J Frame with IL for carry poll.

[ArchAngelCD]

For all those proudly proclaiming you fire your J frame equipped with the ILS without a problem, I'm happy for you. Ya see, that's not the whole point of worry. The problem with the ILS isn't a constant locking problem, it's the possibility of the small spring breaking causing the revolver to lock by default. If that happens during a SD situation it won't be a chronic problem that got you killed, it will be the one time problem that did.

The ILS wouldn't be a issue if when the lock failed it would leave the gun operable by default instead of disabling the gun by default. The more you add to a gun that can fail raises the chances the gun will fail. There is no reason for storage device on any gun that can cause that gun to become usable when a trigger lock will serve the same purpose. The difference is, then the trigger lock is removed, it's gone and can't get you killed.

 

[Chief's Special]

I didn't realize my Chief's Special was a "boat anchor" either. I once carried an airweight and, yes, they are nice and light. But they're no fun to shoot, and I like guns that are fun to shoot. A steel J-frame is that. It's also not going to have parts falling off.

My Model 36, compared to my other carry guns (Glock 17, Taurus PT1911) is indeed an "airweight." Actually, as I heft both in either hand, it seems to weigh about the same as my Glock 26, which many feel is the lightest Glock.

But, as always, your mileage may vary.

 

[smousefam5]

I am suprised at how close the numbers are.

 

[photoman]

Originally posted by ArchAngelCD:
For all those proudly proclaiming you fire your J frame equipped with the ILS without a problem, I'm happy for you. Ya see, that's not the whole point of worry. The problem with the ILS isn't a constant locking problem, it's the possibility of the small spring breaking causing the revolver to lock by default. If that happens during a SD situation it won't be a chronic problem that got you killed, it will be the one time problem that did.

That's why you always carry a second gun.

 

[Andy Griffith]

Originally posted by Photoman44:

Originally posted by ArchAngelCD:
For all those proudly proclaiming you fire your J frame equipped with the ILS without a problem, I'm happy for you. Ya see, that's not the whole point of worry. The problem with the ILS isn't a constant locking problem, it's the possibility of the small spring breaking causing the revolver to lock by default. If that happens during a SD situation it won't be a chronic problem that got you killed, it will be the one time problem that did.

That's why you always carry a second gun.

Or a third, fourth, fifth, etc.

Kinda like that safe commercial where they just kept taking guns off of Billy the Kid, right?

 

[tom turner]

No IL guns for me. Too many really nice old pre-lock guns to choose from.

I was at an old dealer a few months ago and he had a bunch of new IL J-frames at reasonable prices . . . along with a nice used 640 no dash at the same price as the new version in the case.

I got excited about the as new, but used 640 no dash at the same price as a new IL version!

A gun that's not gonna fire when I need it to is NOT for me.

T.

 

[Gunned-up]

Yes, I have a M&P340 with the IL intact. I shoot it quite often with .38spl & .38+P and sometimes with mag loads (if you have a Sc frame, you know why). I have had no reason to disable it yet.

 

[ArgMauser]

Originally posted by akviper:
Smith ruined my son's no lock nickle 442 a few years ago but were <STRIKE>kind</STRIKE> asinine enough to replace it with a new IL 642.

I just bought two of the new run no lock 642s. One will replace my kid's and the other will go in the safe for a rainy day. He's putting up the slightly used IL 642 for sale.

Is that what you meant?

 

[marvin knox]

I've got the 340 M&P. Super light weight with a few things that the regular 340 didn't offer.

If it had come with the lock optional I (like, I'll bet, everyone here) would have got it without. The odds of it failing in that instant of time when I need it, when it hasn't in thousands of rounds at the range, are slim indeed.

I wish it weren't there for several reasons, But it is. I certainly don't loose any sleep over it. If I couldn't have lived with the IL, I'd have had to go without a wonderful gun like my 340M&P.

A guy using a 1911 (or actually many of the autos carried by law enforcement for that matter) has more reason to loose sleep over gun troubles than me with my IL IMO.

Sometimes I think that some on this forum really should give the IL a rest, put it in perspective, and get real.

Still.............I find that I carry on the belt more than other ways now days and I may move the IL gun to back up position if I get something else (heavier - why not for the belt?). When I do - you can bet that I'd prefer a gun with no IL. That's true whether I go with a 640 J frame or something larger for belt carry.

But if I can't find what I want without the lock - it won't cause me a lot of sleep deprobation to go with an IL. (Pretty good chance I may disable it, though.)

