My first S&W with a lock

I choose not to own a gun with an I/L on it. There are still PLENTY of used guns in perfectly good condition for the same price or less than the new ones and for the most part they are made better than the news ones as a bonus. One of the reasons I refuse to buy into the lock is that IMHO it is nothing more than a political statement which I want no part of. S&W originally did this to appease the Clinton Administration and from what I understand CAN now change if they so please. They choose not to and I choose not to buy any guns with the I/L.

Since for the MOST PART they are the only game in town regarding new Revolvers they are able to get away with it. Since the sales of Revolvers are more than likely decreasing and the sales of Semi-Auto's growing, they are more concerned being Politically Correct than practical. The younger their purchasers become the less unattractive the I/L gets, because to new gun owners they know nothing else other than the I/L.

A lot of "Gun Writers" have also caved into S&W on this matter because that is how they make their living and they are unwilling to bite the hand that feeds them so to speak. Personally I see no purpose for the I/L. It is CERTAINLY NOT a safety devise to be used when the gun is carried, and it is certainly no better than a lock through the frame or cylinder when one wants to make the gun child proof. To me, Writers that justify the I/L to their readers are just placating their "sponsors" and helping the manufacturers dupe their potential customers.
The Writer's, and people in the industry who "OK" or justify the I/L are just helping the other side gain ground by admitting that guns are too dangerous to trust people with. You will also notice that the only people who don't have to live by the silly rules and regulations as we do are the Military & Police agency's. They are exempt from most of the rules, limitations on capacities, accessories, mechanisms, magazines, etc.

Personally I see no reason to have to worry about the functioning, look, legal liability, removal, plugging up the hole etc. etc. when there are still so many beautiful and perfectly good serviceable Smiths still around. Just my opinion I realize, and I know that my opinion alone won't change Smith's game plan, but as they say........ a man has to do what he has to do.

Regards,
Chief38
 
Last edited:
I think the OP stated he wasn't trying to start a "I hate the IL" thread, which has been ruled by the moderators as inacceptable, anyway.

I bought my first "IL/MIM" S&W last year and love it, it's a 619. The only thing I didn't like about it was the goodyear's; I quickly put a set of Ahrend's finger groove combat grips on it. It is the most well balanced and lightest recoiling .357 I've ever owned. Two things that stood out immediately to me. First, the smooth trigger pull, in both DA and SA. In SA, it's like a set trigger, in DA, it's so smooth, you almost never need SA. I like to dry fire just to amaze myself at the smoothness; I wish all DA revolvers I've ever owned were that slick. Secondly, it has to be the most accurate fixed sight handgun I've ever owned whether I fire .38 spl or .357 magnum. I plan to keep this one, and for good. I love old S&Ws also, but this 619 has me sold. Too bad S&W quit making it and the 620. It made a great modern day L-Frame equivalent of the 65/66. For those that don't like the two-piece barrels, too bad; there's a 620 owner on the boards that will agree with me about the accuracy with these revolvers, and his experience is much more extensive than mine. To me, there is nothing wrong with the way my little 619 looks, but of course, YMMV:

619-sm.jpg



And by the way, here in Germany, when transporting weapons, they must be locked. The IL is actually a bonus for over here, and one never knows, it could be this way in the US one day. I don't have a problem with it, and actually kind of like it; I just don't get how it messes up the "beauty" of the weapon. You may as well just say the cylinder release does to and why doesn't S&W use the system like Ruger or Dan Wesson. I don't like ejector shrouds, but I wouldn't ever claim they should be removed. When I bought this 619, I purposely tried to induce a malfunction by locking and unlocking the device between firing, loading, etc. I can see plenty of function and use for it and like many others have pointed out, if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. I am just not seeing the proof that the new ones are any worse than old one's; weapons manufacturers have always turned out a lemon or two, just name a model or date. Overall, I find this "new" S&W to be excellent, enough that I will definately be keeping this 619 since it seems it may be a bit of a rarity one day (I have always liked the semi-lug HB look like the old K-Frames, 10,13,64,65, etc) and it doesn't seem S&W has any plan to make another L-Frame quite like it. 686s are great revolvers, but seem sort of new age and common to me; I like the old look in a new design. Wish S&W would make a classics L-Frame line based on designs like this to include carbon blue framed 619/620s. I've got plans for a lot of old models (I really want a 13 with a 3" barrel for instance), but also do for new models, too.

