Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson Revolvers > S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present

S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present All NON-PINNED Barrels, the L-Frames, and the New Era Revolvers


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-04-2009, 04:36 PM
surveyor47 surveyor47 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-04-2009, 05:31 PM
manny25 manny25 is offline
Banned
S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today  
Join Date: May 2009
Location: louisiana
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 4 Posts
Default

i hate the lock
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-04-2009, 05:57 PM
shortranger shortranger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

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

David
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-04-2009, 07:07 PM
pinkymingeo pinkymingeo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Liked 42 Times in 23 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #55  
Old 10-04-2009, 09:10 PM
Stainz's Avatar
Stainz Stainz is offline
Member
S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pinson, AL
Posts: 2,106
Likes: 57
Liked 656 Times in 307 Posts
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-04-2009, 09:34 PM
surveyor47 surveyor47 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkymingeo View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by surveyor47; 10-04-2009 at 09:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #57  
Old 10-05-2009, 02:00 AM
luis luis is offline
Member
S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Liked 54 Times in 30 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Navy View Post
I fail to understand why S&W does not offer option of no lock for LEO's and why other's do not just take the locks out of the gun.

Currently there is a member here selling a part that fills the hole when removed. removal of lock and installing the "Plug" is simple and only takes a few minutes.

So people fail to understand the effect of lawyers and Congress on manufactures I guess.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-05-2009, 02:18 AM
davemercer davemercer is offline
Member
S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 111
Likes: 1
Liked 22 Times in 16 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-05-2009, 03:11 AM
TACC1 TACC1 is offline
US Veteran
S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wautoma, WI 54982
Posts: 4,114
Likes: 6,564
Liked 799 Times in 499 Posts
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-05-2009, 05:20 AM
pinkymingeo pinkymingeo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Liked 42 Times in 23 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 10-05-2009, 07:55 AM
Frankie2blue Frankie2blue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mass/Florida
Posts: 161
Likes: 3
Liked 62 Times in 16 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-05-2009, 11:52 AM
surveyor47 surveyor47 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-05-2009, 01:20 PM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,448
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,188 Times in 3,621 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surveyor47 View Post
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.

Last edited by cmort666; 10-05-2009 at 01:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #64  
Old 02-02-2016, 01:59 AM
jaaeatax jaaeatax is offline
Member
S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today  
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 91
Likes: 360
Liked 45 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woodsltc View Post
How can this be??????????? Smith & Wesson says there have been no lock problems !!!!

Don
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...
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-02-2016, 12:15 PM
Macinaw's Avatar
Macinaw Macinaw is offline
Member
S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,333
Likes: 464
Liked 1,605 Times in 538 Posts
Default

This thread is from 2009.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #66  
Old 02-02-2016, 12:28 PM
Wee Hooker Wee Hooker is offline
Member
S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today S&W 642 IL Failure Today  
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 4,481
Likes: 3,096
Liked 4,325 Times in 1,619 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macinaw View Post
This thread is from 2009.
......and still draws as much hate mail as if it were yesterday :-)
__________________
Dave
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
340pd, 442, 586, 637, 640, 642, 686, airweight, bullseye, ccw, combats, concealed, ejector, extractor, gunsmith, lock, mountain gun, prelock, primer, s&w, sig arms, spegel, springfield, taurus

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Failure to Eject and Now Failure to Fire koine2002 Smith & Wesson SD & Sigma Pistols 13 02-06-2015 12:18 PM
New M&P 22 failure Jimirl Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 3 07-07-2012 10:54 PM
My first failure with M&P 45c alde Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 1 05-28-2012 07:20 PM
Had my first S&W failure today vista461 Smith & Wesson Semi-Auto Pistols 3 11-22-2011 05:50 PM
m&p Failure's Jknox87 Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 59 02-21-2011 11:08 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)