Internal Locks and Hammer Blocks

bassoneer

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
395
Reaction score
87
Location
Knoxville, TN
I have been reading threads about the internal lock for months. I had been debating with myself whether to remove them on two of my guns, or to keep them in since they never malfunctioned on my guns. Well, for some reason yesterday I had enough and decided to get the damn things out of the two guns that had them...a 638 airweight bodyguard and a 686P. First was the 638 - I followed the instructions in the famous internet video regarding lock removal from a 642. I have a 640 that I had taken apart, and it looked similar on the inside, so I felt pretty confident I could do it. The only problem was, as soon as I took the side plate off a little part fell out that didn't seem to go anywhere. I proceeded with succesfully removing the lock and then partially put the gun back together. It still worked without the part, so I was stumped. I sat there and studied the part for about half an hour, and finally turned over the side plate and saw the grooves in it. I thought there is no way S&W would have put that there for no reason because it looks expensive to do...then I played around with the part until I figured out what it did. It blocks the hammer until you pull the trigger or cock the gun, then it ever-so-slowly moves down and out of the way, allowing the gun to fire. GENIUS (S&W, not me, although I did feel a sense of accomplishment and felt better about know what all the parts did). I went ahead and re-assembled the gun and tested everything - perfect! And no lock. I also did the 686P and there was the same part. That was not in the internet video of the 642 because it doesn't have an exposed hammer and no need for that feature. I know the gun works without the block because I tried it, but it fits perfectly and provides an extra barrier of protection in case you drop the gun. After I did all of this, I found some schematics on the web and one or two photos (after hours of looking) and found out it technically is called a "hammer block". By now you guys are probably thinking everybody knows what a hammer block is - but I wouldn't be so sure. And it is only on newer guns with an exposed hammer. After an hour or two I had successfully removed two internal locks, put them in the little bags with the keys, back in the blue S&W box where they belong, and then successfully reassembled both guns. Now, I think I could disassemble them again easier in the future.

By the way, I have ordered two "plugs" from Bullseye Smith and they should be coming my way in the mail tomorrow. I plan to post photos of the installed plugs once they go in. Also, I may take a photo of the hammer block and show how to reinstall that - I think whoever designed that thing must have been a very good mechanical engineer.

My only disappointments were that on the side of the 638, there is a tiny hole that is where the hinge point of the lock was. I may just let that go. Anybody have a good way to fill that in with something? And, of course on the 686P there is a little slot where the flag used to be, but it is not very noticable. Actually, neither is the hole in the 638. The hammers had been notched also to accomodate that stupid internal lock, but that is also not very noticable. I had fun taking them out and feel the guns are now much more reliable.

Later, B
 
Register to hide this ad
bassoneer:

Amen! Nice work on 'correcting' your revolvers. The plugs are works of art, imho, and give the finished look that you want. Thank you for describing the hammer block, too, as it is a subtle (and clever) mechanism. Machine design is elegant stuff.

I have 101% confidence in my "plugged" revolvers now and I am sure that you feel the same about yours. Enjoy.

Chris
 
I'm not trying to dig you but just these IL threads get old...

There is nothing wrong with the hammer block. It's there for a reason. In fact it could save your life one day.

The IL is another story. If you don't like the features why did you buy the gun in the first place?:confused: It's not like there are no pre lock revolvers around. In addition, some people prefer the lock, believe it or not.

Check out the FAQ in the smithing section, it will help you take apart, then put the gun back together next time.;)
 
Last edited:
This is one of the first about the lock that has been sane about it, it is something we have to live with so why can't we enjoy what we have instead of crying about it. Nothing wrong with the lock when you disable it, it was designed for storage where it was a added saftey devise. Here is my carry 619:

Picture007020.jpg
 
If I remember the testimony a number of years ago from a Ruger single action trial, hammer blocks (and transfer bars) have been around since the late 1800's.

