New guy with a question that I could not completely answer going through the Search function:

I purchased a NIB 642 that was supposed to be non-locking at a great price. Dealer sent me a locking model instead. Not having been in the revolver game for quite some time, I just accepted the gun and took it to the range. Since they're hard to find in the current market, I figured I could live with the lock.

I've put 100 rounds through the little gun and love it; however, I've run across mention of lock failures that could cause the gun to become inoperable. Is that really the case? Are there documented cases of this actually happening?

I find it difficult to believe that S&W or any other gun manufacturer would allow a defective lock system to cause them a huge liability issue that would become a class action civil suit. More to the point: I need to have confidence that my gun isn't going to become a dead paperweight when I need it most.

I've also read it's pretty simple to remove the internal lock mechanism. In doing so, does it leave a gaping hole for dirt, moisture, and lint to collect inside? I'm not sure what to believe, and I need to lean on your experience. Thanks.

This subject has been tortured to death here.
Search function is your friend:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/searchr...572j1691154j17

__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95

While I dislike the concept and PC cave in that led to the IL I have been shooting the Internal Lock guns since they came out and I have NEVER had a problem or seen first hand anyone I shoot with have a problem with the Internal Lock.
Chip King

I don't carry anything w/the lock although I've owned them and none ever failed me. My belief is that the company did have an early problem that got quitely fixed. I'd run some hot +P through your gun and if the lock does not fail you I don't think you have a problem.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

Here we go again.

There have been failures. Just how many is unknown, and S&W isn't talking. When they do, they say they are unaware of a problem.

A few years ago, Massad Ayoob wrote up a failure of the internal lock on an S&W - a 329 perhaps.

A couple of months later IN THE SAME GUN MAGAZINE, Charles Petty, I believe, a normally reliable gun writer, penned an article quoting S&W saying that they were not aware of such failures, having not received any warranty complaints about such, or some such nonsense.

This despite the fact that there are nearly countless threads or posts on this forum and others. And despite his colleague's (Ayoob's) article just a couple of issue before in the same magazine! Whether Petty's article was completed prior to Ayoob's or not is unknown as sometimes those articles are not published immediately, but are held for a variety of reasons.

How much of the internet stuff on this issue is duplication or just anecdotal "I heard" type of postings is not known, but a few have posted pictures to bolster their case. In any event, it seems there have been issues and, to paraphrase the gun control people, "if elimination of the lock saves just one life" then certainly it should be eliminated. The big problem is that people who push this type of stuff are more concerned about accidents than they are about an owner being deprived of his life because of a malfunction in a defense scenario.

Using the search feature on here will reveal almost countless threads and posts about this topic.

If you ordered a non-lock 642, then send it back and insist on what you ordered. If you cannot, then the entire lock, including all of its parts, can be removed. If you do not like the resulting "oil application port," then there are various plugs that can be installed, including one made by one of our forum members here.

All I can say is I have two, a 637-2, 22LR with 3 in. bbl. and adjustable sights and a 317-3 38spcl. with 2in bbl and fixed sights. Both are airweight J frames. the 38 is my carry gun. the 22 is my kit gun. Shoot both a lot. I shoot bricks of 22 ammo through the 22 and reload for the 38. Made sure the locks were fully in the off position when I bought new and havn't touched them since or had any malfunctions or mysterious lock coming on by recoil or gremlins. I don't see a problem with them. I have total confidence they will fire when needed.
gary

Thanks for the replies, and showing patience towards a Noob. Last time I owned S&W revolvers, the lock hadn't been invented. I tried the search using multiple different wording. Obviously my search technique needs some fine tuning. I just got the 642 last week, and shot a 50-round box of Independence 130 gr. JHP .38 Special, followed by another 50-round box of Ultramax 125 gr. JHP +P the following day. No problems, though the +P gave me some jolting with the stock S&W rubber boot grips. Seems like a great little gun. The lock rumors I ran across gave me some pause, but since I shot it with no problems, I doubt I can return it to the dealer. I'm replacing the stock springs and adding the Apex Tactical spring kit next week to ease the trigger pull. I'll probably remove the lock as added insurance.

If you're going to remove the lock, ya might want to get one of these.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/accesso...9-fs-plug.html

Personally, I would never carry a S&W with the Lock.

I remove ALL the lock parts.

+1 for the plug

As I recall....one of our forum members established a pole-thread last year. I believe the results of the pole indicated something in the area of a 7% "problem rate" involving the lock. That makes a gun with a lock in it 93% reliable....if you believe the poling is accurate. I also think the problems are mostly associated with the magnum calibers and locking-under-heavy-recoil is the biggest fear. if you ever had one apart and saw how it was designed....you would not want it in your gun. Looks like something the government engineered by committee.

Having said that....it's pretty much become a non-issue with current buyers. The younger gun buyers, or those not familiar with the Smith family, simply don't know the gun ever came without an IL. Many, many other manufactures use a similar key-lock system involving cams and springs, so it's here to stay.

Taurus beat everybody to the punch on this. Just a butt-simple screw in the hammer and you hardly even know it's there and have to show most buyers where it is and what it is. I have never heard of a problem with the Taurus ILS and all you have to do is replace the hammer and it's gone not leaving any tracks (as in holes to plug) in it's wake. Too bad other manufacturers could not obtain the rights to use that system.

I don't think you'll have any issues with the 642. it's just a "head problem" for a lot of us.