This is the guns first and only burp. I have had very little if any trouble with my S&W 357s over the years, this being my first and only 38 and only airweight model. This is my only IL/MIM 38 or 357- all the others are prelock/preMIM. I typically give my 357s a good workout with this light taret load and very once in a while with a light 357 load. This is a problem unlike any I have encountered in 35 years of reloading.

The one thing that is clear is that this gun needs a stronger workout than I have been giving it.

I plan on purchasing a 640 +P38 made about 1990. This is a steel frame gun, pre-lock/pre-MIM. It is a bit heavier than the 642, but it fits my holster and mode of carry, right front pocket uusally. This gun is not intended as a replacement for a 642. I may sell this gun and purchase a new 642-1, simply due to the lock. I dont trust it. I cant tell if the lock is giving me problems or that excessive leading was the problem. Either way, this is a self defense weapon and I cannot afford to take chances with that type of gun.

i hate the lock

If you'd bought a Taurus or a Rossi you wouldn't have had a problem. They always work.

David

Reliability should not affect the decision to buy an IL revolver, because the lock is easily disabled. Simply isn't an issue. Both of my 11.5oz pocket carry guns have disabled locks, and are 100% reliable. When many of us buy a new gun we change grips, sights, springs and pins. Fixing the IL is just another customizing step. Rabid lock haters aren't worried about the gun going bang. They have other gripes, I think.

Surveyor47,

Your problems could be a combination of things - starting with your ammo. In thread #49, you referred to your 642 'and other .357s' - and to using .38 bullets with a Brinell Hardness Number of 18 - and from Missouri Bullets. According to their website info, folks often err to the high side - even to 'hard cast' - for lower pressure rounds. The empirical relationship they gave for a BHN was equal to or greater than the Copper Units of Pressure of your load divided by 1280. Using SAAMI specs, that would make warm .45 Colts to average .38/.44 Specials all take a BHN of 12, while .45 ACP FMJ 'ball' ammo would be better suited with a BHN of 18.

Too hard of a lead is worse than way too soft, as far as 'leading' is concerned. The lead is supposed to obturate and fill in the grooves starting at the base, where the motive pressure is developed. If it's too hard, gas cutting/shearing can occur as the hot gases arent as well contained. Accuracy suffers and the lead fills the rifling grooves - leading. The cure is a lower BHN for your .38 lead.

Now, you also mentioned excessive end shake. You also need to measure b/c gap. With the cylinder empty and closed, pull and hold the trigger - see what thickness feeler gauge can pass between the cylinder & forcing cone (b/c gap). S&W allows .004-.010". I like .005-.006" - but the main attribute must be it's consistency. If it is .008-.014", for example, or .004-.010", it's just as bad. It should be consistent. Too wide, and you'll have lead spattering - even in a low pressure .38. Uneven can cause dragging if it closes up. My first 625-8 went back to S&W (5/04) because I had dropped the cylinder & yoke twice while reloading when shooting SPC - the yoke screw had dropped out! It measured 0.0" to .002"!! It looked new 7 days later - and no charge. I had shot 12+ k rounds in the 20 months since I had bought it new. S&W fixed that - I am sure it is more common in an alloy yoke, too. The Rube Goldberg 'patch' for excessive end shake is a shim - the proper fix is effected, by yoke/crane stretching, by S&W - and generally free, too.

Good luck - keep us apprised. Since more than likely the IL has nothing to do with your problems, perhaps you should express your being penitent by writing, "The IL is not always evil.", 500 times. Next, we work on the MIM parts acceptance...

Stainz

The question of disabling the lock revolves around possible increased liability and prosecutor arguments if the gun is used in self defense or is stolen. There is the Catch 22 of the lock:

If the gun is stolen and it is IL equipped and in an unlocked condition, you may be liable for a criminals misuse of the gun. If it is locked, it is as usless to you as a stone.

Some prosecutors MAY argue that you have disabled a safety device and therefore were out looking to get into a gunfight. The fact that the IL is a STORAGE DEVICE and NOT a SAFETY DEVICE doesnt matter to the prosecutor or plaintiffs lawyer. Its just more wind that can come out of his mouth that you have to defend against.

