So, just how bad is the lock issue?

[sel1005]

MOD EDIT: SEE LAST POST! Thank you...


Lots of comments and opinions, but really, how bad is the revolver lock issue? Want to add two new 357's to my collection this year, was thinking of a 686 and maybe a R8, but with all the noise I am wondering if should to to Ruger instead and buy the SP101 and GP100 instead. Not the quality of S&W IMHO, but I can't seem to find anything - other than personal opinion - that says the S&W lock is really a significant issue to deal with.

Anyone have any data, stats, whatever, that shows why you should NOT buy the 686 / R8 as they are currently sold? I would never carry either, just safe guns to shoot from time to time. My EDC has been and will continue to be a Glock 27 or M&P compact 40.

Thanks in advance for your advice and input.

 

[muddocktor]

I only have 1 lock pistol under my roof, which happens to be my wife's Model 60-15. We picked it up new from a gun shop during the Christmas 2014 season. The lock has been a non-issue as far as functionality goes. It looks abominable in my opinion, but it doesn't give any problems. As far as the pistol goes, when we got it the action was kind of gritty feeling. After removing the sideplate, I found the MIM rebound slide to have a sharp edge slightly cutting into the frame and causing friction and there was also gritty feeling debris inside. I took the rebound slide out and carefully stoned the sides with an ultra-fine knife polishing stone from my Lansky kit and knocked the sharp off of the rebound slide. I also installed a 13 lb rebound slide spring in the pistol, but left the stock mainspring installed. After doing that and thoroughly cleaning the insides of the pistol, I will put it up against any of my N frames as far as trigger feel goes, both single and double action. Single action pull is a crisp 2-2 1/4 lbs and double action is roughly 8-9 lbs and feels smooth the whole way to hammer drop.

BTW, the lock is still in the pistol and is still unused. It's never even had the lock key come close to the hole.

I'm not a fan of that ugly hole by any means, but I wouldn't back off from buying a pistol that has one if it happens to be a pistol model I would like to have.

 

[DonD]

The issue of the ILS has been blown out of proportion since they were fielded.

Documented failures are incredibly rare and for the most part, user dislike results from.
Resentment that S&W "caved" to anti gun government pressure
Dislike of cosmetic issues
Intense dislike by many of anything new. Don

 

[BigBill]

I have the ILS I could care less. Follow the owners instruction manual on how to use it. Don't play with it like a new toy. Don't turn it on with the cylinder open. Only use it with a closed cylinder and hammer down. I tried mine once to see if it worked.

 

[gc45]

If wanting the newer guns, and not being bothered by the Loc yourself, why not buy them? What others say is mostly cosmetic besides, in 10-20 years Smith will have sold thousands and thousands of them and us old timers who won't own one will be long gone most likely. Personally I don't want one preferring to buy older used guns, however we could say the same for MIM stuff, and many do, but my favorite shooter is the 625-7 45C with MIM parts made just before J loc and a terrific gun throughout once it had a trigger enhancement. The newer Smith's, and I base this on what we all can read in the gun forums not from my own experience, can have other issues it seems than the Loc so why not remove it, plug the hole and be happy?

GC45

 

[robertrwalsh]

Anything mechanical can fail. I would not want one of the damn things on a serious self-defense gun. I do have one revolver with it that I use strictly for paper punching.

 

[medic15al]

I have actually had a lock engage on me when I was firing a new Model 25-13 with moderate loads. Used the key to unlock and two rounds later it re-engaged. Had it removed. When I traded the gun the lock parts went with it with full disclosure to the gentleman.

 

[gnystrom]

As a RSO, I have seen hundreds of thousands of rounds fired from S&W's with locks. All frames, no issues ever at our range.
I wish they weren't there but they don't prevent me from buying a gun with one on it.

 

[medic15al]

I should also add that if I see a gun I like, I will get it lock or not.

 

[BigBill]

Let's say if your LGS had all the newer s&w N frames in blue, stainless and nickel all on sale for $699 what would you do?
Your story would change then.

 

[epj]

Lock failures are rare, but real. Make your own decision. They should be removed and pluged, or left alone.

