Remove the lock on my new J-Frame?

[Blackshirt]

I removed the lock on my 638 after hearing about folks who deployed their locks outside of the recommended manner (i.e. locking a loaded piece), creating the potential for an unintended discharge. I go way back with Smiths and own a gun safe, so I decided that that my tried-and-true manual of arms was preferred for me. When doing some trigger work, I removed my IL and installed a plug. However, in the ten years that I owned that handgun before the mod, it never gave me a bit of trouble. As long as it is used as S&W recommends, it is a useful security and safety tool...particularly if there is any chance that inexperienced persons might get ahold of the gun...another layer of safety. Just keep track of your key.

 

[Wishoot]

637-2 here with lock removed.

Maybe it would of never given me problems, but why take the chance in the first place? IMO, it's an unnecessary gadget that has the potential to fail.

It takes less than 5 minutes to remove and since it's a carry gun, I really don't care how it looks all that much.

 

[Kframerbluvr]

My 442-2 has the IL. Philosophically and aesthetically, I don't care for it, but with about 500 rounds fired, it has given me no trouble at all.

 

[federali]

Safety Issue Bypass

This lock argument is quite similar to discussions regarding removal of the magazine disconnect safety in Browning Hi-Powers. Should you be the unlucky soul whose handgun with compromised safety features ends up in a tragic incident, you just might wish you had left the gun alone.

 

[BigMoneyGrip]

I didn't take the chance and bought the gun without the lock. One less thing to fail!

 

[tgmr05]

Can they inadvertantly lock? Absolutely, no doubt about it, it is a fact that cannot be refuted/argued. I have personally witnessed it. I have also personally witnessed broken extractors in semi autos, broken firing pins, cylinders locking up, and other malfunctions, including overcharged reloads blowing out topstraps. Point being, yes, they can lock inadvertently, but other incidents can occur as well.

I prefer no locks, as it is simply an added accessory that increases chances of a malfunction, but would not refrain from carrying a smith that had one. I would consider removing the lock, at some point, especially with plugs being made again. However, I carried a lock laden 340 for many years with no issues. It was one I shot a little, but carried a lot.

If there is a model you like, and smith only makes it with a lock, pick it up. You can always remove the lock while you use it, and replace it for resale.

 

[Co Th G]

Any one here recommend removing the lock and why or why not?
How would one go about it?
Thanks

I've completely removed the locks from all my S&Ws that originally had them. It's easy peasy to remove. Plenty of online videos stepping you through the process.

 

[Backlighting]

I'm more worried about the hammer stud breaking off, i think this has happened more than the guns self locking.

What would cause the hammer stud to fall off?
Never mind... Gunsandwater addressed that in his post.

 

[ginzo]

I have 1 with, and 1 without. I trust them both with my life..........

I try not to get all tied up in the custom this or that, and boy it's hard not to. I have 2 M&P's with the "notchy" triggers, I don't shoot comp so I can save the $100+ on apex triggers towards my next purchase. It's HARD not to get drawn down that road. Nothing against those that do.

 

[wrangler5]

Extractors, firing pins, etc., can indeed malfunction or fail, but they are required parts if the gun is to function as intended (i.e., fire bullets out the barrel.) The lock, OTOH, is not required for normal functioning of the gun, there are readily available alternatives to perform the lock's intended function of making gun un-shootable during storage (i.e. unloading, locking it away, etc.), and the lock has been known to disable the gun from performing its intended function, without warning, when a shot is wanted.

So the fact that other gun parts might fail doesn't have (for me) much bearing on the decision to keep or remove a lock.

I do respect Mr. Ayoob's philosophy of not giving a prosecutor any detail to use against you that you can control, and I follow his recommendation to carry only factory ammunition. But I view factory ammo and my reloads as fungible as far as performance and reliability are concerned, so I don't give up anything by carrying factory stuff. And even if I could prove to myself that my own reloads NEVER fail to fire while factory ammo does, the fact that a fresh factory round is available at the pull of the trigger makes the risk of an ammunition misfire fundamentally different from the risk that follows an unexpected lock failure. I'm comfortable with the former risk, but not the latter, even though both are statistically very small.