Also, Bullseye Smith has a plug that will allow you to leave the flag in, filling the notch and hole.
 
In addition, I have been asked of people in my circle to do this modification. I have been posting for years to put a screw. I finally posted how to do the job. Put up or shut up I guess...
I just don't understand why some NEED this done. Why waste your money on an IL revolver, just to change it. The people that have this modification are all smiles afterwards. I posted how to do it, so your favorite shop can do the job. It's not hard if you have basic tools and an understanding of metal work.
No disrespect Bullseye and his plug, but this is just another mouse trap that's all, nothing more or less.
Here is a copy and paste from the other thread I posted:

With all the talk here of the internal locks, I want to share my method of killing the beast. I've done this to several guns, and personally it's a pain in the neck to do. The parts are tiny, and when to try to customize stuff it's sometimes slow and tedious. This method removes all the parts, no forks, springs or junk left inside the frame.

When you measure the parts, the lock cylinder hole is about .200 diameter. ALL cylinders are the same size which are .130 thick, so your dealing with parts that are hard to see and hard to hold. Tap the hole on the side using a M6x1 tap. The tap drill size is a number 6 drill which is .204 thousands, so you don't have to drill anything. You get 2 full threads on a J frame. 4 threads on the X and somewhere in the middle for the other frame sizes. The best part of this is that if you want to put the gun together with the cylinder again, since you didn't drill the hole bigger, it will return to normal rather easily and nobody will know any different. Tapping aluminum or stainless frames is like cutting butter, just add oil to the tap to make sure the threads don't tear as you do the tapping operation.
Now I've found the screw needs to be glued in place, the stronger the glue the better. Locktite doesn't seem to work well with aluminum frames with stainless screws.
Tap the hole with a drill press if you got, if not this method of using a 1/4 drive socket aligning the tap to cut straight will ensure a good looking job.
tapping.jpg


Find a screw of your liking, then cut it down to .130 for the Js. If too long it will rub the hammer tying up the action. Keep the screw short so it won't affect the thumb release either.
Well that's it, here are the other pics.
lockparts.jpg

screwside.jpg

screwclose-up.jpg


I never said it was easy to do. :D
 
I'm not trying to dig you but just these IL threads get old...

There is nothing wrong with the hammer block. It's there for a reason. In fact it could save your life one day.

The IL is another story. If you don't like the features why did you buy the gun in the first place?:confused: It's not like there are no pre lock revolvers around. In addition, some people prefer the lock, believe it or not.

Check out the FAQ in the smithing section, it will help you take apart, then put the gun back together next time.;)


1. Sorry I pissed you off.
2. I didn't understand there was a problem when I bought the guns with the locks.

I'll find another place to discuss in the future...you guys can have it.
 
QUOTE=bassoneer;1211177]1. Sorry I pissed you off.
2. I didn't understand there was a problem when I bought the guns with the locks.

I'll find another place to discuss in the future...you guys can have it.[/QUOTE]

Dude, I clicked on your topic, & have a thick skin, and I ain't upset. This is the internet!! Every 4th post in this section is about the lock, how to remove it or to cover it up.

So the fault is mine for responding to your thread.
Have at it, I'll play on the chat rooms for a while.:D
 
QUOTE=bassoneer;1211177]

Dude, I clicked on your topic, & have a thick skin, and I ain't upset. This is the internet!! Every 4th post in this section is about the lock, how to remove it or to cover it up.

So the fault is mine for responding to your thread.
Have at it, I'll play on the chat rooms for a while.:D

No, I probably over-reacted and apologize. I think my first post was too long. I do like the hammer block...I think it is very well designed. Thanks for the post...Later, B
 
I have a model 21 TR .44 special that I've easily put 5000 rounds through. Am acquiring a Night Guard 396 that I'll probably put that many through also . No problems with the 21 so far and don't expect any with the 396. The internal lock conundrum and those efforts to fix it brings to mind an old saying " if it ain't broke don't fix it". I've even heard some say they won't buy a gun with one. That's great - just makes more available for me to buy.
 