I think Tom has made a good buy, and some good comments. The IL/MIM thing is just a dead issue; if the purists ran the world, we wouldn't have had a lot of great innovations. In fact you might not have ever heard of John Browning (and FN almost stole him away for good due to the "purists" in the US at the time) were it not for the acceptance of new ideas, and how to put them to use.
 
I didn't come here to bash S&W. I was just letting people know that revolvers certainly can fail and I personally have no idea what has failed in my new gun. I will post what the results are once I get it back from S&W in about 2 weeks. The reason I was suspecting the IL is cause when I researched on line the IL failure kept coming up. But after speaking with S&W I agree that I should'nt jump to that conclusion.
As far as Cabelas I had many free points that went toward purchasing this gun. Cannot get a better deal than that. Anyone here own the 638 38 special, I'm hoping someone will tell me it's an awesome gun!!!
 
Tigerjeebs said:
Federal law against returning firearms? Weird.

I returned two non working NIB Taurus 605s to the store before buying my 60-14. This was last month, I now have 1300 357 rounds through my IL 60 and it has worked perfectly. Btw, hand loading is the only way to roll for shooting 357s. 4 cents per round, lovely.
Click to expand...

4 cents per round? Not hardly, primers alone cost that these days, powder, slugs, amortizing the cost of the brass. Vapor numbers. Don
 
S&W's IL system uses extremely small parts and there are indeed documented failures. Virtually no other internal lock system has such a poor reputation. S&W should be able to construct a better IL system or simply dump it and sell the revolvers with a simple plastic coated padlock to place behind the trigger if needed.
 
UDR2 said:
...I never quite understood why Smith & Wesson put in those locks in the first place. I think it had more to do with a goof up from their marketing department than their legal department. After all, the IL is a lot slicker than the clunky locks that come with other brands of guns; and if S&W was so concerned about the legal aspects of the IL, then why do they manufacture some models today (such as the 442, and 642) without the ILs?

The IL was a solution to a problem that didn't exist, and that solution has cause them lots of grief ever since.
Click to expand...

There are some states (Maryland, where I live, is one of them) that require new guns to be equipped with an integral lock.
 
RMcL said:
S&W's IL system uses extremely small parts and there are indeed documented failures. Virtually no other internal lock system has such a poor reputation. S&W should be able to construct a better IL system or simply dump it and sell the revolvers with a simple plastic coated padlock to place behind the trigger if needed.
Click to expand...

Documented by whom? I discount magazine writers and second hand reports or opinions on the problems. I have read claims made by some that turned out to be another issue, or simply "operator headspace and timing". I know lots of S&W owners that have IL S&Ws, myself included with no problems. I also know S&W owners that have had problems with cylinder lockup, functioning issues with nonIL S&W's. It appears to me that there are a lot of people that are willing to blame the IL when it has actually not caused a problem.

Again, I purposely attempted to induce failure with mine and was unable to cause a malfunction. As you can see from other posts, some states already require a device like this.

I see no problem with it, and feel 100% confident with carrying and using it. I don't make such a statement lightly, I've carried weapons in combat environments, and understand the danger of carrying a weapon that you are not confident with. My experience with weapons is that if you learn how to use them, practice with them and maintain them, they will not let you down. When I retired I reentered the world of revolvers, and now prefer them to autos, which I used exclusively for decades. The new ILs inspire the same confidence that I had for weapons I carried as a soldier, but I understood then and understand now the responsibility I have as a shooter. I often heard complaints about the M-16/M-4 series weapons while I served, and although they are still not my favorite military rifle/carbine, I used them and was confident with them, and did not experience the issues so many others had, and it was due to improper use and maintenance, nine times out of ten. The malfuncitons that those weapons experienced were most always due to some individual failing to do their part.

I'll stack my IL 619 up against any non-IL S&W any day of the week. My guess is that IL, MIM, two-piece barrel owners will do the same or sell them. I'm not selling my 619 if that tells you anything, and I'll be the first to let anyone know if the IL causes a malfunction. If I thought it caused a problem, was useless, or caused "ugliness", I'd be the first to raise my hand. Quite the contrary, the IL has a purpose and seems to fulfill it well. As was often said when I was in the service "It's better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it".
 