That's why I removed the lock from the one gun that has one. That said, though, I most often carry one of several no-lock guns that I have, simply because I prefer 'em.

 

[epj]

If you feel the need to secure a S&W revolver, all you need to do is open the cylinder, place the hasp of a good padlock over the top strap, close the hasp, remove key and put key in pocket. No question that it's disabled, no question is it locked or not.

 

[andyo5]

If you feel the need to secure a S&W revolver, all you need to do is open the cylinder, place the hasp of a good padlock over the top strap, close the hasp, remove key and put key in pocket. No question that it's disabled, no question is it locked or not.

You know, that is really an excellent argument assuming that you consider the lock a 'storage only' device.

What makes me a bit uncomfortable about the lock is that...
1. Looking at it, you can't tell whether it is or is not locked. At least, that's the case with my 642.
2. All they keys are the same. So a person with his own key could lock or unlock any of your guns. This brings up some nefarious possibilities.

 

[reppans]

What makes me a bit uncomfortable about the lock is that...

1. Looking at it, you can't tell whether it is or is not locked. At least, that's the case with my 642.

2. All they keys are the same. So a person with his own key could lock or unlock any of your guns. This brings up some nefarious possibilities.

I put a dot of white nail polish on my new 638 lock at 12 o'clock, it locks at ~9 o'clock... I want to see if it moves over time/rounds shot. I have a 686 and 617 with locks, both with a few thousand rounds(?) through them and I've never paid attention to the lock, but they're purely range guns.

I suppose the lock is really for young kids in the house. Any of these "gun locks" (my state requires them to be included in the box) or pad locks, are quite easily defeated by an adult. I suspect a criminal might even find bolt cutters more readily available than an S&W key.

 

[STCM(SW)]

My 638 has a lock and I don't even know where the key is.
Never used it and it works fine.
My summer CC.

Now, my M21-4 Case Color frame I put a plug in only because it was butt ugly with that hole.

 

[Simmer down]

My 44 N frame kept kicking it in gear so I took it out.

 

[andyo5]

For those more concerned with function than looks, I think it may be possible to just remove the internal lock mechanism and leave the keyhole in place. It will look the same, but will not be able to lock.

This: [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVPYgohVCNM[/ame]

 

[jaaeatax]

Excellent video... I have a 642 that I'd like to try that on before I try my 640 I'm a little afraid to try it but you make it look so easy. Might give it a try.....I'll let you know how it turns out. I hope it doesn't void the warrante...Anyway, thank you for that qreat video..

 

[Sgt.Peck]

I hate he dreaded lock as well and can't stand the appearance of the hole. I chose not to buy any S&W revolvers with the internal lock years ago now. I have to look harder, but I simply can't stand the sight of a gun with an IL in it.

 

[Coastie762]

I've done what Andy05 mentioned (remove the flag, leave the keyhole) on two revolvers, my 640-3 and a 625-8 JM. At some point I intend to install plugs on both but for now they work fine by just removing the flags. I also have a 637-2 which has had the lock removed and a plug installed.

The 625 is primarily a range gun, I removed it's flag as I found the hammer to be contacting it during operation. Whether this made any actual difference I don't know. For me elimination of anything that interferes with the mechanism's movement is a plus. I never did experience any actual problems with the lock on this gun or that of my 625 PC which at this time still has the lock flag installed.

The big problem I have with the internal lock (aesthetics aside) is that on enclosed hammer (hammerless) guns there is no indication whatsoever whether the gun is locked or not. For those who use the lock as a storage device this to me is a major flaw. On guns with an exposed hammer, when the gun is locked the flag can be seen and felt. If one forgets to unlock a hammerless gun which is carried for self defense, serious consequences could result.

 

[CajunBass]

I've owned several S&W's with the lock and have never really thought about them too much. Could they fail? Sure, I suppose they could, but so could any other part of the gun. I figure the odds are so long against it, that I don't worry about it. IF I happen to need the gun in a desperate situation, and it happens to pick that very moment to fail...well, I was already having a bad day. It just got worse.

I also don't think the lock is any uglier than any other pin or screw in the side of the gun. I don't even notice them anymore. Some older S&W's I've owned had a pin in just about the same place.