Internal Lock question

[pinkymingeo]

I replace for lighter DA trigger pull. All of my revolvers have Wolff mainsprings and lighter rebound springs. With a lighter mainspring in the new-style guns a longer firing pin is pretty much a necessity. I use Apex pins, though C&S pins do the job also. I'll add that I load all my ammo, and use Federal primers.

 

[DonD]

Thanks, pinkym. Don

 

[Dot_mdb]

This thread was supposed to be about the design of the internal lock. Does anyone with a background in engineering or industrial design have anything to say about how the lock is built and fuctions? I haven't asked about the law or the courts or any springs except those in the lock.

Bill

 

[labworm]

Bill, I have owned a M60 3 inch with the famous lock, never had any problems at all with it.

S&W still seems to be in business after its introduction.

Most do not like the idea of the lock because it is just one more added restriction attached to the firearm.

If I was in a gun shop and came across a certain model of interest, the lock would not prevent me from making a purchase.

I do not own any Rugers, which are fine revolvers, but noticed their lock, one must remove the grips to get at it, at least the model I was looking at. Now that would be a PIA.

 

[CharlieP]

While munching on the popcorn might as well address the OP.

Is it a bad idea? Probably yes. Why? Because very few owners use it, and those who do use it could (in most cases) just as easily use a padlock device.

It is a bad design? Probably not. Even though there have been reported failures, these reports are rare, and often impossible to verify. I would bet that a significant percentage of reported failures are operator error, e.g., lock not fully open. It is human nature to blame an object or machine for one's own error - be it a gun or a computer. But then, I stongly suspect that some of the failures are fact. But any device will fail, even simple devices like screwdrivers and hammers. And that is the issue some folks have with the lock, its one more thing to go wrong.

But realistically, the failure rate of the lock is so low, even assuming that all reports are valid, that anyone who thinks this is a problem should not even consider using a semi-auto pistol of any kind, since they all probably have failure rates way in excess of the lock failure rate.

Personally, I prefer the no-lock design, but own both types. I have never had a lock fail, and my carry 642 has a lock. No big deal.

 

[DonD]

Originally posted by CharlieP:
While munching on the popcorn might as well address the OP.

Is it a bad idea? Probably yes. Why? Because very few owners use it, and those who do use it could (in most cases) just as easily use a padlock device.

It is a bad design? Probably not. Even though there have been reported failures, these reports are rare, and often impossible to verify. I would bet that a significant percentage of reported failures are operator error, e.g., lock not fully open. It is human nature to blame an object or machine for one's own error - be it a gun or a computer. But then, I stongly suspect that some of the failures are fact. But any device will fail, even simple devices like screwdrivers and hammers. And that is the issue some folks have with the lock, its one more thing to go wrong.

But realistically, the failure rate of the lock is so low, even assuming that all reports are valid, that anyone who thinks this is a problem should not even consider using a semi-auto pistol of any kind, since they all probably have failure rates way in excess of the lock failure rate.

Personally, I prefer the no-lock design, but own both types. I have never had a lock fail, and my carry 642 has a lock. No big deal.

I think this is one of the best comments ever posted on this site about the IL. I only have two S&Ws, both Model 500s. I would have chosen to do w/o it but their presence doesn't upset me. Don

 

[Lee in Quartzsite]

I have carried my S&W 642 for the last 5 years. I have never had a problem with the lock. The only time I use it is when I have to go into a business that does not permit firearms and I have to leave it in the car. I would prefer to not have the lock, but that wasn't an option with the 642 when I bought it.

My wife just bought a new Ruger LCR this past weekend, and it also has a lock. It's design is totally different than the S&W, plus in order to use it you first have to remove the grip. Not very user friendly.

If the lock bothers you, here is a video on how to remove it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVPYgohVCNM

 

[Vulcan Bob]

First off it was a bad idea. Second, I dont have a problem with them in a steel N frame. Most all the failures of the IL I have heard about were in the scandaunobtainalum frames. I think it may be a function of recoil that does it? That being said I have no problem carrying my M-21-4 or M-22-4 for personel defence.