Is the lock really a problem?

[Kapuna]

I don't personally like the IL, but one of my favorite CCW's has the lock... it's a comfortable carry, the price was right, so I'll ignore the wart...

 

[michpatriot]

So to be accurate out of the few responses to this thread.. two have responded that they have FIRST HAND experience with spontaneous locking..and I'll raise it to three. So to the naysayers: the Lock is junk, and they can and DO lock up. I tig welded up the hole on my MP340 (scandium welds beautiful) and benched off the surface, it's gone like it never was there....

 

[dogdoc]

Lock Jammed the hammer half way TWO times with my 329 pd. Sent it back to smith and promptly removed lock when I got it back because I did not trust it in that ultralight frame flexing gun. No problems in my steel guns and I do not worry about it in steel guns. I also have a 325 pd that I still have the lock in since it recoils much less than a 44 329 pd.

 

[nachogrande]

A PROBLEM?

Only if you use it AFAIC. I try to ignore it. No problems as of yet on a 617-6.

 

[Peak53]

^^^^ ... and one person who admits to using the lock as intended.

 

[Old cop]

The company does make a couple of models w/o the lock and that would be my suggestion. Also, many older Smith revolvers can be had at a lower cost and they don’t have the lock either.

 

[dogdoc]

The company does make a couple of models w/o the lock and that would be my suggestion. Also, many older Smith revolvers can be had at a lower cost and they don’t have the lock either.

Or just remove the lock . Problem solved

 

[tgmr05]

Yes, it can lock under use, just as other mechanical devices can fail. I also saw one first hand. The flag moved just enough to bind the hammer. It does not happen all the time, and is not necessarily a huge concern. A good idea is to shoot enough prior to carry to verify it works ok. If it does not happen in the first 500 rounds, you have at least eliminated the initial concern of improper installation/fitting that could be an issue with some.

If you shoot enough, you will see other failures as well, not just the lock, that can take a revolver out of action and require gunsmithing services.

Ibtl

 

[Bumpus13]

*shrugs*

Never been a problem for me. I simply never used either of my keys. Put ‘em in a ziplock bag with the rest of the box’s non-gun contents, and went to the range with a stack of .357’s

The ‘ol 686+ purrs along without a hiccup.


It’s not even a thought for me.

Happy shooting!

 

[ladder13]

When I went through a S&W revolver armorer class I tried to find one of the older armorers from agencies who had first-hand seen or experienced a problem with the ILS (lock). All I could find was some revolver "traditionalists" who disliked the appearance. None of the people from the other agencies could offer an instance where the ILS actually produced a problem. Even the instructor (head of the program at the time) couldn't offer an example of anyone in any of the classes who had reported a first-hand problem.

The portion of the class devoted to the lock mechanism only dealt with having to replace the "flag" (locking arm), which also meant learning how to install the itty bitty torque lock spring into the slot of the locking arm, if for some reason an inspection ever revealed damage to it or the spring.

One of the LE reps used to be a revolver competitor, traveling the country to participate in competitions. he said he'd never experienced, nor had observed, a problem.

When I spoke with someone in the factory's LE sales manager's office once, I asked how many agencies who ordered J-frames as backup weapons ordered them without the locks (this was before the 642-1/442-1's were again being offered). i was told that no agencies had specifically tried to order the J's without the ILS. At that time, the New Mexico State cops were being issued new 637's, with the ILS.

I did notice during the class that when the guns were opened, and the hammers and bolts removed, it was possible for the locking arms and their springs to come free. If the end of the little dog-leg spring wasn't properly repositioned in the little recess above the bolt, in the bolt channel, the locking arm wouldn't be securely contained. I could see how someone unfamiliar with the new model revolvers that had the ILS might be tinkering around inside the gun and cause the locking arm spring to become dislodged, which could compromise the normal functioning of the lock.

I owned a new production (first release) M&P 340 at that time, which meant it had the lock. I practiced replacing the locking arm and spring a couple times, even though we'd been told we'd probably never have to do it outside of the class. I pounded that first M&P 340 with a few hundred Magnum rounds, and cases of standard +P rounds. I've never had a problem with the ILS.

I've seen a fair number of S&W revolvers equipped with the ILS come through our range in both LE and private hands over the years, and I've never seen one exhibit any problems with the ILS, itself.

I've seen some cops basically abuse their backup snubs when it came to owner-maintenance, like bone-dry yoke bearing surfaces in the guns with alloy yokes, which resulted in incredibly stiff cylinder rotation and difficult carry-up. One guy said he'd had to manually rotate his cylinder to finish his qual, as he could do it with a DAO trigger pull. I had to clean off and lubricate his alloy yoke (340PD), at which point the little snub's cylinder once again spun like a dervish and fired just fine. Granted, U/C guys can really subject their backup weapons to harsh conditions. Well, I'd seen worse back in the revolver days, when guys put away rain wet/damp revolvers in their lockers between shifts.