 

[Mr.Harry]

I should also add that if I see a gun I like, I will get it lock or not.

that's where 'the answer' is at. Bought my first revolver only just recently. 629-6 classic. Went back and forth and read and researched a ton on it before I did, on this forum and many others. ALMOST got completely spooked off the gun I WANTED and opted for another due to all the hooplah over the lock. In the end I bought what I originally wanted and I couldn't be happier I did. Granted, I have not yet put a few thousand rounds through it to see if a lock failure is pending, but in every other aspect that I was measuring it against 44 mags of different manufacturer, it is superlative. Which was why I wanted it in the first place.

 

[chief38]

My opinion is that if you own an older model without the I/L, I am 100% sure it won't fail - ever! Just something I would never consider owning. Just another thing to malfunction, collect dust, not to mention that I think it's just plain UGLY.

There are STILL many many excellent vintage Smiths available that do not have the I/L and my personal opinion is that the older guns were better for many reasons I won't even get into here. I am sure there are many here who could care less and the I/L doesn't bother them. To each his own I say, but think about it carefully before buying.

YMMV

 

[sw282]

l have heard lock this, lock that, to lock or not to lock..
So l did a search on the net and actually found some
stats on lock safety.0ne respected gun forum (Not Brand Loyal)
did a survey... Assuming the posters were honest and truthful
This survey found app 5% experienced a problem with a lock.
25 out of 480 of posters that answered.
l am not going to name specific sites.. Search engines do that..
l personally never had a lock problem..My carry revolver doesn't
have one...l guess they were not required in 1930 when my
little 32NP was made

 

[AveragEd]

I think the lock is like pinned barrels and recessed cylinders. To really olde pharts, a "real" S&W revolver has to have these two features. To semi-olde pharts like me (69), they don't matter much but we dislike MIM parts and the IL because the S&Ws we bought new didn't have them. Young guys weren't exposed to guns like ours so the lock, the reshaped frames that go with it and MIM parts are no big deal.

If I were young and wanted a new S&W revolver, I doubt the lock would matter much because I "wouldn't know any better." But I'm not young so it does. That doesn't make it bad.

Ed

 

[chief38]

Some of the main reasons NOT to buy a S&W with an I/L:

Even if there is 5%, 3% or even 1% chance of it locking unintentionally, it makes me have to worry about one other potential failure if and when I would ever need it to work. There ARE options!

Smith & Wesson (the new Company) just helped the anti gunners put one more thorn in our sides by adding a stupid, useless, unwarranted and unneeded devise. A separate cable style lock would not only have worked better and more reliably, but would have saved them money as well.

The more parts there are moving inside a mechanical devise, the more complicated, more expensive and less reliable it becomes.

More spaces for debris, dirt, dust, etc. to enter into the gun. Thats just common sense.

Just plain UGLY.

So what benefits can S&W claim that have been added by the I/L??

IMHO when we buy a new S&W product with this useless and detrimental devise, we only send a message to the Company that it is OK. If no one bought them the opposite message would be sent and I would all but guarantee that the I/L would disappear fast. SALES dictate what a company produces! Lack of sales = redesign.

 

[twodog max]

I have several with locks and several without. Never had a problem with a lock but I have not ever used them either and never will.

News flash..... All firearms are mechanical devices subject to failure of any part of them for whatever reason. Go to the Ruger forum the gripping is about transfer bars failures and lousy triggers.

Each manufacturer has its real and imaginary flaws. I wish the locks were not there but they are and I ignore them. For what it is worth all my lock revolvers are great shooters maybe better than my prelocks. I carry mine without hesitation.

 

[bigwheelzip]

I'm an old phart but new shooter with all new guns. Thousands of rounds fired, no problems with lock, trusted to carry. Don't know any better, but maybe ignorance is bliss.

 

[varmint243]

I have guns with and without the lock
I have had no issues with guns that have the lock
If I were looking at two guns that were laying side by side and one had the lock and one didn't I would buy the one without the lock.
This is not based on anything scientific, just my personal preference.

 

[TTSH]

If I were young and wanted a new S&W revolver, I doubt the lock would matter much because I "wouldn't know any better." But I'm not young so it does.

LOL!!! I guess that's a good & reasonable way to look at it. I, too, am "old" and I wouldn't own an S&W IL revolver if my life depended on it... but that's easy for me to say since I own plenty of S&W pre-IL revolvers. I guess if I were young and just starting out today, I might feel that I had no other choice but to accept the IL just because I might feel that pre-IL guns are too rare and expensive. This is a case of what you don't know probably won't hurt you or even bother you too much. It only bothers those of us who remember the way things used to be.