BY THE WAY - having said all that - If I was a professional in law enforcement rather than simply a CCL holder who trys hard to stay out of trouble, there is no way on God's green earth that I would carry an IL gun by choice.

 

[VAdoublegunner]

I carry a S&W 637 fairly often, especially in summer when wearing lighter weight clothing. It has an IL, but it has always worked, and I try it out for a few cylinders worth about every other range trip.

However, I carry a Ruger SP101 more often, and never have to worry about an IL with the Ruger. Just wearing holes in my pockets.

 

[JAREDSHS]

My wife and I both carry 637's WITH ILs. If we
felt at risk we wouldn't carry them.

 

[CharlieP]

I carry a 642 IL and I am about 99.99% confident in the little revolver. From all I have read/heard about this particular model, if it does fail, it is most likely to be an ammo-related failure, or a frame failure. If you compare the failure rate of the IL 642/442 with any of the small semi-autos which are the common alternatives, the 642/442 revolver is MUCH more reliable. So if an IL 642 is considered too unreliable to carry, then anyone who carries a small SA is competely nuts.

 

[tom turner]

In many cases, it has been documented that the IL guns HAVE locked up on folks without warning. Thus, it makes the gun less reliable.

No manufacturer would modify a commercial airliner in a way that would make it more prone to fail, for no one would buy them. Why would a gun maker? When life and death emergencies affect the lives of people, the most reliable products are important.

AND . . .
Why pay more money on a new MIM-parts gun with a lock that can suddenly lock up guns, when there are so many beautiful, like-new J-frames coming on the market every day from old widows selling their deceased husband's once-fired nightstand guns?

If you look carefully, you can find some really fine deals on some vintage, pinned-barrel J-frames!!! It won't take you long to find 'em either!

Here's one I bought last year from the classified section here. It was the nightstand gun of the old widow's second (of three) husbands. She out-lived 'em all, and I got a nice J-frame with no issues for my "always" gun.

Paid less for it too than they are selling new J-frames at a local Smith dealer . . . for a COMPLETELY reliable and more desirable vintage gun!

I put the original numbered stocks away for safekeeping, and added the Tylers and Grashorn stags for looks and shootability. NICE!

PS: Last year I also found a nice 1971 3" barreled Model 37 "no dash" that my wife loves. I found it locally.

Nahhhh . . . I prefer the pre-83 guns with the pinned barrels. To each his own though. The only new Smith I've bought in years was a 2009 M&P15. It doesn't have a damned internal lock on it to get you killed either. If it had a lock I'd have bought another brand. It makes no sense for a weapon to have something added to it that can prevent it from doing its job immediately in a sudden emergency.

 

[tripledipper]

My rookie purchase at a gun show was a used 637-2 before I even knew the difference. The seller did not even mention it nor did I get a key with it. I have not disabled it and a Parts Room guy at Springfield mailed me 2 keys N/C. My 36-no dash(67) and 10-8(85) obviously don't have one and my new 642-1 is a no-lock.

 

[myanof]

The only J Frame I carry with a lock is a 340PD with a disabled lock, therefore it has no IL.

 

[iron addict]

Ignorance is bliss I guess. Until I joined this forum I had been shooting all my IL lock smiths with nary a problem. I am unsure about how many +P loads have been through my 642, but it's safe to say in the multi-thousands. My 629 with a lot of 300 grain screamers and my 686's with a lot of just everything. Now I must fix the horrible abomination before my guns freeze on the next round--or the next time I am in a firefight. I am MUCH more comfy with these guns and their locks than any of the 12 1911's I have owned. I don't know how anyone that shoots an auto can sleep at night knowing he may get a FTF during a shootout

I will probably have them deactivated one day, but won't lose any sleep in the mean time.

Iron Addict

 

[Chief's Special]

Sorry to hear about all the anxiety and fuss regarding IL Smith & Wesson J frames. I bought a LNIB Model 36 Chiefs Special no dash #J8006** and didn't realize I had bypassed the IL problem because I had no idea the company was putting IL's on J frames. I knew about IL's on newer pistols but somehow in my naivete thought "they" wouldn't bother with such an outmoded anachronism as a revolver.

Anyway, if you can find one of these old Model 36's, buy it, don't think twice. They're great guns.

 

[marvin knox]

I shot and carried my 340 with IL for a long time. As I said in an earlier post - it didn't cause me any more lost sleep than the many imperfections that my 1911 had.

