Removing The S&W Internal Lock (Video)

[MontanaMan]

Outstanding & very professionally done.

MM

 

[Jim Mullins]

Gary,

Excellent Video. I too am one of those who wanted to remove the lock but didn't have the know-how to attempt it. All of the lock parts are now removed from my 642 and I am breathing a sigh of relief.

Once I lifted the flag out I noticed something very disturbing. About one fourth of the little blue spring (that surrounds the shaft of the fork) had come out of its channel on the right side and was protruding in towards the action. I took tweasers and pulled on it and it came out with no resistance. I then slid the fork to the right and put the key in. I pushed the key with hardly any force and the key housing along with the fork just fell right out.

Now that I have seen for myself how easily the rest of the lock parts can break loose and gum up the works, I would encourage all to reconsider leaving them in the gun.

Thanks again.

 

[Centurian77]

Removing a safety feature on a firearm I believe constitutes a felony according to the BATF.

 

[ETCM(SS)Joe]

Does anyone know if its any harder / easier / trickier to disassemble one with a "leaf" type mainspring? (Not that I would ever perform this modification, BATF)

Thanks,
Joe

 

[tmbrcruizr]

Centurian77
Member
Posted 20 January 2009 01:37 AM Hide Post
Removing a safety feature on a firearm I believe constitutes a felony according to the BATF.

Ohhh Nooooooo

 

[Nanook 450]

Originally posted by Centurian77:
Removing a safety feature on a firearm I believe constitutes a felony according to the BATF.

Cite the statute - I've consulted with S&W, and disabling their idiotic saftey does not void the warranty, so how does your understanding of the law, enforce, not written of course, by the BATF come into play?

 

[Nanook 450]

Originally posted by Nanook 450:

Originally posted by Centurian77:
Removing a safety feature on a firearm I believe constitutes a felony according to the BATF.

Cite the statute - I've consulted with S&W, and disabling their idiotic storage device does not void the warranty, so how does your understanding of the law, enforce, not written of course, by the BATF come into play?

 

[Nanook 450]

Originally posted by Nanook 450:

Originally posted by Nanook 450:

Originally posted by Centurian77:
Removing a safety feature on a firearm I believe constitutes a felony according to the BATF.

Cite the statute - I've consulted with S&W, and disabling their idiotic storage device does not void the warranty, so how does your understanding of the law, enforced (not written of course) by the BATF come into play?

 

[Mickstix]

I think the interal lock is classified as just that, a lock.. Not as a safety.. A safety is part of a firearm that can be manipulated w/o any extra tools, keys, ect. This should be paired with the trigger job thread.. Lots of "Ive read and I've heard" but no actual cases of anyone ever being charged or convited for such actions..

 

[Wesprt]

Originally posted by Centurian77:
Removing a safety feature on a firearm I believe constitutes a felony according to the BATF.

LOL

 

[Andy W]

You have done an excellent job! Thanks for posting the video.

 

[Beak]

Gary - an excellent video. Thanks very much for posting. Beak

 

[Babalooie]

Very Nice.

BTW, is that an official Shooboy hammer?

 

[keithherrington]

Unlike some I'm not concerned with BATF. What I am concerned with is your exposure to litigation should someone follow your example, and then have someone misuse the weapon. Do not take this as a criticism, only an observation. Should anything happen and it can be traced to this video, your exposure may be very high. You might want to think about at least removing it from Youtube. Just a thought.

 

[moses]

Very professional job. thanks whatr about a little lubrication while your in there?

 

[devilfrog1911]

Excellent video. That's why I love this forum. Lot's of knowledgeable folks who aren't afraid to share what they know.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by cprher:
Unlike some I'm not concerned with BATF. What I am concerned with is your exposure to litigation should someone follow your example, and then have someone misuse the weapon. Do not take this as a criticism, only an observation. Should anything happen and it can be traced to this video, your exposure may be very high. You might want to think about at least removing it from Youtube. Just a thought.

An asteroid might fall on my head too.....

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by Centurian77:
Removing a safety feature on a firearm I believe constitutes a felony according to the BATF.

I, too, ask that you post the relevant section of the US Code that backs you up.

I could not care less what ATF thinks.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by shawn mccarver:

Does the absence of the "flag" cause the hammer to "cant" or anything as a result of the "void" in the frame where the "flag" was prior to removal?

No. I tried that when I de-locked my revolvers and did not have any issues. The hammer has plenty of support elsewhere and tracks straight and true.

 

[Angel Eyes]

<span class="ev_code_RED">SUPER!!!!!!</span>