medic15al
Member
Just put it back in to sent off for warrantee service.
S&W lock failure--it finally happened
- Thread starter Ralph G. Briscoe
- Start date
Doug M.
Member
Relying on the lock for storage safety is moronic. My out of service firearms are almost always locked up in a safe of some kind.
Anti gun tort whores will file anything and argue all sorts of drivel, just like the anti-cop nutters. Proper defense will result in terms and bar discipline. I rarely see well done defense in the latter, and don't expect it in the former. I suspect proper defense, which among other things requires enough technical knowledge to know that such a claim would be frivolous, is lacking. I can only think of one really aggressive defense of LE that was well done; just happened last week in of all places Seattle. The judge actually pulled up her Huggies and hammered the plaintiffs.
The fact that 18DAI has direct knowledge of agencies banned lock equipped revolvers, and why, is a clue. I don't care what the odds of such a failure are - the fact that it can and has occurred is enough, because the lock serves no legitimate purpose. It is there only for political reasons because at the time, no one in a position of responsibility at S&W was a leader, and as such did not have the skill or the spine to call out the moonbats for their silliness. Now, there still are not, or the truth would have won out. This is similar to the spineless garbage I see far too often from LE command officers with regard to use of force. I see it far too often in many fields - people afraid to express reality to the delusional for fear of being considered "mean". We need a lot more R. Lee Ermey and a lot less Dale Carnegie.
Anti gun tort whores will file anything and argue all sorts of drivel, just like the anti-cop nutters. Proper defense will result in terms and bar discipline. I rarely see well done defense in the latter, and don't expect it in the former. I suspect proper defense, which among other things requires enough technical knowledge to know that such a claim would be frivolous, is lacking. I can only think of one really aggressive defense of LE that was well done; just happened last week in of all places Seattle. The judge actually pulled up her Huggies and hammered the plaintiffs.
The fact that 18DAI has direct knowledge of agencies banned lock equipped revolvers, and why, is a clue. I don't care what the odds of such a failure are - the fact that it can and has occurred is enough, because the lock serves no legitimate purpose. It is there only for political reasons because at the time, no one in a position of responsibility at S&W was a leader, and as such did not have the skill or the spine to call out the moonbats for their silliness. Now, there still are not, or the truth would have won out. This is similar to the spineless garbage I see far too often from LE command officers with regard to use of force. I see it far too often in many fields - people afraid to express reality to the delusional for fear of being considered "mean". We need a lot more R. Lee Ermey and a lot less Dale Carnegie.
Last edited:
Why is the "Lock" still being installed by S&W ?
Doug M.
Member
^ See above ^. As i said about a command officer (the elected office head) at an agency who did not come out in defense of one of his personnel some years back after a controversial but legally sound and actually inane OIS: a "microcephalic invertebrate gelding", "who is to leadership as syrup of ipecac is to a good meal".
New around here, and let me say up front I will not have a serious use Smith with with the IL. I don't need to be convinced it's a really bad idea.
But, I don't understand all the "likes" for the origianl post. We're glad a firearm chad a catastrophic failure?
Subtly
But, I don't understand all the "likes" for the origianl post. We're glad a firearm chad a catastrophic failure?
Subtly
medic15al
Member
No, It implies a post the person liking it agrees with him/her.
Fastbolt
Member
I've occasionally experienced, and have seen (revolvers of other's), S&W revolvers seize during live fire ... but none of them have involved the ILS (lock). Various other mechanical problems were involved.
One of them was really interesting, and a problem I'd never seen or even heard of before, in a NIB M617. The owner brought to us at the range (since a couple of range staff were S&W revolver armorers). The trigger and hammer were sluggish and difficult to function using the trigger, and it finally completely seized while I was checking )not shooting) it.
When I opened the side plate, I was kinda amazed to see that the spring for the hammer sear had come out of its spot, and had somehow dropped down low enough to have become entangled in the area of the hammer, trigger and rebound slide. It had become "cut" apart when it was caught up in the movement of those parts. How weird is that, right? (The repair was a new hammer sear spring for the MIM hammer.)
