No, they just just put it back in place when you send it in. My 329 pd locked up due to the lock one time so I just removed it. Later I sent the gun in for a new blast shield and they replaced the lock. I just take out again
S&W lock failure--it finally happened
- Thread starter Ralph G. Briscoe
- Start date
No, they just just put it back in place when you send it in. My 329 pd locked up due to the lock one time so I just removed it. Later I sent the gun in for a new blast shield and they replaced the lock. I just take out again
GF
Member
Can't you just add a G to your lock and fix your CCW by making it a ... wait for it ...
GLOCK!?!
GF
GLOCK!?!
GF
HamHands
Member
I know the exact parts you speak of Paul. I understand the removal and install process of the lock delete in detail. I believe that is J.D.'s (the owner of Original Precision's), video and I used it extensively the first lock delete/plug I installed. I've since done about a half dozen more for myself and family, (all of us "Woodsmen/Woodswomen.) The fork and the spring that are left over after the plug delete is properly installed aren't going to cause any problems under recoil or any other situation though. Its that damned flag and the rotation of the "lock" that causes unwanted lock-up, (both of which are removed during the plug delete install.)
I do fully agree with you on the spring and fork (as left-over-parts), being just as unnecessary as the original lock design itself is though. But to reiterate; with the plug/delete installed properly, (there is only one way it will work/install)... there is nothing for the fork and spring to do but "stay seated" in their proper channel in the frame and into the plug channel itself.
I used to run from the locks until I discovered Original Precision. Now the only time I won't purchase a new(er) Smith is because I want something nostalgic or an option that Smith doesn't offer on a newer model with the lock. To each his own and I fully support someone who won't buy or carry a Smith with a lock. I had a 625 lock up from recoil shooting 255grain Hard Cast Buffalo Bore's which were my go to "Woods-Carry" rounds before moving on to .44Magnum as our primary woods defense; of one is a 629 with the lock deleted and now a Lew Horton M29 before the lock was "dreamed-up".
Pic below of the M625 that locked up under recoil after just 23 rounds of the aforementioned BB Hard Casts... pic after the plug delete of course.
Pics of both mine and the wifey's 629 & M29 we now "Woods Carry" but with Underwood Hard Cast 255gr, .44Special for the wife, 255gr .44Mag Hard Cast for me.
HamHands
Member
Paul the video for one you show is the Lock Delete parts. They are a machined interlocking slug and retainer set. The only part that is reused is the spring.
Correct, with JD's plug delete the only thing reused is the OEM lock cam fork spring. I can vouch for the quality of J.D.'s parts as I've installed a half dozen now for myself, brother(s), and wife. They install only one way, the correct way and totally eliminate any kind of unintentional "Lock-Up" once installed. The plus is you can either perfectly match the slug up to the frame finish or as I did on my wifes 629, make the plug delete to match the trigger, hammer, front sight finish to accent against the stainless steel. Your parts are legit JD!
So, to recap: S&W finds it vitally necessary to install a "Locking, storage, safety device" on double action revolvers, most with a fully functional exposed hammer, while Glock sells a "Safe action" single action only auto, without anything remotely capable of "locking" anything. Hmm. Joe
For entertainment, search the web and take note of how many "accidental" discharges - by well trained people no less - have happened with Glock as opposed to late model revolvers. It will give your post a whole different meaning.
The absence of internal locks doesn't seem to be a problem for Ruger, Taurus, or Colt, why is that?
medic15al
Member
Because they are owned by Safe-T-Hammer, a lock company
HamHands
Member
I felt bad for the officer giving a demonstration while reholstering his Glock during a classroom visit. But I instantly think of this exact video as the quintessential "Glock Leg" definition.
I carried a G27 for 5 years, every day. Then an M&P40c (sans the safety) for the next 5 years before I got turned onto the wonderful CZ "P-01" and "SP-01" series... both decocker models. I carry the P-01 for when I'm at my downtown Atlanta office in an area the FBI stats say you have a 1 in 11 chance of being a victim of violent crime. Real Estate... who woulda thought? Around home in the suburbs and in the woods it's 3" 629 (now the wife's) or more recently a 3" M29. Just don't wear clothing or jackets with draw strings attached to zippers. Finger placement during the draw and holstering is paramount; of which we all know; or at least should know... But you are right... Cops and Civi's have been carrying without safeties for centuries!
I sure hope a tampon company doesn't buy Colt Mfg.
medic15al
Member
LOL! True..
681ismyfavorite
Member
my 629-1 has never "locked up", and I shoot "real" magnums from it.
I agree that the owner of a gun should remove the lock if they feel it's unsafe and it makes them feel more confident in the gun they are using.
I only have one lock gun, and I won't be removing the lock, mostly because I don't see the failure of a lock as more or less catastrophic than any other parts failure that kept my gun from firing. I've had strain screws come loose or be adjusted improperly by previous owners, and they've kept the gun from firing (light strikes.) True, with a light strike you can go to the next cylinder on a revolver, but it may or may not fire.
I had a N frame lock up because the ejector rod came loose. Had to take the gun all apart because it had gotten wedged so tight. Tightened everything up and put on locktite. No problems since. Haven't sworn off guns with strain screws or ejector rods yet.
I only have one lock gun, and I won't be removing the lock, mostly because I don't see the failure of a lock as more or less catastrophic than any other parts failure that kept my gun from firing. I've had strain screws come loose or be adjusted improperly by previous owners, and they've kept the gun from firing (light strikes.) True, with a light strike you can go to the next cylinder on a revolver, but it may or may not fire.
I had a N frame lock up because the ejector rod came loose. Had to take the gun all apart because it had gotten wedged so tight. Tightened everything up and put on locktite. No problems since. Haven't sworn off guns with strain screws or ejector rods yet.
Opinions are like other parts of the body. Everybody has one.
But they are not all that useful.
Dale Carnegie is also a LOT more generally useful then R. Lee Ermey in most of life's pursuits.
I don't understand why the Locks generate such emotion. Most revolvers are NOT suitable for LEO or serious self-protection use. They are NO longer Police guns but are consumer grade products. The engineering that goes into them does NOT warrant trusting them as much as an Semi-Auto designed for LEO use.
Bobshouse
Member
I've heard rumors that if you alter your carry gun in any fashion (removing the lock) and use it for defense, they will try to chew you up in court. Any truth to this rumor?
681ismyfavorite
Member
in some jurisdictions the prosecutors are very anti-constitutional 2nd Amendment, and they will try anything to feather their own nest for political purposes. in other jurisdictions something like that wouldn't get a second look because it has no bearing on whether lethal force was justified.
know the political winds of your area.
I would like to see a case of where removing the storage device canceled the right to use your weapon in self defense. Internet bs
681ismyfavorite
Member
he mentioned altering the gun in any fashion. I guess you missed that part.
Last edited:
I think revolvers are out-dated for LEO use only because of capacity.
So, you're saying a brand new, well-maintained modern SW (a no-lock model) or Ruger revolver that's been proven reliable after 4-5 hundred rounds fired is not as trustworthy as modern pistols of the same circumstances?
Subtly
Similar threads
