Smith and Wesson said 'Don't do it!'

Thanks everyone for all the responses. I did remove the flag only from my 642. I don't mind external lock hole. I have no kids that live at home and this firearm is with me 90% of the time and locked in a safe the other 10%. If I sell it or send in for repairs I can put the lock back in...very simple. I've put 500 rounds through over the last day or so. No change in function or risk of malfunction due to its removal. Great shooter.
 
It's your property, after all. I don't put a lot of stock in that lawyer BS, and if it was mine, and I didn't want the lock, I'd take it out, bedwetters be damned.

If you ever do have to defend yourself, remember that you will have a lawyer, too.

Forgot to add, It's a gun. It's supposed to be dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Florida J Frame said:
Can you quote a case where this actually happened?
Click to expand...
Yes, I sat on a jury in an attempted murder case in which the defendant used a 1911 with a deactivated grip safety. Granted this was not a self-defense shooting, and the grip safety issue was overkill as the defendant was obviously guilty and plead out just before closing arguments. Fortunately, the victim was not directly hit.

Whats more, table saw mfrs are being successfully sued for accidents caused by gross operator misuse, including user removal of safety features. If S&W is foolish enough to remove a safety device from it's own product, I suggest buying as many as you can lay hands on, they won't be around much longer.

As for personal liability, you don't have to be convicted in a criminal case or lose a civil suit to be devastated financially.
 
jtcarm,
You misunderstood my question. I have never heard of a case where the prosecutor used a removed lock against someone who used a firearm to defend themselves. I'm beginning to think this is just an urban legend. I'm still not sure I would do it in our litigious society but I have never read one piece of solid evidence that it has happened. I would love to hear from the lawyers that follow this forum, not for legal advice but just for their opinions.
 
I sat on a murder trial once, and the only things that came up were the number of rounds (8) and the nature of the wounds (two to the groin). Other than that, there was no testimony as to caliber, brand of weapon, how many rounds it held, type of ammunition, what color of grips it had, or any of that other stuff. 8 rounds, five hits, end of story.
 
I know this is getting off topic but with all the talk of what is legal and what isn't legal I have a question...and maybe it should be a new topic.

I come from a law enforcement family...from local on up to Federal. We had a family gathering last weekend and the topic of conceal carry came up. One of them said that if they were a civilian and their only concern was truly the protection of their family, he could care less what the laws were.

So my question is this...when it really comes down to the protection of your family, what would you be willing to do?

Criminals carry guns to do harm to others without worrying whether or not they will get caught. Our laws keep good people from protecting themselves and family from these bad guys who know you can't protect yourself...at least in the Communist State of Illinois.

Do you lay in bed at night worrying whether or not you will go to jail for protecting your family?
 
Florida J Frame said:
..... I have never heard of a case where the prosecutor used a removed lock against someone who used a firearm to defend themselves. I'm beginning to think this is just an urban legend.....
Click to expand...

I've heard some people argue against hand-loaded ammo for self-defense use, saying that the prosecutors will tear you a new one for doing so. I wonder how many cases have gone that way? My position is that I have basically ONE load for each caliber handgun, which is used for practice, self-defense, and shooting drunkenly into the air on new years eve (for my 38 specials, it's a 158 gr lead SWC-HP, aka the "FBI load"). What else would I have loaded in the gun?
 
Dpris said:
Of course S&W told you not to do it, and that IS purely a legal precaution on their part.

As noted above, ATF could not care less what you do with that part, or any other part in the gun, as long as you don't make it into a full-auto firearm & don't dink with the serial number.
Denis
Click to expand...