During my revolver armorer class I had a chance to ask other armorers in the class, from a number of agencies, about any "lock" failures they experienced or reported (confirmed). The answer was none. The guy teaching the class told me that he'd not yet had anyone in a revolver class report experiencing a ILS failure, either.
Looking at the way the itty bitty torque lock spring (installed on the locking arm) is supposed to be positioned and installed in the recess within the channel of the bolt (pretty much held in place by the presence of the bolt), it looked pretty secure.
However, then we saw that if someone opened the gun and removed the hammer and bolt, and then tipped the gun onto its (right) side, the weight of the locking arm could easily cause the spring to drop out, or just slip out, of the then-exposed recess. If the spring leg was no longer anchored within its intended recess, it couldn't hold the locking arm down.
This started to make some sense when it came to an occasional internet report of how a new model S&W revolver (with the ILS) might've experienced a lock failure after it had been opened up and worked on. Obviously, it also made me wonder if a moment's inattention during production assembly might've resulted in someone not properly installing the little dog leg of that torque lock spring.
Many years ago I used to have conversations with different folks at the factory, when calling and asking questions as an armorer for their various models. At various times I heard (from different guys) how a few very early problems with the ILS had been caught early on. One of the guys said those were identified early during the X-frame development (due to the significant recoil forces).
A revolver tech told me that he'd received a few warranty returns from owners claiming lock problems, but none of the guns involved had actually experienced lock problems. Instead, they involved other fitting issues that required repair, like DA sear stubbing and fit. (In the revolver class we were told that 90% of the hammer DA sears were dropping in new guns and working without any fitting, but the other 10% still required fitting.)
I know when I got my only J-frame that had a ILS (first production run of the then-new M&P 340), I looked at it with a bit of a suspicious eye. I checked the parts list and saw that a revision of the torque lock spring was listed, but didn't know which it had happened. Afterward, when I came back from my armorer class and was anxious to practice my new revolver armorer skills, I ordered a few extra torque lock springs and locking arms for the J's. (The springs had to be installed in the locking arms for installation, and they're small, as is the little slot in the locking arm, and there's a nub in the recess, past which one end of the spring's legs has to be forced. Let's just say young eyes, or a magnifying lens lamp, are handy.)
Even though my year old M&P 340 hadn't exhibited any issues with the ILS (lock) with all of the Magnum, +P and normal .38 loads I'd been using (a lot), I assembled and installed that new locking arm & spring for practice.
Many years later, and a respectable number of cases of various ammo later, I still haven't had any issue with the lock.
I've seen quite a few new style J's come through our range since the ILS was integrated in the guns, and none of them have caused issues for the owners, either, and most of those have been in the hands of cops using them for of-duty weapons. I've seen some CCW licensess's use them for range quals over the years, too, and no problems from them, either.
I've asked S&W's LE sales management folks about sales of J's to LE agencies and cops. I think it was NM State Police who buying and issuing new model M637's as secondary and off-duty weapons. I was told nobody was aware of any reported complaints from LE agencies at that time (mid 2000's).
Now, only one of my several J's have the ILS, and I'll acknowledge I tend to prefer the aesthetics of the smooth frame side versus that of the hole for the ILS.
I even ordered one of the newer model M&P 340's that was finally offered without the ILS, just to have one of each (any excuse to own a pair of them
).
That said, guess which M&P 340 it is I mostly carry and prefer to shoot? It's the one with the LOCK. Why? Well, it's never failed me in 13 years ... and I did a fair amount of shooting with it when the ammo was stocked in our range inventory. It's acquired a fair number of scratches, nicks and an unexplained dent (in the trigger guard, of which I have no memory of how it got there). It's been my normal "range beater" and my frequent daily off-duty and retirement carry weapon for some years. During that time & use, its acquired a pretty smooth trigger pull, too.
