What's the deal with lock's?

[HAWKEYE10]

I don't have a S&W or any gun with a lock.
I hear Forum Members talk about not wanting
a lock on their guns. I don't understand why.
Why not keep it unlocked 100% of the time?
Am I missing something?

 

[LESMITH]

From what I have read there are 2 things they don't like.

1) The locking mechanism might accidentally become locked while shooting.
2) They don't like the idea of a locking mechanism being forced upon them.

 

[panamajack310]

HERE WE GO AGAIN.....lol opening a can of OMG

The lock is a political issue. All the gun manufacturers were sued by the federal govt. and several other organizations about gun safety. As a result of those law suits S&W came to an agreement with the federal government that if they installed a locking system on their guns that they would have some exemptions from the law suite. Unfortunately they still got hit pretty hard....
Ruger did the same thing. Ruger installed locks on several of ther models also, but to set the ruger lock you need to remove the grips...
S&W decided to put a big hole in the side of the gun....NOT A FAVORED MOVE FOR ALL OF US S&W LOVERS....

to sum it up...We do not like the lock because we feel that S&W caved to the pressures of government influence.

 

[bountyhunter]

I don't have a S&W or any gun with a lock.
I hear Forum Members talk about not wanting
a lock on their guns. I don't understand why.
Why not keep it unlocked 100% of the time?
Am I missing something?

There is a very small possibility it might interfere with hammer movement, but the odds are probably about as much as winning the lottery.

Most of the hatred is because the lock represents when SW "sold out" and made a deal with the government.

 

[HAWKEYE10]

I can understand that. At least we don't have
to use it [yet]. Don

 

[Black_Sheep]

There is a very small possibility it might interfere with hammer movement, but the odds are probably about as much as winning the lottery.

The ILF thread was full of first hand examples of lock malfunction, mine included. If the firearm is used for self defense, just one lock induced "fail to fire" episode is too many. My lock equipped Model 60 still sees occasional range duty but will never be used for CCW. A no-lock 642 was acquired soon after my 60 locked up while firing.

As long as no-lock vintage Smiths are around I'll never buy a new one with a lock...

 

[Amici]

"What's the deal with lock's? [sic]"

The "deal" was yet another manifestation of S&W whoring itself out to political hacks, to the detriment of its customers, stockholders and those who defend firearms rights.

It began with S&W caving to Andrew Como's petulant demands during the Clinton administration, with the resulting boycott, tumbling sales and consequent collapse and sale of the company to the present holders.

The IL is yet another PC, feel-good/do nothing act of pandering. IF I want the gun locked, I will lock it. In its case, in my safe, wherever. I do NOT need or want that ugly hole in the frame for a useless device of questionable reliability; one which DOES create yet another avenue by which crap can enter the firing mechanism, another interference with the firing mechanism and yet another cost for which there is NO benefit.

In short, the IL is yet another reason why I should have kept my old 625, instead of wasting a grand on the altogether underwhelming "Performance Center" version thereof.

Not that I have an opinion on the subject..........

 

[Wayne M]

Simply: the more complex any machine is the more there is to go wrong with it, possibly at the worst time.

 

[USAF385]

If you ever get one with a lock... they are easily removed. No performance issue then. I removed the lock from my father's 642 two nights ago.. took less than 10 minutes.

 

[Nightowl]

In addition to the political ramifications, mentioned above, there are a couple or more things that I do not like. First, it changes the profile of the frame so that it does not have the cdlassic look of the old ones, it buries the hammer on the smaller frames, making them look funny. Second, it has small parts and tiny springs and is complicated. Such adds expense to the manufacture of the gun and increases possibilites of malfunctions. Those manifest themselves in lock failure, it seems mostly in the lightweight, heavy recoil guns. I have only two guns with the lock. The first one I bought was when I first heard of the lock, I ordered a 627 5 inch slabside Performance Center gun, hoping to get one before the lock became common. No dice, it had the lock. The other one was a .500, which was never made with the lock. I have no issues with these guns as they are high quality firearms, but I will buy no more. I have plenty of no lock guns and even used no lock guns in like new condition cost less than new ones with the lock! But, I wish they did not have a lock. I cannot understand why they continue with the lock, I bought a 1911 and it does not have a lock on it.

 

[frogger]

From what I have read there are 2 things they don't like.

1) The locking mechanism might accidentally become locked while shooting.
2) They don't like the idea of a locking mechanism being forced upon them.

