Miculek "De-Locked" his Competition Revolver!!!

[Joe Demko]

I, too, would find more merit to this thread if we had pictures of Jerry's personal defense gun for comparison.

 

[captain awesome]

so this thread is a message to Smith & Wesson. why don't we all send them a message. In an envelope with the flags we have removed with a letter explaining why.

 

[MR.G]

I see that they left the lock, and just removed the flag. I file off the stud on the flag and put it back. The flag is still in place, but will not lock. It appeared to me that if the flag was removed, and not the lock, the lock could dislodge and fall into the gun. Guess I was wrong.

 

[earplug]

Modified hammer

He may have cut some weight from the hammer along with removing the hammer spur.
Depending on where you take metal from it renders the lock useless.

 

[Drail]

I can't imagine why anyone would want a locking device on a competition gun. (or an air bag on a race car when you have a 5 or 6 point harness and a roll cage) My daily driver has a 4 point harness and a roll bar (and no air bag) D.O.T. approved/mandated 3 point inertia reel? No thanks.

 

[MrBorland]

I can't imagine why anyone would want a locking device on a competition gun.

To keep it IDPA-legal, for example.

Several here have noted (myself included), the hammer, modified for competition, may not be compatible with the locking flag, and so it comes out as a consequence.

My 686 has a radically bobbed hammer and while I don't give a flip whether it's there or not, the locking flag had to come out for the hammer to work. To be IDPA-legal, though, all original safety equipment has to be there, so the hammer's been replaced with a lesser-bobbed hammer, and the flag went back in.

The pic of Miculek's gun has been an interesting Rorschach test. A very interesting thread.

 

[Spartacus451]

My 686 has a radically bobbed hammer and while I don't give a flip whether it's there or not, the locking flag had to come out for the hammer to work. To be IDPA-legal, though, all original safety equipment has to be there, so the hammer's been replaced with a lesser-bobbed hammer, and the flag went back in.

Safety device? Seriously? Is that an actual ruling from IDPA HQ?

 

[Steve_NEPhila]

I would emphatically argue that the internal lock on the Smith revolvers is not a safety device whatsoever. In fact, it is a usage denial system and in no way impacts the inherent "safe" operation.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

I'm beginning to like the big old padlock that used to come with the gun more and more. Never used it, but it never made me wonder when it would "fail", sitting over in a drawer............................

 

[MrBorland]

Safety device? Seriously? Is that an actual ruling from IDPA HQ?

From the IDPA Rulebook, p. 18, Appendix One-A.1: "Non-IDPA-Legal Modifications for ALL Divisions"...include..." E. Disconnection or disabling any safety device on any gun."

Carmoney, a master level competitive wheelgunner himself, and the 'smith that worked on my gun is aware of the ruling and, nebulous or not, advises that "if your gun is going to be used in IDPA competition, please let me know when you send it to me, as we will need to retain the hammer block along with the internal key lock (IL) mechanism, if so equipped." (see link)

I would emphatically argue that the internal lock on the Smith revolvers is not a safety device whatsoever. In fact, it is a usage denial system and in no way impacts the inherent "safe" operation.

Yeah, you could, I guess. Myself, I spend little-to-no time griping about IDPA rules. Their game, their rules.


http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=80870

 

[Jubjub]

To the point, I will never own a Smith & Wesson with the lock. I will never, ever buy one. Were one given to me, I would dispose of it in the most efficient way possible. Were Smith & Wesson to start producing revolvers that were in any way worthy of purchase again, I would be a loyal customer.

 

[Steve_NEPhila]

on the firearms blog

Check it out:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/07/16/jerry-miculek-de-locked-his-competition-gun/

 

[MrBorland]

I think you're over-interpreting and making too much out of too little.

To get the running perspective of actual competitive wheelgunners, for example, go here:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=110071

As suggested in this thread, when the lock's disabled in a competition gun, it's done so because the lightened competition hammer isn't compatible with it, or it's a matter of KISS - keeping parts out of the gun that aren't necessary, in which case, the hammer spur goes, as often does the hammer block.

Of particular note is the reply by Bones (reply #9), an IDPA SSR multi National Champion. An interesting read.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

"As suggested in this thread, when the lock's disabled in a competition gun, it's done so because the lightened competition hammer isn't compatible with it, or it's a matter of KISS - keeping parts out of the gun that aren't necessary, in which case, the hammer spur goes, as often does the hammer block." I guess we could argue that if parts aren't necessary for competition, and they CAN hang up, then they are not necessary at all, ESPECIALLY if the gun is to be used for defense....either against dangerous animals or other dangerous beings. I see no difference in one person's "needs" to do without the lock and another's.

 

[orionengnr]

And racing cars don't have airbags, either.
There's a big difference between the "real world" and competition.

A fatally flawed analogy. Race cars are built entirely differently from street cars. Race cars (without airbags) crash weekly at ~200 mph, with minimal injuries to the driver being the rule.

