Just saw this thread. Don't often look in this part of the forum.

Without taking the time to read all of the responses, I thought I'd offer what I've heard from S&W about reported ILS unintentional activations.

First, one fellow I spoke to said that they've received a number of revolvers back for what was reported as a failure of the ILS, but which actually turned out to be the sear stubbing on the back of the trigger. Fitting problem with the sear. FWIW, I've had something like that happen when shooting some older S&W revolvers (pre-ILS). I could see how this happening, and locking up the gun pretty solidly, could be mistaken by an owner as an ILS engagement.

I was told of other instances where the factory thought that the springs may not have been installed properly, making it a production QC issue.

I've heard the response more than once that the ILS withstood extensive testing in the .500 S&W Magnum guns, which generates a lot of recoil. The .460 S&W Magnum testing didn't seem to reveal any problems, either, according to what I've been told.

Then again, looking at a recent Revolver Parts list from the middle of this year, you can see where the torque lock spring is listed as being revision -5. I ordered some parts a while back and I noticed the torque locks springs I ordered were listed as revised parts (precautionary repair parts ... I haven't 'needed' any of them). Granted, S&W engineers are always revising parts, refining things, making improvements, etc., etc., even when ordinary owners/users haven't encountered 'problems'.

Now, this little torque lock spring is a very small thing, and I can see how it would be a bit of a pain to get the short end properly, securely installed in the locking arm (there's a really small raised dimple in the slot in the locking arm), and then the 'free end' properly installed under the very narrow recessed shelf in the frame. The working space is very small. Using an illuminated magnifying lamp helped, but the size of the parts makes it less than fun.

One of the fellows I spoke to at the factory also mentioned that in a couple of the cases they sort of wondered about the mechanism having been tampered with, a bit, so to speak.

All things considered, I also wish S&W had come up with a different design for the ILS. But then I'm neither an engineer nor a gunsmith. It's hard to reflect upon the listed revisions of the little torque lock spring as not being an attempt to address some tension problems, at least to some degree at some point ... although sometimes I've learned of revisions which were simply the result of receiving parts from a different vendor. Dunno. I've heard that S&W engineers aren't always known for sharing their reasoning even in-house.

On the other hand, I haven't been able to get the ILS in my M&P 340 Centennial to unintentionally engage, even when shooting Magnum loads.

I know of a few other owners/users of newer production S&W revolvers which incorporate the ILS, and which haven't had any problems with unintentional activation.

Naturally, I'll have some specific questions prepared for the next armorer's class I attend. Again.

It does seem to be happy coincidence, however, that my next planned purchase of a S&W revolver ... one of the M40 J-frames ... doesn't incorporate the ILS.

Don't have ANY answers, but some questions. As usual.

Fastbolt... I guess we differ on this; I wouldn't take what I was told by the people at S&W as necessarily being "reliable" information, but quite possibly being more self-serving than anything else. Doesn't matter what people at S&W say over the phone, I'll listen to user experiences and trust that more than anything else. Bottom line still remains, if a gun does NOT have an internal lock, you will never EVER have to wonder or worry about an internal lock possibly causing a jam. No locks for me. PERIOD.

It's not that we 'differ', DHart. I don't see it that way, at any rate. You've always seemed pretty reasonable to me when posting your thoughts.

Given the choice between buying a S&W revolver with the ILS, and buying one without the ILS, I'd choose the model without it every time.

It's just that I've spoken to a lot of folks from the factory and the Academy over the years that I've been a S&W LE armorer, and I've come to trust many of them. They've been willing to discuss and explain any number of problems with different guns over the years, and they've generally always been willing to admit the bad with the good, easily discussing anything about the various guns. Warts and all, so to speak.

Some of them have seemed just as perplexed as some of the customers, but are still willing to carry and use their own products, based on their own personal experiences and knowledge of the product's performance. There are still some hunters and 'sport shooters', even with revolvers, still working there, you know.

While I was thinking about buying a 638 to complement my older 649, or maybe a new 60 or 649 (for the Magnum option), I think one of the new 40's is going to be my choice, and to no small degree it will be because it lacks the ILS.