From what I've heard now and again, as long as the revolver has an exposed hammer that can be cocked into single action, the corporate legal folks at the company aren't going to recommend ditching the lock.
Just my thoughts. Everyone's got 'em.
One of them was really interesting, and a problem I'd never seen or even heard of before, in a NIB M617. The owner brought to us at the range (since a couple of range staff were S&W revolver armorers). The trigger and hammer were sluggish and difficult to function using the trigger, and it finally completely seized while I was checking )not shooting) it.
When I opened the side plate, I was kinda amazed to see that the spring for the hammer sear had come out of its spot, and had somehow dropped down low enough to have become entangled in the area of the hammer, trigger and rebound slide. It had become "cut" apart when it was caught up in the movement of those parts. How weird is that, right? (The repair was a new hammer sear spring for the MIM hammer.)
During my revolver armorer class I had a chance to ask other armorers in the class, from a number of agencies, about any "lock" failures they experienced or reported (confirmed). The answer was none. The guy teaching the class told me that he'd not yet had anyone in a revolver class report experiencing a ILS failure, either.
Looking at the way the itty bitty torque lock spring (installed on the locking arm) is supposed to be positioned and installed in the recess within the channel of the bolt (pretty much held in place by the presence of the bolt), it looked pretty secure.
However, then we saw that if someone opened the gun and removed the hammer and bolt, and then tipped the gun onto its (right) side, the weight of the locking arm could easily cause the spring to drop out, or just slip out, of the then-exposed recess. If the spring leg was no longer anchored within its intended recess, it couldn't hold the locking arm down.
This started to make some sense when it came to an occasional internet report of how a new model S&W revolver (with the ILS) might've experienced a lock failure after it had been opened up and worked on. Obviously, it also made me wonder if a moment's inattention during production assembly might've resulted in someone not properly installing the little dog leg of that torque lock spring.
Many years ago I used to have conversations with different folks at the factory, when calling and asking questions as an armorer for their various models. At various times I heard (from different guys) how a few very early problems with the ILS had been caught early on. One of the guys said those were identified early during the X-frame development (due to the significant recoil forces).
A revolver tech told me that he'd received a few warranty returns from owners claiming lock problems, but none of the guns involved had actually experienced lock problems. Instead, they involved other fitting issues that required repair, like DA sear stubbing and fit. (In the revolver class we were told that 90% of the hammer DA sears were dropping in new guns and working without any fitting, but the other 10% still required fitting.)
I know when I got my only J-frame that had a ILS (first production run of the then-new M&P 340), I looked at it with a bit of a suspicious eye. I checked the parts list and saw that a revision of the torque lock spring was listed, but didn't know which it had happened. Afterward, when I came back from my armorer class and was anxious to practice my new revolver armorer skills, I ordered a few extra torque lock springs and locking arms for the J's. (The springs had to be installed in the locking arms for installation, and they're small, as is the little slot in the locking arm, and there's a nub in the recess, past which one end of the spring's legs has to be forced. Let's just say young eyes, or a magnifying lens lamp, are handy.)
Even though my year old M&P 340 hadn't exhibited any issues with the ILS (lock) with all of the Magnum, +P and normal .38 loads I'd been using (a lot), I assembled and installed that new locking arm & spring for practice.
Many years later, and a respectable number of cases of various ammo later, I still haven't had any issue with the lock.
I've seen quite a few new style J's come through our range since the ILS was integrated in the guns, and none of them have caused issues for the owners, either, and most of those have been in the hands of cops using them for of-duty weapons. I've seen some CCW licensess's use them for range quals over the years, too, and no problems from them, either.
I've asked S&W's LE sales management folks about sales of J's to LE agencies and cops. I think it was NM State Police who buying and issuing new model M637's as secondary and off-duty weapons. I was told nobody was aware of any reported complaints from LE agencies at that time (mid 2000's).