M2MikeGolf said:
Documented by whom? I discount magazine writers and second hand reports or opinions on the problems. I have read claims made by some that turned out to be another issue, or simply "operator headspace and timing". I know lots of S&W owners that have IL S&Ws, myself included with no problems. I also know S&W owners that have had problems with cylinder lockup, functioning issues with nonIL S&W's. It appears to me that there are a lot of people that are willing to blame the IL when it has actually not caused a problem.

Again, I purposely attempted to induce failure with mine and was unable to cause a malfunction. As you can see from other posts, some states already require a device like this.

I see no problem with it, and feel 100% confident with carrying and using it. I don't make such a statement lightly, I've carried weapons in combat environments, and understand the danger of carrying a weapon that you are not confident with. My experience with weapons is that if you learn how to use them, practice with them and maintain them, they will not let you down. When I retired I reentered the world of revolvers, and now prefer them to autos, which I used exclusively for decades. The new ILs inspire the same confidence that I had for weapons I carried as a soldier, but I understood then and understand now the responsibility I have as a shooter. I often heard complaints about the M-16/M-4 series weapons while I served, and although they are still not my favorite military rifle/carbine, I used them and was confident with them, and did not experience the issues so many others had, and it was due to improper use and maintenance, nine times out of ten. The malfuncitons that those weapons experienced were most always due to some individual failing to do their part.

I'll stack my IL 619 up against any non-IL S&W any day of the week. My guess is that IL, MIM, two-piece barrel owners will do the same or sell them. I'm not selling my 619 if that tells you anything, and I'll be the first to let anyone know if the IL causes a malfunction. If I thought it caused a problem, was useless, or caused "ugliness", I'd be the first to raise my hand. Quite the contrary, the IL has a purpose and seems to fulfill it well. As was often said when I was in the service "It's better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it".
Click to expand...


I think people who claim that the IL system is inherently faulty, and likely to fail at the "wrong time" are practicing casual reductionism, if you will. I read ten-times as many complaints about new S&W revolvers shipping with canted barrels, off timing, poor lock-up, etc. as I do verifiable claims that the IL simply self-destructed.

However. The fundamental fact still remains. A lock on a safe, on a cable, or in the gun will only be effective, IF it's used. No safety device (or warning billboards) are going to illicit safe-gun handling. That can only be taught, learned & practiced.

Please don't get caught up in the point that a state like Maryland requires those locks to be built-in. California has almost six-times (!) the population as that state, and plenty of gun manufacturers don't include the "nanny" features required by our roster, and are therefore not for sale here.

None of this addresses the question I had for the experts here. Being so inclined to include the built-in lock. Was there a reason Smith went with (seemingly) such a mechanically intrusive route for the lock? Again, other manufacturers seem to have done just fine with extremely subtle internal locking systems.
 
Beemerguy53 said:
There are some states (Maryland, where I live, is one of them) that require new guns to be equipped with an integral lock.
Click to expand...

Just ANOTHER reason to buy a quality used older gun!

Rumor has it that in the near future Colt is supposed to resurrect their Dick Special in the DSll configuration (38/357). Since I do not work for them I am only stating what I have heard and don't know it to be fact or wishful thinking, but IF IT IS true and they do it with NO I/L I think that it will be the straw that force S&W to drop the I/L. Though I am a dyesd-in-the-wool S&W man, (older ones that is) I'd sooner buy a new Colt with no locks than a Smith with the lock should the older supply of Smiths ever dry up.

Just saying..........

Chief38
 
Last edited:
M2MikeGolf said:
I'll stack my IL 619 up against any non-IL S&W any day of the week. My guess is that IL, MIM, two-piece barrel owners will do the same or sell them. ...
Click to expand...

I also own and depend on the "trifecta" gun. And I'll stack my IL/MIM/2 piece barrel model 64 snubby against anyone else's choice for personal protection.
 
Please don't get caught up in the point that a state like Maryland requires those locks to be built-in
Click to expand...

I'll try not to worry too much what the different states require. I've got enough on my hands with the German Polizei; if you are caught with your weapon not locked, they simply take it away and then prosecute you and take all the rest of your weapons, revoke your license and then fine you heavily, and can even impose a prison sentence. Of course, you will then never be allowed to own a firearm or hunt here again. Then the US military authorities over here will have their way with you once the German government is done, which could include federal charges affecting your ownership of firearms in the US. I'm not exaggerating, it's that bad. You must continually prove to the German government that you are a responsible gun owner, and almost anything can be cause to revoke your priveledge. As a civilian or military service member, you are not exempt from any of it; about ten years ago the US Army threw us to the wolves over gun ownership and will not intercede on your behalf.