I only own one S&W that has the ILS (that first M&P 340). I later bought the new optional M&P 340 offered without the ILS (as an excuse to buy a second one ). My "favorite" betweem, though, is the first one, even though it has the lock. Why? Because I've had that one apart quite a number of times, having used it as my "practice" gun after the armorer class. I've even praticed cutting a couple of new extractors for it, to practice using the extractor hand-cutting tool. I've fired some cases of ammo through it, and spent a lot of time dry-firing it, getting the "feel" of it compared to my steel and Airweight models.

All of that attention and use has given it very smooth and nice trigger, and as it's served as my common "range beater" J-frame (allowing me to spare my pair of 642-1's from their former heavy use), it's acquired some nicks, dents, rubs in the finish and other usual signs of being well-used (and well-liked). It's a very "comfortable" feeling little retirement weapon.

Even though it has the dreaded "lock".

Now, over the years of having called back and spoken with a couple of the revolver repair techs and LE customer service guys (one of whom used to do 'walk-in' revolver work at the factory a long time ago), I've heard very little problems reported with the ILS, itself. One guy told me he'd not seen or heard of any problems since the early days of getting them to withstand the heavy recoil of the early X-frame .500's. one of the repair techs said he'd had several revolvers returned for warranty work for reported lock "problems", but it had always turned out to involve something other than the lock (like the DA hammer sear stubbing, or some other issue).

We had one of our guys bring his NIB 617 to the range for us (revolver armorers) to look at, as he said the trigger and hammer were locking up. It seized for us, too, but it had nothing to do with the lock. Instead, it was a problem I'd not yet seen. Somehow, apparently during production, the hammer's sear spring hadn't been installed correctly, and it had slipped free. Cycling the trigger/hammer can caused it to move and become lodged behind the trigger cam and the hammer hook, and it had become mangled and cut. A monkey wrench in the works. Weird. A new MIM hammer sear spring, correctly installed, fixed the problem.

Anyway, while I personally think the ILS adds some extra parts to the revolver's design, and I'm not exactly keen on its appearance, I've not had it cause me any problems, or problems for anyone I know or have seen who uses guns with it.

It's no longer keeping me awake at night worrying about it.

Sure, if I had the choice between 2 identical revolvers in front of me, one with and one without the ILS, I'd always opt for the one without the extra parts ... but that's not usually a choice throughout the model line. I've repeatedly heard that the corporate legal folks at the factory are pretty adamant on recommending that any revolvers with external hammers (that can be manipulated by little fingers) be sold with the ILS feature.

Maybe someday that philosophy may change, but in the meantime it's not exactly putting the brakes to new S&W revolver sales. Maybe among the revolver traditionalists and purists, but apparently that's not the "huge" part of the customer base some folks might like to think it is.

Dunno.

Just my own thoughts and opinions. Suit yourselves, folks.

I’m with him ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[shawn mccarver]

I'm not a big revolver guy. Therefore, I don't spend a lot of time in this section. However, I want to get a revolver for my wife because she likes them. She will use it at the range and likely for carry.

I've done some looking and have seen a couple models that have the internal frame mounted lock. I've heard/seen some complaints about this lock, but don't know any of the details. Can it just be left unlocked and the gun will function fine? Is there a situation where it can accidentally be locked unintentionally?

I guess I just want to know if it's really a problem or is it just something people don't like?

S&W denies that the locks have ever been a problem. Several years ago, Charlie Petty wrote a piece in one of the magazines where he interviewed someone at S&W and published what the guy said - no problems ever reported to S&W. Unfortunately for Mr. Petty, Mas Ayoob, writing for the VERY SAME MAGAZINE, had written a detailed article only a couple of months before where some locks had activated under recoil.

The fact that it has makes me not trust them for carry. I spoke to an S&W representative at the SHOT Show the year all of this was happening, and was told that the best approach if one wants to remove the offending lock is to remove ALL of it, not just some of it. That, of course, leaves a nifty little hole that is useful for adding one drop of oil once per year! That is the route I take because the hole does not bother me.

Naturally, if the model is available without lock, such as the 442 and 642, then I buy that model. Otherwise, the lock comes out if the revolver will be used for defense.

Just my thoughts, of course, but I will not have a lock in any S&W revolver used for defense because I do not desire it to lock up on its own, which has happened.

 

[BC38]

One other point that no one has made is that the area above the grip between the hammer and the trigger guard is shaped differently. It is wider (viewed from the side).
Some feel this makes them look better, and others think the make them look worse. I'm in the second group. But it is purely aesthetics.

 

[handejector]

IBTL


Over the decades, I've had thousands of S&Ws pass through my hands. I've been fortunate enough to shoot probably a couple hundred of them. I've never fired a gun with a lock. Of the couple hundred, or more, non-lock guns I have fired, I've experienced a handful of malfunctions that made the gun inoperable. I know that sounds incredible, but it IS possible for a pre-lock gun to malfunction.


I've never had a thread lock malfunction. I've never had one lock accidentally, and I've never had one unlock accidentally. They seem to function perfectly.
Since we've examined all facets of this subject, I think we're done here. I'll add my compliments to you all for keeping it objective without the venomous vitriol we have seen in the past. Well done.