That pretty much sums it up. There have been quite a few documented cases of the lock failing and turning a gun into a paper weight. That, and it is a just a matter of principle. The safety is between your ears. As much as I hate them, I overlook them on range guns, but I will not buy a gun for a self defense role that has an internal lock.

 

[phnx]

That pretty much sums it up. There have been quite a few documented cases of the lock failing and turning a gun into a paper weight. That, and it is a just a matter of principle. The safety is between your ears. As much as I hate them, I overlook them on range guns, but I will not buy a gun for a self defense role that has an internal lock.

Quite a few documented? How many is that? I realize even one failure is one too many. But "quite a few" is blatant hyperbole. If in reality "quite a few" locks failed I think we'd REALLY HEAR ABOUT IT, here and elsewhere.

I've been shooting for 43 years and I know A LOT of other shooters among whom are a whole lot of "Smith guys."

This comes up all the time. We all hear the stories. But I know no one who has had a lock fail on them. And I know no one who actually knows someone FIRST HAND upon whom a lock has failed.

I'd love to see the "documentation" you mention as opposed to the hearsay stuff. "I know a guy that knows a guy who met a guy whose brother-in-law says he knew a guy...". C'mon, man. It's BS.

My belief is that a lot of guys were p!ssed enough at S&W for folding under pressure and installing the locks that they outright lie about locks failing.

I think these locks are completely unecessary too. I was saddened and disappointed in S&W for caving in. But not enough to lie about

There's no way there have been "quite a few" actual cases. Too many guys are poised and ready to jump on S&W if this was really happening. If it were happening, we really would have "documented cases" with pictures included on this forum

I've read a lot of threads on here concerning this and can't help but notice it's always the same (very few) guys that revisit this at any and every opportunity. It's gotten real old.

A lot of guys simply despise S&W because they rolled over on this so they just make up and/or repeat stuff they "heard about."

A lot of these dudes are probably the same people who we're running around saying "Obama is a Muslim" and "Obama is not a US citizen" and all that other stuff they knew was BS but hoped people would believe.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no BO fan, not in the least.

But the people who insisted on spreading all the ridiculous BS about the guy helped him to get elected because after a while folks stopped believig ANYTHNG negative that was said about him because so much of it was obvious, laughable BS.

There were plenty of TRUE negatives to dwell on. I'll never understand why people spread all that crazy stuff about him. I think it really helped get him elected. What a damn shame.

 

[fyimo]

Truth is we don't need locks on guns and no one wanted them or asked for them. S&W make a decision one their own to pander to polictical pressure and basically said screw the customer. They felt that we would buy our their guns with the locks and like it because that's what they made available. I for one will never own one so I don't have to like them.

There are plenty of wonderful pre lock S&W guns out there so the decision was easy for me.

 

[Katy]

And I know no one who actually knows someone FIRST HAND upon whom a lock has failed.

Well, now you know me because I have a friend who is an LEO on the SFPD and he is a Dept. armorer and training officer and he has witnessed twice of an IL caused FTF.

 

[bk43]

As a result of those law suits S&W came to an agreement with the federal government that if they installed a locking system on their guns that they would have some exemptions from the law suite.

The IL was not part of the agreement. It came later after there was a new administration in Washington, the agreement had fallen apart and ownership of the company had changed hands.

Bob

 

[davel686]

The lock is a very flimsy piece of junk.
it is easily removed and then the gun is 100% reliable.
I carry a M66 2-1/2" that came out the first year they put the ugly locks in.
I removed the lock/flag tab and have never had a problem with it since.
when I first got it, the spring that holds the tab/lock down was weak and it would sometimes bind up the hammer a bit while shooting it.
after it was removed, it has been as reliable as any non lock gun I have.

 

[NE450No2]

I think I remember reading that Michael Bane had a lock become engaged when shooting, causing his revolver to stop shooting. It was a 329 44 Mag I think.

 

[RDak]

I give credence to this man.

My lock comes out today. I've watched the video twice. I would never attempt this without that video handy.

IMHO, that is not the way to do it.

You should remove the flag, grind down the nub, then reinstall the flag. This will keep the lock parts more "intact" while firing IMHO.

Now if you want to just remove all the lock parts that's probably the best way. You'll have a hole in the frame if you do it that way.

ETA: The only time I removed the entire flag was on a Model 67 where the flag was gouging the side of the hammer. I had no choice but to remove that flag entirely because the flag would not seat properly in the frame.

 

[johns961]

Why not put a drop of crazy glue in the lock hole ?

 

[RDak]

Why not put a drop of crazy glue in the lock hole ?

Some people worry that the glue will become detached with continued firing/recoil. I have no idea one way or the other though.