Like I said, given my choice I'll choose a non-ILS model over an ILS model every time ... but the ILS didn't stop me from buying the M&P 340, and it hasn't been a problem.

Well, aside from a couple of the various Magnum loads making it feel like I'd tried to hit a homerun with an aluminum bat, using a garbage truck for the baseball.

BTW, DHart ...

It's not an unlikely event that we may find ourselves within hailing distance of each other in the next couple of years.

One of our kids is talking about moving a bit south, toward Portland, (from Seattle), and the other one is talking about maybe moving his family up there, too. My wife used to have family in Vancouver, WA, and it's always seemed like a nice place.

Personally, I'd rather be a bit farther south, for the better motorcycling weather for more of the year, but that would put Portland within no more than an afternoon's ride. (Gotta stay relatively close to the grandkids.)

If nothing else, Rich's Cigars in Portland seemed decent. Great prices compared to CA and WA, where taxes are outrageous. The store front downtown lacks a smoking lounge/club member area, though, which I like in a couple of the SF Bay Area clubs where I'm a member. I heard Rich's may have a private lounge located elsewhere in Portland, though.

Even if you're not a cigar aficionado (is that a cigar in your dog's mouth in the avatar picture?), maybe we could meet in the future on one of our trips through Portland, or else after I retire. Coffee, optional adult beverage, whatever ...

Best regards,
fb

FB... sounds good. As for motorcycle riding... only the worst weather keeps me off of my Road King Custom! (With a Glock 23 tucked into my motorcycle jacket pocket.) Riding in this region is amazing between March and October... the coast, Columbia RIver gorge, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes... wonderful! You would love that.

March through October?!? I could handle that.

I also use a zippered leather riding jacket pocket for a pocket-holstered gun, in my case generally a J-frame. Sometimes two of them.

I still have my CS9, 3913, G26, G27 and some others for other days.

So, IS that a cigar in the dog's mouth?

Have a friend who grew up in the Gorge area. He reminiscences about the sudden, strong gusts of winds. Anything bothersome on two-wheels?

I'm thinking that if I could find the right weather in WA that it would make for approx an 8% retirement pay raise because of the lack of an income tax, with some judicious sales tax advantages across the river in OR ... not to mention the much lower tobacco taxes. I was a bit dismayed when WA decided it wanted to exceed CA's stringent stance on smoking in public places (like smoking lounges), though. Now whenever I visit the PNW, I find one of my favorite spots to quietly enjoy a cigar is over outside of Port Angeles, on one of the beaches, across the road from where my in-laws have rural house ... and I can watch the eagles fish and land along the beach.

Wasn't quite as much fun when we were caught in that freak storm, though. Spent several days without power, stuck with all the roads blocked by fallen trees and snow.

BTW, I apologize for wandering a bit off-topic with the last couple of posts, folks.

I,for one,don't mind you guys going a little off topic. I've learned from and enjoyed the posts.PNW being one area of our great country I've not had the pleasure to visit. That being said,I'm still not sure what to do or not do regarding the ILS on my 3 month old Model 329 PD.
I like everything about this revolver except for the ILS and the substantial recoil;but it's to be expected in a 26oz. 44 magnum;and it does not disappoint

quote:

Originally posted by pangris:
From someone I personally know as a 100% reliable source - I believe he is a member her as well, LSP972.

"In 2002, I bought a 360PD, saw that stupid lock, and immediately disabled it. I did it the "quick" way, by simply removing the lever arm that locks the hammer. The rest of the parts (key mechanism, actuating lever & spring, etc.) were not in the way, so I left them alone.

Five years and several thousand rounds later... I'm shooting the little Beast, which suddenly "locks up"; the hammer is stuck halfway back and won't move. WTF? A second look reveals the awful truth; the ENTIRE remaining lock mechanism has dropped out of its place in the frame and lodged against the hammer."

This is troubling; anyone else know of such an incidence?