Now, only one of my several J's have the ILS, and I'll acknowledge I tend to prefer the aesthetics of the smooth frame side versus that of the hole for the ILS.
I even ordered one of the newer model M&P 340's that was finally offered without the ILS, just to have one of each (any excuse to own a pair of them
).That said, guess which M&P 340 it is I mostly carry and prefer to shoot? It's the one with the LOCK. Why? Well, it's never failed me in 13 years ... and I did a fair amount of shooting with it when the ammo was stocked in our range inventory. It's acquired a fair number of scratches, nicks and an unexplained dent (in the trigger guard, of which I have no memory of how it got there). It's been my normal "range beater" and my frequent daily off-duty and retirement carry weapon for some years. During that time & use, its acquired a pretty smooth trigger pull, too.
From what I've heard now and again, as long as the revolver has an exposed hammer that can be cocked into single action, the corporate legal folks at the company aren't going to recommend ditching the lock.
Just my thoughts. Everyone's got 'em.
Grayfox
US Veteran
None of my S&W revolvers have the internal lock. I'm well aware that its about a one in a million chance that it will malfunction. However, it just so happens that I'm the one in a million guy that poop like this happens to all the time. 
I ain't takin' no chances.
I ain't takin' no chances.
I always have no opinion until I know the owner's level of fiddling with his/her revolvers . . .
Risk vs reward; no-brainer.
I promised myself not to reply to this thread – can’t help myself. I’ve had at least four lock failures. Not a lock gun hater, on the contrary, I have multiple S&Ws and only one is a pre lock gun. The failures were directly related to the lock – the first two were on a S&W 329, and the latter two were on a 6” half lug 629 (a range only gun) – yes, they were lock related and occurred twice and when the lock was removed never happened again. The 329s had 9,000 +- of hi intensity rounds and the 629 5,000 +. These are unnecessary parts that can fail. If you use these guns for personal protection then make your choice wisely. My all day, every day carry gun for the better part of a decade was a 329 (without the lock). The “I’ve never been hit by lightning, so it can’t happen crowd” is ubiquitous on the internet, so make your choice wisely. One last thing – replacing the lock with the plug, or removing just the flag still leaves unnecessary parts that can fail. Here’s a picture of the lock cam that failed on a 329.
Yeah, it may never happen, but it can and Murphy is always with us.
FWIW,
Paul
Yeah, it may never happen, but it can and Murphy is always with us.
FWIW,
Paul
357-RevolverGuy
Member
It feels like we have this thread conversation once a year. Yes it can lock up. Even if it's a .099% chance of it happening, only you can determine if that's enough to do something about it. There are two members on this forum who sell a classy looking plug if you decide to remove the lock. Yes it will void warranty, but if anything happens to your revolver you just put it back in and send it off and no one will ever know. Also let's stop the fear mongering. Removing the lock isn't going to land you in jail. Seriously has anyone ever heard of a case where this happen? That lock has been around now for almost 20 years and I've yet to hear it. It's an accessory that was added to the gun and can be removed without changing how it functions. No different than replacing your front sight, changing out your grips, or having a gunsmith port a barrel.
HamHands
Member
I promised myself not to reply to this thread – can’t help myself. I’ve had at least four lock failures. Not a lock gun hater, on the contrary, I have multiple S&Ws and only one is a pre lock gun. The failures were directly related to the lock – the first two were on a S&W 329, and the latter two were on a 6” half lug 629 (a range only gun) – yes, they were lock related and occurred twice and when the lock was removed never happened again. The 329s had 9,000 +- of hi intensity rounds and the 629 5,000 +. These are unnecessary parts that can fail. If you use these guns for personal protection then make your choice wisely. My all day, every day carry gun for the better part of a decade was a 329 (without the lock). The “I’ve never been hit by lightning, so it can’t happen crowd” is ubiquitous on the internet, so make your choice wisely. One last thing – replacing the lock with the plug, or removing just the flag still leaves unnecessary parts that can fail. Here’s a picture of the lock cam that failed on a 329.