However, if he removes or disables the lock, he will be job security for some lawyer, especially since S&W told him not to do it. He has posted the evidence against himself on this site as have the rest of you that have admitted to removing or disabling the locks on their revolvers. Once you press "Submit Reply" it is out there forever. If there is an accident involving a modified revolver, the owner will be legal toast.
 
gdauth said:
However, if he removes or disables the lock, he will be job security for some lawyer, especially since S&W told him not to do it. He has posted the evidence against himself on this site as have the rest of you that have admitted to removing or disabling the locks on their revolvers. Once you press "Submit Reply" it is out there forever. If there is an accident involving a modified revolver, the owner will be legal toast.
Click to expand...

OK. You've made your point. Now back it up with evidence. Otherwise, it's nothing more than your opinion.
 
Photoman44 said:
OK. You've made your point. Now back it up with evidence. Otherwise, it's nothing more than your opinion.
Click to expand...

Bit hostile aren't we? Much of what is posted is opinion and you are free to ignore any and all opinions. What I said does not involve criminal law, but civil law. There are enough people that are hostile to guns and gun owners that it is my opinion that it pays to be prudent. You don't have to lose a civil case to end up bankrupt from the legal fees.
 
I think everyone is missing the point. I took a potentially unreliable firearm used for personal protection and made it reliable. If I'm brought before a judge because I protected my family...no problem. Better that than burying my family because the firearm inadvertently locked due to a faulty internal lock.

I WILL protect my family by any means necessary regardless of what the law says or doesn't say. I will accept the consequences for doing so.
 
Last edited:
jtcarm said:
Not possibly, but absolutely creates a liability for them, and for you if you ever shoot a bad guy with it. A defense or tort lawyer would have a field day with that one "oh, so you deliberately disabled the safety mechanism.... "

If you think the lock compromises function, sell it and get a pre-lock.
Click to expand...

The other side of the coin: The internal lock is a storage device, not a safety in the sense of a user activated safety which is carried "safe" and unlocked the instant you draw the gun.

"I took out the key lock because there are documented cases of failure and I wanted to be absolutely sure my self-defense weapon functioned as intended. Since I removed the internal lock, I store the weapon in a gun vault when it is not on my person, and that is better than the key lock anyway."

Your witness.
 
I have been without a revolver for a long time, and today I saw a Lew Horton 629 at a good price, and decided that I wanted it. It has the lock. I don't plan on carrying it, but I still do plan on removing the lock.
 
Last edited:
Well, I solved the problem. I just waited and waited and guess what-I now have a 638-2!
Who can tell me the difference twixt a 638-2 and a 638-3????
 
CAJUNLAWYER said:
Well, I solved the problem. I just waited and waited and guess what-I now have a 638-2!
Who can tell me the difference twixt a 638-2 and a 638-3????
Click to expand...

Saw this in another thread:

638 introduced in 1989
638-1 with minor changes also in 1989
638-2 with magnum frame in 1996
638-3 with internal lock in 2002 (current version)
 
I just basically ignore the darn thing and get on with it.For Carry it is one of my Detective Specials or Cobra with a tactical reload.You have 20% more ammo in each cylinder,no lock, and none of them have ever failed.With me the barrels have blown off 2 640's the barrel canted to the right twice with my Model 36,but the internal lock has never failed LOL.
 
I also don't like the lock, but of the 4 Smiths that I have with it, I've never had a problem.
 
Interesting thread. Just bought my first "lock" S&W a 438 brand new from Buds. This little gun has a great fit, lock-up and cylinder/barrel gap. Put 100 rounds thru it this weekend and it worked flawlessly. It replaces my Model 38 which served me well until a frame flaw broke it. I am the orignal owner and S&W sent me a call tag to send it in. Could not live without an Airweight, thus the purchase of the 438. Now I see that S&W lists the 438 as "no longer manufactured". What do you suppose they will do for me on my M38?? I love all my Smiths, we will see.....Thanks all for listening to my concerns! jb
 
The 438, a black 638, may not be available currently - it's info currently states 'Archive' on the S&W site. The regular 638, SKU #163070 & MSRP $449, won't go away.

