442 Lock Failure

[oldogy]

New to the forum, not new to S&W as I've owned a model 28 in 357 for a long time.
I recently purchased new, a 442 airweight with the lock. It will be the wife's legal CC piece. I hear lots of horror stories about the lock and problems, locking by itself. This 442 has never, since we've owned, been locked intentionally by either of us. I will never intentionally lock this gun. We've fired a couple hundred rounds of regular ammunition through it with no problems. Have not fired +P.
Question: Has there been any documentation of a J frame with lock actually locking on its own? Or is this just talk?
Thanks for any actual reports.
I would think if this is actually a problem Smith would be working on a recall as the liability would be unbelievable. So, fact or fiction
Thanks,
oldogy

 

[Fulton722]

... I would think if this is actually a problem Smith would be working on a recall as the liability would be unbelievable. ...

To place a liability issue on S&W, you would have to PROVE that you didn't lock the gun yourself . . . and how are you going to do that?

 

[oldogy]

To place a liability issue on S&W, you would have to PROVE that you didn't lock the gun yourself . . . and how are you going to do that?

One way would be for a defensive situation where shots had been fired from the gun, the gun was found locked in the shooters hands or close by. God, let us hope that never happens to a GG. My original question still stands. Any reports with credence of a self locking problem on these guns. I am not interested in where some ones brothers second cousin twice removed thought he had a problem.
thanks,
oldogy

 

[USAF385]

I have had ILs and had no issue. My 642 does NOT have a lock though. My father has a 642 with lock for many years.. many rounds of standard and +P put through it.. NO issues. I don't have any first hand problems with it, nor do I actually know anyone who has.

That being said, I did remove my father's lock from his 642 two nights ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVPYgohVCNM
This video is of a 640 I believe, but it helped me remove the lock from his 642 in under 10 minutes.

Have there been actual locks: fact.

 

[JAREDSHS]

have owned 7 S&W's in the last8 years-all with the I.L. Never a problem with any of them.
One was a 625 that I carried on LE duty. One was a 64 snub, the other were a combination
of 637,638,642 and 442 Airweights. Wife and I still carry a 637 and 442..NEVER a single
malfunction regarding the lock or any other part. I just do not understand all the fuss
about a feature that you don't have to use if you don't want to use it.

 

[Lee in Quartzsite]

USAF385...you beat me to it with the video. Although I never had a mechanical failure of my Internal Lock, I feel much better having finally removed it. I did have two mental failures where I forgot to unlock it...carried around a loaded rock for two weeks thinking it was unlocked and ready for use.

 

[handgunner356]

It seems to me we tried to start a thread on this subject and had a total of maybe two that had actually had the lock engage. It was a sticky for awhile and I don't know if anyone can dig it up or not. Considering the number of guns with the lock in them I'm betting the failure rate is no more than the non-lock failure rate.

 

[Black_Sheep]

As I just posted in another thread, my Model 60 locked up while practicing double taps with 125gr .357 rounds. The hammer was partially cocked and bound up tight, the trigger was bound up as well. Clearing it was difficult because I had to manipulate the hammer and fiddle with the key while keeping the muzzle pointed downrange. If it happens again the gun will be going away.

Another member posted about how he had unknowingly locked his CCW revolver and carried it that way for several days. That's a good way to get hurt...

 

[USAF385]

Lee in Quartzsite,

Your post in a different thread actually lead me to the video. Thanks for that!

I've never had an issue.. nor has my father... but he too feels better having it out...

 

[Screwball]

Considering the number of guns with the lock in them I'm betting the failure rate is no more than the non-lock failure rate.

How would no-lock guns have the lock fail more frequently than the ones with locks? That is how I take your statement.

Have revolvers ever broken down? Yes, of course they have. It is a mechanical device. But the chances of a basic issue on a no-lock gun, the guns with the locks have the same chance of that happening (if you are saying more no-locks have fail, for whatever reason, then I say to compare the production numbers).