So which is cheaper? A) Buying a NON I(L equipped gun or B) Paying a lawyer to defend against BS Arguments?

The mitigating argument is that S&W is now producing NON IL equipped guns such as the 642-1, now on gunstore shelves. For S&W to do that, there must be a market for NON IL guns and/or there is a problem with the IL that they havent admitted.

Now, given S&Ws refusal to admit that the IL fails, if you get killed in a gunfight due to a locked gun, an expert has to prove that the guns IL failed, which is easier said than done. The guns chain of custody must be proven to start with. No one tampered with it. Then proof other than someones word that the IL engaged on its own. That would be tough to prove in Court, especially with S&Ws experts swearing that this has never occured even once out of a gizillion guns.

S&W does offer no lock models to LEOs only if the department orders 200 guns at a time. I was able to purchase 2 686 without locks by having my order added to that of a local department. FYI the department was ten year old 686s.

As I reported earlier I ran into a bunch of no lock 442s and 642s at a gunshop in SE Pa. A friend emailed me that he just saw a bunch of No lock 642s at a gunshow in Northern Va. So they are out there now. Later they may still be out there or perhaps not.

Surveyor47;
I have a 642 no-dash w/IL. It has always worked for me w/o
problems. I trust it for that reason. If it ever does have a
malfunction, I too, would always suspect that it might do so again.
I've heard and read the stories about IL's and was swayed to get
a M36. I like the 642, though, and will continue to use it until it
breaks.
I'm sure you have doubts about yours, and whether the IL or
some other problem is at fault, the doubt will always be there.
You simply Have to trust a PD gun: burps are not acceptable.
TACC1

I long ago vowed never to read another IL thread. They're usually nonsense mixed with anger, the product of which isn't likely to be useful. But, here I am.

I don't worry about asteroid impacts, global warming/ice age/climate change, invasions of space aliens, killer pandemics or killer bees. There's enough to deal with in the real world. I also don't fret about imaginary scenarios following a shooting which almost certainly will never occur, the details of which are beyond prediction, and not worth a drop of sweat in any case. All of my carry guns are modified to some extent (because I like to tinker with them), and full of my handloads (because I'm cheap). If the unimaginable happens and I shoot somebody, it'll be a good shooting and the gun/ammo combo won't be a factor. Tell the truth, I don't think they've ever been a deciding factor in any case anywhere, but I'm not worried about that, either.

Most of my revolvers will never be carry weapons anyway as I am fond of Sigs for that, not to mention most of my Smiths are way too nice to carry anyway.(I happen to like flawless guns) My biggest gripe with the IL is that they are just plain friggin ugly and there is nothing you can do about that. No plugs or disabling or anything else will fix a hole drilled in the side, so for that reason alone I will never buy a new Smith unless that changed. I am not angry, but just decided the first time I ever saw one that I would personally never own one.

The greatest problem with the IL is the element of doubt that it places in ones mind. If you ever need it to save your life, will it work? If a malfunction happens on the range, is it the lock or something else? If this were a robust heavy duty lock like Rugers, I dont believe the IL would be much of an issue.

That's the incomprehensible aspect of S&W's attitude toward the lock. They're not committed to a lock. They're committed to THAT, POORLY DESIGNED, UNESTHETIC, UNRELIABLE LOCK. THAT makes no sense.

It's one thing to have A lock, like Springfield, Ruger and Taurus. It's quite another to have a lock with proven design deficiencies. They're like the Taliban when they blew up the Buddhist statues before 9/11. There's no tangible benefit to it, other than proving that they can do what they want, no matter what.

I asked S&W if they were aware of a lockup during firing and they said no. They said they would have to recall them if that happened... I have no first hand knowledge but I suspect they have locked up. I asked if the lock was ever re designed and he said no...

This thread is from 2009.

......and still draws as much hate mail as if it were yesterday :-)

__________________
Dave