I just had an action/trigger job done by Randy Lee of Apex Tactical.

He also did the same job on my new 640 with an IL. (I couldn't seem to find an all steel J frame I wanted for belt carry that didn't have a lock.

Both of my J frames are now post-lock models.

 

[jeep]

My first IL locked up target shooting and I took the lock out. But TRUSTED it and traded it in on a pre-lock with a $100 to boot. I would trade 3 IL,s for one pre-lock any day!!

 

[NVBob]

If one were to make a list of preventable things that could go critically wrong during a gunfight, and if one were to list them in descending order of probability, lock failure is probably low on the list. Heck,<STRIKE>I</STRIKE> am much more likely to fail than the lock.

I just took the lock out of my 686 this week, and logic would dictate that I should have spent my time in a more productive manner--perhaps practicing my shooting skills, inspecting my ammunition, or lowering my blood pressure.

My point is that the worry and debating about the lock is way way out of proportion to the actual risk posed by lock.

Now I am going to go take the lock out of my 360PD

 

[28gauge]

Looks like a lot of people are carrying and shooting lock guns. Especially if you consider that most of the 50% of those without the locks probably just bought them pre-lock. If there were real issues with the lock, we'd know it. I'd prefer the locks didn't exist, but I think most of the concern is emotional.

 

[myanof]

Originally posted by 28gauge:
Looks like a lot of people are carrying and shooting lock guns. Especially if you consider that most of the 50% of those without the locks probably just bought them pre-lock. If there were real issues with the lock, we'd know it. I'd prefer the locks didn't exist, but I think most of the concern is emotional.

I'm thinking emotional is going to be a major factor when contemplating pulling the trigger on another human being.

 

[myanof]

Originally posted by marvin knox:
I shot and carried my 340 with IL for a long time. As I said in an earlier post - it didn't cause me any more lost sleep than the many imperfections that my 1911 had.

I just had an action/trigger job done by Randy Lee of Apex Tactical.

I don't mean to hijack, but how did the action/trigger job turn out on the 340? If you don't mind sharing, how much did it cost? Thanks

He also did the same job on my new 640 with an IL. (I couldn't seem to find an all steel J frame I wanted for belt carry that didn't have a lock.

Both of my J frames are now post-lock models.

 

[marvin knox]

I don't mind sharing at all. I should get them back in a few days. I just talked to Randy and he just finished them up.

Lisa, his business partner (and 7 time women's national revolver champion)should be test firing them Monday as she does for every gun that leaves his shop. She tests carry guns like mine with the ammo of choice to make sure there will be no FTF's due to the lower trigger weight.

I'll try to remember to post the results. I've also promised another member that I would tell him about the trigger jobs when I get them back.

I will say that I can't expect them to be like the larger frame guns which have a different spring system going for them. The J's seem to come in around 8+ pounds as compared to the at least 14 and sometimes as high as 20 pound factory pulls. Single action break is much less, of course.

Factory Larger frames have around 9+ pull. So we should be getting down to what will be a pretty shootable J frame.

Of course many people get J's to a lower pull by putting in low power springs. But they often have misfires because of it.

Randy puts one of his special firing pins in and does a few other things to make sure that his are dependable.

I also expect his action job to be as smooth as a J frame can get.

I'll try to post about it. Feel free to contact me with a message if I fail to do that this week or next at the latest.

MARV

 

[Joed49]

I carry 2 S&W internal lock guns and the locks are not disabled.

I had a model 19 with no lock that I used to carry. One day at the range the cylinder stopped turning in single and double action. The trigger and hammer still worked.

And some of you worry about the locks?

 

[Buford57]

I read with interest the comments on how pre-lock guns have failed, as though that meant that the IL models are somehow more reliable.

FYI folks: All the parts that are able to fail in a pre-lock S&W are also present in the new IL models. In addition you have an unnecessary set of parts that not only are as susceptible to failure as any other mechanical device, but were designed to prevent the handgun from firing.

The ammunition manufacturers QC is not absolute. It may be 99.999%, but failures occur. Ammunition is not negotiable. You use the best you can afford and take your chances. All the parts that are designed to make the revolver fire are non-negotiable. You maintain your piece and take your chances. The lock is negotiable, so I remove that variable from the equation.

If you consider the chances of lock failure as negligible as I do the chances of ammo or firing mechanism failure, I understand why you choose to carry an IL gun. I understand, but disagree.


Because the two worst sounds in the world are "click" when you expect "bang" and "bang" when you expect "click".