile up in the gunroom.
 
Quote:
Smith & Wesson was purchased by a company that was in the firearms locks line of work.


This has been my contention about why the locks are there, and why they're not likely to go away.
Click to expand...

That's what I said somewhere upthread and I'm here to say I was wrong! Lawyer lock it is then!
 
DrDremel... do a search in the S&W forum and you will find that there are numerous (I've counted four so far) first hand, direct accounts from forum members who have had the integral locks in their S&W's inadvertantly lock up on them when they did not wish to have the lock on. Not good. There are other, second hand, accounts as well. It would be foolish to dismiss these reports as false.

There is no doubt in my mind that S&W's with the lock do have a chance of locking up when you least expect it... even if the chances are low... there are enough things which can go wrong during a shooting without adding yet one more (unnecessary) possibility of a faliure to occur. S&W's without locks are guaranteed not to inadvertantly lock up due to any lock-related issue because they have NO lock in them!
 
Has anyone heard what the philosophy of law enforcement organizations regarding locks is? I know most have adopted semi autos, but I seem to recall a comment that one had chosen to turn down revolvers with locks. Can't remember the details.

I agree with Zeke on page two, and his take on politicians is right on too- :cuss:
 
i have a "locked" model 642, i will trade it to any non-believer for thier non "locked" version of the same. bet no one takes me up on this, i have only 150 rounds through it roughly so its in like new shape, will trade for a well used version of the same without a lock.

i saw once a pic or two of how to take the side plate off and grind down the nub that actually locks the gun, so it can not ever be locked by purpose or accident.

i will have to find a SMITH who can do this as i dont have the balls to try it and maybe loose a gun that is at least a target piece if not a liabilty ccw BUG.
 
Well, I disagree the S&W lock is an eyesore. I hardly even notice it and don't see it as an eyesore at all.
 
I have been following the lock issue on the S&W forum from the beginning. Many "First hand reports" end up being second or third hand when pressured. Also internet reports tend to pop up from peoples imagination more than actual proof does. I had a S&W 296 no-lock gun blow up from factory ammo. I have pictures to prove it and a 625 from S&W as a replacement. To tell you that 4 reports, only from the internet, not from any credible source does not hold a lot of water. Do I prefer the lock? No. I just don't see the parts breaking. If you look at the design, from an FMEA standpoint, there is not much that could happen. There is not enough stress on the parts to break them. During the same time period, I'll bet that there were more problems with other parts of revolvers than there were with the lock. The probability of the lock failing is smaller than the ejector rod unscrewing and seizing the gun. I also noticed that the "first hand reports" only surfaced after discussion got heated. How many people complain that their gun blew up but forget to mention that they were shooting bad reloads? I have talked with some friends in Federal law enforcement asking if they have seen any breakage since many of their agents use a 642 as a backup. None there and they are harder on their guns than most because it is just a tool and most are not into guns. taking 4 incidents on the internet as a problem is like believing everything 4 used car salesman tell you about the cars on their lot. Some will say anything to prove their point. Some will tell the truth. But without any evidence, there is simply not enough to make a case.
 
I did have a situation where the lock would have been useful. I traveled to visit a friend for a long weekend. He has children. I brought a Smith revolver. He's a gun person, and understood that I wanted to keep my gun by the bed I was using (just as he does). When we went swimming in his pool, I borrowed a padlock, wrapped the loop with electrical tape, and locked it behind the trigger. Gun was secure against curious children.

My concerns for the Smith locks are two-fold. One, unlike the Taurus lock, I cannot verify its condition in an instant. If the Smith lock breaks internally, I have no way of knowing until the trigger is pulled. At least with the Taurus lock mounted on the hammer, I can by touch or sight verify its condition, whether intentionally activated or not. Second, it fouls up the appearance of the gun so bad that I don't want it.

Am I concerned about the lock breaking and tying up the mechanism? No more than I am concerned about a broken firing pin or trigger return spring.

Can I live with a lock? Yes, just not the way Smith did it.
 
If I could stand owning a Taurus revolver, I wouldn't mind their implementation of their lock, it can be permanently deactivated, the hole of which is small and not easily located at a glance.
Click to expand...

Taurus has proven itself the innovator time and time and time again (if one HAS to endure integral locks). Now if their QC would just become impeccable, then they'd eventually become the prime force in revolvers and autoloaders. But I guess they can't do that and maintain the price point. Still, I think Tauri are very good values overall. 'Gun snobs' like our friend who started this thread will continue to "miss the Boat", however - their loss. :neener: :)
 
I can readily assure you I am missing out on nothing by passing on any revolver made by Taurus.

That's not entirely fair. I might be missing out on gaining some highly detailed warranty service war stories. :D
 
Since I posted on page one of this thread, I forgot about it till today. I was just wondering if anyone has bothered to write, email, or call S&W, Taurus, or Ruger and invite them politely to join this thread? Personally I doubt they'd care to, but I know for a fact that Ruger personell do read the threads over at The Ruger Forum. So it's possible they might join here.
This thread has been going on long enough that snail mail could have got there.

Just a question.


Oh, reguarding the failure of the S&W or Taurus locks. There are those who would refuse to believe it happened even if the failure was caught on video tape.

It would be nice if such failures were predictable, but they are not. I've read the article by Ayub in Handgunner and wonder to myself if there wasn't a tollerence factor at play. If a gun and it's parts are on the big end of the tollerences then the assembly will be loose and insecure. With enough clearence I can see where this "could" be a potential cause for failure.
As DHart and others have said, guns without locks will not have lock failures, so my decision to avoid lock equiped guns still stands.

Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Internal Lock Options
Replies
11
Views
1K
orionengnr
O
C
  • Locked
S&W 625 questions
Replies
5
Views
784
S&Wfan
S
Waveski
  • Locked
SP101 Internal Lock?
Replies
7
Views
1K
DPris
D
N
  • Locked
Internal Locks
Replies
14
Views
904
Tamara
T
D
  • Locked
Taurus 608 locked up
2 3
Replies
52
Views
4K
Taurus 617 CCW
T
Back
Top