Last edited:
I have a model 21 TR .44 special that I've easily put 5000 rounds through. Am acquiring a Night Guard 396 that I'll probably put that many through also . No problems with the 21 so far and don't expect any with the 396. The internal lock conundrum and those efforts to fix it brings to mind an old saying " if it ain't broke don't fix it". I've even heard some say they won't buy a gun with one. That's great - just makes more available for me to buy.


Right on Brother, more they cry - more we buy. Plus welcome to the forum, where have you been for four years, there has been a river of tears flow down the S&W Forum canal :D .
 
Having experienced first hand the temporary "locked" problem associated with the lock revolvers- I will never own one again. The IL is fine unless you rapid fire it with some heavy loads. Ironically it's the same scenario as having to defend your life with a rapid succession of shots being fired. IL revolvers are fine for range duty but not for carry or house protection.
 
Having experienced first hand the temporary "locked" problem associated with the lock revolvers- I will never own one again. The IL is fine unless you rapid fire it with some heavy loads. Ironically it's the same scenario as having to defend your life with a rapid succession of shots being fired. IL revolvers are fine for range duty but not for carry or house protection.

That helps to reinforce my decision to remove the lock. Thanks, B
 
I have a model 21 TR .44 special that I've easily put 5000 rounds through. Am acquiring a Night Guard 396 that I'll probably put that many through also . No problems with the 21 so far and don't expect any with the 396. The internal lock conundrum and those efforts to fix it brings to mind an old saying " if it ain't broke don't fix it". I've even heard some say they won't buy a gun with one. That's great - just makes more available for me to buy.

I don't think anybody said they do not work, but depending on the gun and exact rounds being fired they do lock up on the IL, leaving your butt out there. How often and when you care might depend on the situation at hand. That is really it. Who buys with or without IL works both ways, as I am sure that the no IL crowd hopes you don't but any prelock revolvers, leaving more for them. So overall the argument is silly. But the fact is the IL can and does fail.
 
not saying anything new here but just to reiterate what has been mentioned time and again why not give gun buyers the option of a gun with or without a lock? I don't like the lock but I do understand that if enough people buy new anyway then that makes it easier for me to continue to acquire classic smiths. but it would be nice to have the opportunity to buy a new smith revolver without the lock. maybe one day that will happen again. but until then for new revolvers I really like the ruger models.
 
If the deals good and something I want then I will buy a revolver with the IL.
but it has to be in good mechanical shape and be something I actually want, otherwise I hold out for a pre-lock model in good shape.
the one IL model I do have I did remove the locklug/flag and the minute spring and put it back together and have been carrying with out a problem and complete faith that it will go bang if i need it.
I don't like the lock either but I won't turn down a good deal on one if the conditions are right.
 
I was patient and a bit lucky to find a face-to-face sale of a no-lock 642. This nice revolver has become my daily pocket carry.

bassoneer - I give you a lot af credit in taking the revolvers apart and removing the locks. I don't have the confidence or knowledge to do that.
btw: we are almost neighbors, I'm in Cumberland Gap.
 
I don't know if the IL locks are a problem. But, I did learn where there is smoke there is fire. I found a step by step video on youtube on removing the IL on j frames. Using that video I removed the locks on my m60 and m640. Now I don't have to worry about the lock or nolock debate anymore.
I don't have one.

John!
 
I don't know if the IL locks are a problem. But, I did learn where there is smoke there is fire. I found a step by step video on youtube on removing the IL on j frames. Using that video I removed the locks on my m60 and m640. Now I don't have to worry about the lock or nolock debate anymore.
I don't have one.

John!

John I can't figure WHY everyone can't be like you, remove the flag and the problem is took care of. But no that is to easy and cut down anyone who buys a new gun. They are just hard at work being what they are:
img3jj.jpg
 

Latest posts

Back
Top