I'll keep my little IL, and lock it with a smile when I head to the range. I'm not complaining, I've chosen to live here and pay the literal and figurative price, just trying to illustrate that it has it's use, for better or worse; at least for me.
 
M2MikeGolf said:
I'll try not to worry too much what the different states require. I've got enough on my hands with the German Polizei; if you are caught with your weapon not locked, they simply take it away and then prosecute you and take all the rest of your weapons, revoke your license and then fine you heavily, and can even impose a prison sentence. Of course, you will then never be allowed to own a firearm or hunt here again. Then the US military authorities over here will have their way with you once the German government is done, which could include federal charges affecting your ownership of firearms in the US. I'm not exaggerating, it's that bad. You must continually prove to the German government that you are a responsible gun owner, and almost anything can be cause to revoke your priveledge. As a civilian or military service member, you are not exempt from any of it; about ten years ago the US Army threw us to the wolves over gun ownership and will not intercede on your behalf.

I'll keep my little IL, and lock it with a smile when I head to the range. I'm not complaining, I've chosen to live here and pay the literal and figurative price, just trying to illustrate that it has it's use, for better or worse; at least for me.
Click to expand...

That's really crazy. That country has such a dark recent history, I guess it could have gone either way for its citizens, and their individual gun rights.
 
Dear Tom,

I like your new gun. I'm sorry your post was ruined. Back to the point.


Love,

Thad
 
Last edited:
I just put my sixth IL and MIM S&W on layaway last night. A Model 17 and it's a beautiful one at that. I chose this gun according to my personal inspection and my experience with the 5 previous guns equiped with the dreaded curse. My Smith and Wesson purchase before this was a Model 14-8 which has since proved to be the most accurate handgun that I have owned in 39 yrs. I have a late May birthday and I'm suposed to wait till then to pick it up but we'll see what happens
 
Well just called Smith & Wesson today to get an update on my 638 38 special. They told me they fixed the INTERNAL LOCK.. I can't believe Mark from S&W said that there has never been a lock failure. So I guess I'm the first, I find that hard to be true.
Folks I'm living proof that INTERNAL LOCKS DO FAIL and my brand new gun failed before even shooting once. I'm not here to bash S&W but I am clearly not thrilled about buying a brand new gun that broke after dry firing 3 times. Why in the world would you add a lock that can render any gun useless.
 
oliveview said:
I think people who claim that the IL system is inherently faulty, and likely to fail at the "wrong time" are practicing casual reductionism, if you will. I read ten-times as many complaints about new S&W revolvers shipping with canted barrels, off timing, poor lock-up, etc. as I do verifiable claims that the IL simply self-destructed.

However. The fundamental fact still remains. A lock on a safe, on a cable, or in the gun will only be effective, IF it's used. No safety device (or warning billboards) are going to illicit safe-gun handling. That can only be taught, learned & practiced.

Please don't get caught up in the point that a state like Maryland requires those locks to be built-in. California has almost six-times (!) the population as that state, and plenty of gun manufacturers don't include the "nanny" features required by our roster, and are therefore not for sale here.

None of this addresses the question I had for the experts here. Being so inclined to include the built-in lock. Was there a reason Smith went with (seemingly) such a mechanically intrusive route for the lock? Again, other manufacturers seem to have done just fine with extremely subtle internal locking systems.
Click to expand...

As for a reason........Safety Hammer(an American Company) bought S&W from the British company Thompkins when it was about to go under. S.H. designed and invented (and have the patent) on the lock now used on S&W's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JHW
  • Locked
WITHDRAWN Smith Wesson Performance Center PRE-LOCK 627 8-Shot / 60-7 PC ET COMP
Replies
2
Views
3K
JHW
JHW
M
Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector First Model (Triple Lock) Revolver A Comparative Rarity
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
rct269
R
F
627 Performance Center - Fail or make it right
2
Replies
24
Views
21K
muddocktor
muddocktor
T
s&w had there LAST chance with me!
5 6 7
Replies
122
Views
14K
18DAI
18DAI
Edmo
New S&W Revolver FAIL!!!
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
15K
dwpmusic
D

Latest posts

Back
Top