Yeah, it may never happen, but it can and Murphy is always with us.
FWIW,
Paul
I admire your affinity for .44mag and your round count/dedication to the caliber. I'm a .44nut now too. But there is one thing I have to ask... When removing the lock and flag... and replacing it with the lock delete/plug; exactly what part(s) are still present mechanically that are still present and prone to failure related to, "the lock"???
HamHands
If you don’t want to watch the entire disassembly procedure, skip to about 5:40 – 6:00 on the video. There are four lock components, “the flag”, flag cam, cam retainer (little fork) and cam retainer spring. With this version of the plug you are still using two of the original lock parts (retainer & spring) to secure the plug.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMI8r27Hp90[/ame]
I believe there was another version that substituted a clip for the lock retainer/spring to secure the plug.
Just seems to me you are substituting one potential problem for another.
For me, these are all unnecessary parts that could be subject to “Murphy’s” influence. Probability is low for sure, but if it’s mechanical, it’s subject failure. Again, it’s an individual choice.
FWIW,
Paul
If you don’t want to watch the entire disassembly procedure, skip to about 5:40 – 6:00 on the video. There are four lock components, “the flag”, flag cam, cam retainer (little fork) and cam retainer spring. With this version of the plug you are still using two of the original lock parts (retainer & spring) to secure the plug.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMI8r27Hp90[/ame]
I believe there was another version that substituted a clip for the lock retainer/spring to secure the plug.
Just seems to me you are substituting one potential problem for another.
For me, these are all unnecessary parts that could be subject to “Murphy’s” influence. Probability is low for sure, but if it’s mechanical, it’s subject failure. Again, it’s an individual choice.
FWIW,
Paul
Mehutch
Member
My 586-7 with the 'Plug'... works for me.
Here are the removed parts.
A done deal. And on a second 686 gun...
Here are the removed parts.
A done deal. And on a second 686 gun...
Last edited:
medic15al
Member
Model 66 or 69?
kthom
Member
Some time ago, I bought an M-642 that an LGS had taken in trade. It looks like it was carried in a metal toolbox with a bunch of loose tools and in the back end of a truck bed that only travelled on really rough roads. Took me an while but I finally made a deal for it for less than $200. I took it home and removed all the IL parts, cleaned and lubed it, and found it to have a really decent action and function. Took it to the range and was well pleased with its accuracy. What’s not to like? Yeah, it has a small hole in the frame but so what? I bought a kit to fill the hole, but while waiting on it to arrive, it ocurred to me that those replacement parts could come loose as easily as the OEM lock parts, so I didn’t install them.
This lightweight revolver that says its +P rated right on the barrel has ridden in a good pocket holster as well as in both IWB and OWB holsters for quite a few miles now. Anytime I choose to carry a lightweight J frame, that’s the one I carry, and I have no worries about it. Can’t hurt it, but I can depend on it! If I were to buy another revolver with a lock that I intended to carry and depend on, I’d remove the IL completely and not worry about the hole in the frame. If I ever decided to sell the 642, I’d reinstall the IL and not look back. This is my personal decision about the IL, FWIW to anyone reading this. You decide for yourselves!
This lightweight revolver that says its +P rated right on the barrel has ridden in a good pocket holster as well as in both IWB and OWB holsters for quite a few miles now. Anytime I choose to carry a lightweight J frame, that’s the one I carry, and I have no worries about it. Can’t hurt it, but I can depend on it! If I were to buy another revolver with a lock that I intended to carry and depend on, I’d remove the IL completely and not worry about the hole in the frame. If I ever decided to sell the 642, I’d reinstall the IL and not look back. This is my personal decision about the IL, FWIW to anyone reading this. You decide for yourselves!
Paul the video for one you show is the Lock Delete parts. They are a machined interlocking slug and retainer set. The only part that is reused is the spring.
Similar threads