I jst purchased a S&W 442 with the internal lock. My first with such a devise. Had I read this before the purchase I may have had second thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by M29hunter:
I jst purchased a S&W 442 with the internal lock. My first with such a devise. Had I read this before the purchase I may have had second thoughts.

It isn't tough to remove all of the debris...er um lock parts.

quote:

Originally posted by M29hunter:
I jst purchased a S&W 442 with the internal lock. My first with such a devise. Had I read this before the purchase I may have had second thoughts.

I purchased my 442 about 2 years ago, put Crimson Trace grips (S&W's) on it and really like that gun a great deal; Fires great, no reflection, great CC gun and looks like a Godfather special. Good choice on your part!

I really like the 442 and so far it handles and fires just great. I will just keep an eye out for these troubles. It would make a great conceal carry weapon but, I live in the state governed by Dailey and Cook County. It will be awhile before we can legally protect ourselves outside our homes or business.

M29Hunter,
Do you think that day may actually come?
Much as I know the music scene in Chi-town is one of the very best;and I love to hear live music,I try to avoid states that disarm their citizens(D.C.,NY,Cali);ditto "Gun-Free Zones" like shopping Malls,schools,bars,churches,etc.
These places are just soft-targets for BGs.
c

One Can hope and pray. There are bills proposed every year but die without action. There seems to be a voice growing for Concealed carry. We just have to keep working.

I have a model 22-4. I had my local dealer get it for me sight-unseen. I had never had one in my hands, but wanted one. I had also never seen any of the MIM parts either, nor did I know at the time that they were doing this...I hadn't kept up with "gun news" in the last several years.

Even so, even before I got the gun, I had plans on removing the silly lock and plugging the hole...not so much because I didn't trust the lock, but because that hole is ugly.

Now, I'm seeing so many first hand reports of unintentional lock engagement, that I'm glad I jerked mine out.

I see people here and elsewhere defending the lock and S&W, saying things like "well, you're always going to have some kind of part failures", or "well, I'd bet that these so called 'lock failures' were actually caused by something else, or the lock had been messed with, and that caused the failure". First off, this is not a "part failure"...it is a design flaw...a potentially deadly design flaw.

When S&W says that these accidental lockups are caused by "loose screws", or spring fitting or some other thing, do you really trust them? Are they ever going to actually say "well, the lock jammed the gun up because it's a lousy design, and an accident waiting to happen"? Of course not. They would never say such a thing no matter how true it was.

I would NOT trust any S&W with the lock now. Period. You might say "well, these 'failures' are rare, and you probably will never have this happen to you". Are you willing to bet your life on that? The stakes are just way too high. Sure, any other part could fail, but that's even more unlikely, and it's not something you can prepare for. "Lock failur" IS something you can prepare for---and eliminate by nipping it in the bud. Remove the lock.

I will NOT buy a new S&W with a lock again (not just for the lock, but for the really cheesy MIM parts...). Besides, for most any model that I might want, I can find old ones, in great shape, for less money, and ALL FORGED and beautiful. Unless there's some model that you can't get unless you get a new one, I see absolutely NO reason to get a new one.

All that being said, my model 22-4 is my constant companion. The lock is gone, and while the MIM parts look cheesy, I don't think they'll fail, and haven't heard even any rumors of stories of MIM parts breaking (yet). It is my go-to gun now.

I removed the lock completely and plugged the hole in the frame. While I was at it, I also filed off the moulded-in lug that they use now for a cylinder-holder-in-thingy, and made it look like the stud that we all know and love so well. It looks SOOOO much better now. It's just cold blued now, and I need to find someone to do a decent blue job for it.


I think the lock will not go away any time soon (if ever). If it ever does, it would be because the company was bought out by someone who was equally offended by this monstrosity. Definitely would have to be a change in ownership. S&W has saddled themselves with this lock. They're stuck with it. If they ever took out the lock, they would be admitting that the lock was a bad design, and then where would they be? They're just hoping that the lock never causes someone to get killed because their gun was jammed up... They're screwed no matter what they do, and they did it to themselves.

It's a shame.