...it's a matter of KISS - keeping parts out of the gun that aren't necessary...

This is exactly the argument many of us make against having The Lock in a SD/carry gun.

Thank you for the info on the IDPA rules. Although I will never be good enough to get protested for having no Lock on my gun, that makes any future purchasing decisions easy.

 

[Drail]

orionegnr, I think you completely missed my point.

 

[18DAI]

Not owning any of those wind up revolvers, the IDPA rules won't effect me. My pre lock 66's and 19's are made the way they should be. No superfluous parts.

Kinda amusing when a company man pulls the idiotic lock out.

 

[JohnKSa]

I file off the stud on the flag and put it back. The flag is still in place, but will not lock.

In my opinion, it's one thing to completely remove a safety device. It's another thing entirely to disable a safety device in such a way that it's not immediately obvious it's been disabled. Safety devices that look like they might work but don't are a really, REALLY bad idea.

Kinda amusing when a company man pulls the idiotic lock out.

This is an assumption. Maybe he took it out, maybe S&W who builds his guns for him did it. Maybe if they did it for him he asked them, maybe someone at S&W decided to do it.

We can speculate about which one of these is the most likely but it's still just speculation.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Forget about what Miculek is saying about about speed, competition, and readiness with regard to removing the lock, think about the statment he is making/implying with regards to the lock itself. His actions say " sometimes it doesn't work the way it's supposed to, may hang up, and impede the normal function of the revolver". Whether your need is speed, or just defending yourself, having a revolver that is more likely to work is a better idea.

 

[Handgunner]

Kinda amusing when a company man pulls the idiotic lock out.

Yup.

 

[sw282]

The Chevy in my drive way is not like the one Ernhardt drives.

Jerry's gun wont be 'exactly' like mine either

 

[Billy Shears]

Premier revolver smith Grant Cunningham mentioned this on his website today, having this to say:

Several people emailed me about The Firearm Blog's picture of Jerry Miculek's 627PC. It would appear that his gun has had the locking mechanism disabled, leading to much renewed discussion about the incidence of accidental lock activation.

When the locks first came out there were a few reported cases of locks self-engaging. The wisdom of the internet held that the locks were just fine, that S&W would never knowingly introduce something that would put people at risk, that the reports were fabricated, and so on.

As time wore on it became apparent that the issue was real, but seemed to mostly happen with lightweight guns shooting heavy recoiling loads. Then I started getting reports of lightweight guns shooting normal loads experiencing the problem, followed by the "big boomers" and hunting loads. Most recently I've heard first-person accounts of steel guns (all J-frames, so far) shooting sane cartridges having their locks self-engage.

I've collected enough of these accounts over the last several years that I simply won't carry a S&W with a lock. The incidents are numerous enough, and the consequences dire enough, that I simply don't trust the mechanism. I recommend that all my clients seriously consider carrying a non-lock gun; if you tuned in last week you found that my usual carry revolver was a Ruger, partly because they don’t have such a mechanism.

(Just for the record: I have no financial stake in this debate, as liability issues demand that I do not deactivate a safety device - no matter how questionable - from a gun. I'm not making any money by suggesting that you carry a S&W sans lock.)

I have to say it doesn't surprise me to find that more and more of these instances of lock failure are coming to light, and that it happened first with light guns and heavy loads, then light guns and normal loads, and now normal guns and normal loads. It's what you'd expect. As the lock-equipped guns spend more and more time in marketplace, and have been in service longer and longer, the guns out there see more and more use and suffer more and more normal wear. As the internal parts wear and get ever further out of like-new spec, it makes sense that any tendency for the lock to self-engage would become more and more apparent as this process takes place.

I don't carry a revolver as my primary weapon, but I do have a few as house guns. I won't buy an S&W equipped with one of those things. My appetite for revolvers is limited enough that I can get all I want from the used gun market -- ones that don't have that undesirable feature.

 

[18DAI]

Thanks for that info Billy Shears. Obviously Mr Cunningham knows what he is talking about.

Glad to see someone say those things.

 

[StrawHat]

I wonder if there was a similar uproar when S&W introduced the hammer block safety? I know there was a bit of annoyance when the old long actions were stopped in favor of the short actions. With time, both were accepted.

 

[Old Fuff]

... wonder if there was a similar uproar when S&W introduced the hammer block safety? I know there was a bit of annoyance when the old long actions were stopped in favor of the short actions. With time, both were accepted.

At the time (mid-latter 1940's) the hammer block was generally well accepted because one could then safely carry the cylinder fully loaded. Of course there were a few that removed it because they claimed that it rattled, or made the double-action trigger pull heavier. I never noticed any perceptable difference.

The "long action" was much prefered by those that liked it's unequaled D.A. trigger pull, but the majority of buyers thumb-cocked when they fired.

Neither of these changes had any affect on the revolver's reliability, which in rare cases it would seem that the lock has.