But the lock does put another set of gears that a wrench can be thrown into. I've read maybe five lock-ups, which I can't say whether or not any of those are the same you mentioned, but I saw a locked gun at the range, before being shipped back to S&W. Yes, the chances of a gun locking up in a time you need it are low, but I air on the side of caution. If I ever get down to pulling out my 642, s*** has already gone bad, and I don't need anything else coming up. That is the reason I bought a no-lock revolver (if I couldn't get one, I would have either found an older gun, or switched to another company).

 

[handgunner356]

Maybe not the best way to put it, but there are other failures with revolvers beside the lock. The lock has been around since when? 2004? S&W builds 50-60,000 revolvers a year, seems to me I've heard more about firing pins, cylinder bind or barrels coming off. Don't get me wrong, the lock is about the most stupid thing they could of put on a revolver. I just don't see where the FTF because of the lock is greater than any of the other causes considering the number of firearms.

 

[Katy]

When these snubbies are called into action, the sh!t has already hit the fan.
Why have a gun that has one more thing to fail ?
Types of FTF w/o the IL:
1). Typical mechanical failure. (That can happen on ANY revolver)

Types of FTF w/ the IL:
1). Typical mechanical failure. (That can happen on ANY revolver)
2). The IL fails.
3). The user forgets to unlock the gun prior to CCW.

With the IL, Murphy's law gets 2 more chances to rear it's ugly head.


If you were to buy a fire extinguisher, would you buy the one with the safety lock or no safety lock ?

 

[5Wire]

If you were to buy a fire extinguisher, would you buy the one with the safety lock or no safety lock ?

My fire extinguishers all have had pins which lock the levers. The pins have to be withdrawn before the extinguisher can be operated.

 

[gnf1]

i think that was meant to be a rhetorical question.

 

[Screwball]

My fire extinguishers all have had pins which lock the levers. The pins have to be withdrawn before the extinguisher can be operated.

And it should always work, correct? How pissed would you be if you had a kitchen fire, small enough to take out with an extinguisher, but were unable to get the "lock" off to use it. In turn, your whole house goes up in flames...

 

[5Wire]

And it should always work, correct? How pissed would you be if you had a kitchen fire, small enough to take out with an extinguisher, but were unable to get the "lock" off to use it. In turn, your whole house goes up in flames...

You don't get it, do you. That's how they're made, with the pins. They work fine.

 

[bmcgilvray]

All I know is that my traditional non-lock Smith & Wesson models will never fail due to a lock related issue.

The former "sticky" that was up for such a long period of time illustrated quite a few more than two revolvers siezed by locks.

 

[Katy]

Look, everybody knows they all have pins.
What I meant was that if there was another type of safety device added on that required a key.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

And it should always work, correct? How pissed would you be if you had a kitchen fire, small enough to take out with an extinguisher, but were unable to get the "lock" off to use it. In turn, your whole house goes up in flames...

House going up in flames, while unfortunate, is possibly less serious than a revolver locking up after one shot.

OP: There have been more than two lock failures. None of them happened to me (probably because I removed the lock from my one gun that had it). Believe it or don't.

You can do whatever you want, but when I see good pre-lock revolvers selling for less than new IL revolvers, I consider the decision a no-brainer for a carry gun.

I may not always be right, but I'm never in doubt.

 

[bubbajoe45]

House going up in flames, while unfortunate, is possibly less serious than a revolver locking up after one shot.

OP: There have been more than two lock failures. None of them happened to me (probably because I removed the lock from my one gun that had it). Believe it or don't.

You can do whatever you want, but when I see good pre-lock revolvers selling for less than new IL revolvers, I consider the decision a no-brainer for a carry gun.

I may not always be right, but I'm never in doubt.

Less serious? . . . unless you didn't make your first shot count; what if all your no-lock revolvers were in your house and you didn't have a fire-proof safe . . . with a lock on it? Sorry to be a smart aleck . . . I couldn't resist.

More seriously, I agree with your point - when one considers unneccessarily more complicated mechanical devices that cost more to do the same job, the decision is easily made. The dilemma for me has been weighing that cool technology factor called Scandium against the workmanship I see and feel in the older guns. At the end of the day though, I am not in doubt either - I'll tote the weight, I'll bear the load.