quote:

If you don't drive drunk, you'll NEVER have to even wonder if you might crash your car because you were drunk!

Very well said. I do think that the future of gun ownership, if there is one, will involve more and more consumer safety features which will eventually make firearms that do not shoot.

If Taurus is having their own set of problems I'm not surprised. I just expect better from a brand with the history of S&W. For the price they should take no chances with customers' lives.

quote:

Originally posted by Fastbolt:
On the other hand, I've encountered actual functioning problems caused by other things which are totally unrelated to an ILS, such as the hammer's sear stubbing on the trigger or the trigger not consistently resetting in DA mode.

I don't see how that relates to the discussion at all.

There are a number of things that could cause a revolver to jam: a primer could fail, the hand might break, or a bullet nose move forward and stop the cylinder from turning.

The point is that

•you NEED a primer for the gun to work,
•you NEED the hand to turn the cylinder,
•you NEED the bullet to carry out your mission.

These components are required for you to be able to shoot your gun! So, you pretty much have to accept (and try your best to minimize) possible failures in these items!

BUT, you don't NEED an internal lock for your gun to function. In fact, this is so dang simple I can't believe we're even arguing over this: If there is no internal lock, then there is NO possibility for an internal lock to jam your gun!

quote:

BUT, you don't NEED an internal lock for your gun to function. In fact, this is so dang simple I can't believe we're even arguing over this: If there is no internal lock, then there is NO possibility for an internal lock to jam your gun!

We're not arguing. Well, I didn't think we were, anyway.

The reason I've mentioned those other functioning issues is twofold, really.

First, I've been told by repair folks that they do get revolvers back for warranty repair for a 'lock problem' which have been caused by a sear/trigger stubbing problem. That may, or may not, be taken into account when some folks claim to have experienced an ILS PROBLEM. Dunno. Might be worth considering, though.

Secondly? Well, those other 'problem' conditions actually have occurred, and in guns which I've owned. That's a more immediate concern to me when it comes to using a revolver as an off-duty weapon which may well be used at some point. The thing is that it has been happening. Maybe a QC issue during production? Regardless, I'd rather it not occur in a revolver I'm going to be using.

Basically, I guess you could say that I have more immediate concerns over problems which have already manifested themselves, than a potential problem which might or might not ever happen, and which has apparently only been reported as being experienced by a very small percentage of owners/users ... and seemingly not by any LE agencies which have been either issuing or authorizing present production J-frame revolvers for Secondary/Back-up & off-duty weapons. Where are all the ILS problems happening to LE guns? Where are all the complaints from LE users of J-frames? There's a slew of them out there, and seemingly more every day. Other problems have been reported by LE users of S&W guns, such as the improperly installed/fitted barrels of some K-frame .38's.

I've also been told that S&W belatedly discovered (because of a warranty complaint from the owner of a 360PD if I remember right, I think) that it was apparently actually possible to 'limp wrist' an Airlite. The owner reportedly experienced bullet-jump when shooting a major brand of 158gr JHP Magnum ammunition and returned the gun for warranty repair. I was told that when the factory was examining the gun with similar ammunition, they discovered that if the gun was loosely hand held that it was possible to experience bullet jump ... which surprised them, but mostly because they'd never tested the Airlite Magnum J-frames in that manner, nor expected anyone would ever use a grip other than a really firm and strong one on the hard-kicking, ultra lightweight hand cannons.

Granted, I found at least a couple of major brand jacketed Magnum loads which exhibited bullet jump when first testing my M&P 340, but I also found a couple of brands and bullet weights which didn't ... and I thought I was using a reasonably firm (read that 'death grip' ) on the gun ... and those are the loads I'd use if I didn't carry +P loads instead of the more brutal Magnum loads (which I only use for occasional training/practice and qualification.

I'd still like to see S&W at least introduce an optional line of non-ILS equipped revolvers.

Like I said, I'd choose one over an ILS-equipped model ... but that's just me and my personal preference and bias.

I personally don't feel the need to search for confirmations that locks have jammed on LE guns. I know enough to know that I simply don't need nor will I have an IL-equipped revolver. But that's just me... others may and do differ.

As for the super-lightweight magnum caliber revolvers... well, again, you'll never find me with one of those... they have no appeal whatsoever to me, especially as they introduce yet more potential for problems.

No gun is perfect, but some are "more perfecter" than others! ;-) When it comes to revolvers, make mine pre-lock and all-steel. (With one exception - a pre-lock 642 which is decent to shoot with .38 +P ammo.)

quote:

Originally posted by Fastbolt:
Where are all the ILS problems happening to LE guns? Where are all the complaints from LE users of J-frames?

I've noticed from forum postings that many LE agencies have gunsmiths/armorers that maintain their guns on a regular basis. If I was the chief of a LE agency, all handguns issued to my officers would have the ILS removed before issue by my weapons maintenance department. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In life and death situations, people have to have confidence in their equipment, that it will work each time, every time, and it must be so. If I issue a weapon that fails an officer, not only will the officers lose trust in their weapons, but also lose confidence in me, that I am competent to chose their weapons for them. Confidence in the chain of command and the CO is vital to unit cohesion.

To answer your question, there probably aren't many complaints because LE likely removes the d*** things before the weapon is issued! IMO.

quote:

When it comes to revolvers, make mine pre-lock and all-steel. (With one exception - a pre-lock 642 which is decent to shoot with .38 +P ammo.)

My favorite off-duty J-frames include an older 649-4 and a 642-1 which is rated for +P. I have a 37-2 which has a very nice action right as it came from the box, but that's because I chose it over another NIB example which exhibited some fitting issues which caused me to pass on buying it.

quote:

I've noticed from forum postings that many LE agencies have gunsmiths/armorers that maintain their guns on a regular basis. If I was the chief of a LE agency, all handguns issued to my officers would have the ILS removed before issue by my weapons maintenance department.