I have many IL-equipped S&Ws - and have never had a problem with the IL. Little wonder, as after ten plus years of producing IL-equipped revolvers, S&W has yet to spend the first dime defending it's inclusion in court. In this litigious society, where making hot coffee can cost you a fortune, that says something.

My IL-equipped 642-2, bought 2/07, is always loaded and never locked up. It's in my pocket or, in the middle of the night, in the nightstand. I EDC it 24/7 - in church, at the grocers, or cutting the grass... or when the grandkids visit and the other loaded firearms are locked away. Aperiodically, at the range, I present it from my pocket and rapidly discharge it, reload it, and discharge it again - always shocked at it's accuracy - stock springs and grip - with Remington R38S12 +P 158gr LHPSWCs - never a problem. Well, I have shot up my carry ammo and had to load it with plinkers to make the trek home - to clean it and reload it properly. To me, the unsightly IL is not a paranoia producer - but YMMV, to each their own, etc.

Stainz
 
If anyone has the internal lock flag, or complete lock system that they have taken out of a 629-6 that they don't want or is going to throw away I would appreciate it if they would let me send them the money for shipping and send it to me.
Just PM me and I will get back to you.
Thank you very much.
 
44 special Dave said:
Not to turn this into yet another "lock" thread,but why would anyone be the least bit surprised that someone at S&W said don't do it.

They installed it and I'm sure they don't want to tell people it's ok to disable primarily for legal reasons I'd guess.

I own some with the lock others without it. One think I'm sure of after
45 years of shooting revolvers far more have locked up due to the extractor rod being loose, powder grains stuck under the extractor star, and backed out primers.

I'm willing to admit the lock "could" fail but others things can go wrong with a revolver as well.

Dave
Click to expand...

Sums up the way I see it. I've had a GP100 sieze up before and they definitely don't have locks.

Someone mentioned Ayoob's outlook on the locks. Here is the article:
Massad Ayoob » Blog Archive » INTERNAL GUN LOCKS

Essentially happens very VERY rarely. Full violent recoil on a lighter model gun (like the Scandium or Titanium models) have a higher probability of it happening.. but still not likely. My guess is, most people who might have had it engage during inappropriate times, maybe the locks weren't disengaged all the way. All the issues pointed out in the quote above are more likely to happen than the IL malfunctioning. That said, I still prefer no locks, but will not pass up a lock model if it comes around at a good price.
 
Your internet "handle" seems contradictory since there is to the best of my knowledge, no legal CCW in IL. Am I correct?

Hope you get your gun the way you want it. Don
 
I've got 2 lock guns and 2 no lock, never think about it when shooting it and hope it never catches me at the wrong time. Ofcourse I didn't install my alarm until my garage was burglerized when I was away...hmmm?
 
To me there is zero benefit and potentially risk for failure (no matter how small). Unfortunately there are a lot of models that I do want but can't get without the lock. To me removing the lock is a valid option. What S&W says hardly constitutes legal advice (except maybe their liability and your warranty entitlement).

Know your locality - what is OK in one area may not be in another.
 
Last edited:
Cousin Vinnie said:
I didn't look at all the responses but here is a Youtube video explaining how to remove the lock: S&W Internal Lock Removal - YouTube
Click to expand...

Excellent video. I'm going for it!

Is the 442/642 inner parts configuration any different than this 640? I would expect them to be exactly the same.

Anyone who has done this modification experience any surprises during the disassembly/assembly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Model 1500 Issue - Non-Functional when stock is installed
Replies
6
Views
439
DAC511
D
M
Traveling to the northeast with guns?
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
ISCS Yoda
ISCS Yoda
D
OK what do I do now M&P expert advice needed
Replies
13
Views
781
SFury79
SFury79
J
Smith & Wesson Model 39-2
Replies
5
Views
388
Jerry in SC
Jerry in SC
Redacted_553
Is it a timing issue?
Replies
9
Views
502
SGT ROCK 11B
SGT ROCK 11B

Latest posts

Back
Top