Maybe you would, and maybe you wouldn't ... if you were going to held responsible for the consequences of a personal decision.

Modifying any firearm used for defensive purpose in any official capacity naturally introduces a liability concern. The potential for unforeseen problems and unfavorable consequences needs to be carefully considered. As far as the 'confidence factor'? Well, some folks are never going to be happy or confident in whatever they're given. More often than not, for whatever reason, I've often noticed that many of the folks who seem overtly concerned about the 'quality' or 'reliability' of their issued weapons are folks who either seem 'less inclined' to invest any of their own time in additional practice, and/or think the specific weapon is more important than the investment of time required in actually improving and better maintaining their skills. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

quote:

To answer your question, there probably aren't many complaints because LE likely removes the d*** things before the weapon is issued!

Ever since the ILS was introduced in S&W revolvers I've taken the opportunity to ask folks from other agencies if any of them have either removed or deactivated the ILS in the revolvers used by their folks in their agencies, but so far I haven't run into any who have either done so or approved of it being done. Granted, i don't go out of my way to 'poll' other agencies about this, only sometimes remembering to bring it up when I meet other cops, especially firearms instructors & armorers. I'll ask different folks at the factory from to time whether an agency has ordered some produced without the locks as part of a contract, too, but so far No Joy. (Although there was that run of M37's made with the older frames and parts for that canceled overseas contract.)

Don't have the answer ... but neither am I convinced the sky is falling down upon our heads, either.

I keep hoping S&W will make this subject moot by announcing a change in their company policy of producing only revolvers with the ILS (well, excepting the M40 series, of course). Make them with & without and let the consumers choose. Doesn't mean they couldn't redesign the lock in the ILS-equipped series, though, either.

Hey, this isn't a 'take sides' subject, folks. We're the consumers and they're the manufacturer, though.

quote:

Originally posted by DHart:
As for the super-lightweight magnum caliber revolvers... well, again, you'll never find me with one of those... they have no appeal whatsoever to me, especially as they introduce yet more potential for problems.

May I suggest the chapter on the 329PD in "Gun Digest Book of the 44" by John Taffin. Although I don't always agree with his writings he really nails it on the appeal of these guns.. And yes his personal gun has an IL. Here's a little teaser:

"...no other sixgun packs so much power in such a portable package. Even I, who definitely appreciates real beauty in a sixgun, has to say this is one of the best things Smith & Wesson has ever accomplished."

Bob

Fastbolt:

Removing an ILS from a S&W gun is not "modifying it", it is unmodifying it. There was nothing wrong with the design (of the guns) before the new owners of S&W modified the guns, and the ILS does nothing to remedy any problem with the gun.

May I suggest the chapter on the 329PD in "Gun Digest Book of the 44" by John Taffin. Although I don't always agree with his writings he really nails it on the appeal of these guns.. And yes his personal gun has an IL. Here's a little teaser:

"...no other sixgun packs so much power in such a portable package. Even I, who definitely appreciates real beauty in a sixgun, has to say this is one of the best things Smith & Wesson has ever accomplished."

Bob[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info on this book on the venerable .44 I chose a 329 PD for hiking in the Pecos Wilderness(I was unaware if the ILS thing). As I get older it is more difficult for me to haul my old bones around at altitude;any weight reduction in gear is a HUGE plus for me. At around 26-28 ounces the 329PD is a lot of peace of mind per lb. I have to force myself to practice with it;and wear a padded bicycle glove for the kick;but I'm getting used to it...a little. I grew up shooting .45acp 1911s;the 329 is a whole 'nother animal. A 1911 is great for around town;but "out there" a .44 makes more sense to me. I'm off to find that book! My apologies for hijacking an, arguably, already hijacked thread. I have learned a lot from it;thanks to ALL!
c

quote:

Originally posted by Goodtime Charlie:
Fastbolt:

Removing an ILS from a S&W gun is not "modifying it", it is unmodifying it. There was nothing wrong with the design (of the guns) before the new owners of S&W modified the guns, and the ILS does nothing to remedy any problem with the gun.

Goodtime,you'd make a great lawyer/debator if you're not ine already!
c

cameron:

Thanks!

No, I'm not a lawyer or debater, never was in debate. I knew a debater once, couldn't stand him, because whenever we had a disagreement, the man would not quit arguing, he would just keep yammering on until I got so tired of his yap that I just gave up with a "whatever" or something similar, just to get him to shut up.

Having said that, I can be rather persistant in an on-line discussion--I suppose I could be seen as just as annoying as my acquaintance!
Oh well-I guess he taught me something! Ha!

Highly doubt anyone would find you annoying Goodtime Charlie.

One of the attractive things about this particular forum is how politely folks can express their individual opinions and perspectives without it devolving into an argument or rude exchange. Too bad the same thing couldn't be said about some of the other online firearms forums ...

quote:

Originally posted by cameron:
I'm off to find that book! My apologies for hijacking an, arguably, already hijacked thread.

I can tell from your post that you'll enjoy the book. And don't worry about the drift as these IL threads drift all over the place like a drunken sailor.

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by Fastbolt:
Highly doubt anyone would find you annoying Goodtime Charlie.

You may be right, Fastbolt. PIA may be more accurate! Although, I wouldn't count out other colorful phrases...

When S&W starts losing money because people are buying older Smiths with no lock hopefully they will realize their mistake. I wouldnt have a new Smith revolver with that lock when I can find an older one without it. Sure I will pay new gun prices or more for an older gun but its also a better gun. Just stick a cable lock in the box with the gun and forget about that internal lock fiasco.