Who doesn't TRUST the internal locks on S&W J-frames?

[Trebla]

I want a S&W 642 or 442 so bad that I can taste it, but I don't trust the internal locking mechanism. One of my range buddies swore by his 642 until one day at the range the internal lock malfunctioned. He couldn't rotate the cylinder, nor could he pull the trigger, nor could he activate the cylinder release latch. We were STUNNED!! He then sat it down for about five minutes and tried to activate the cylinder release latch and the cylinder was released. He then locked the cylinder back into position and nothing. Couldn't pull the trigger, couldn't rotate the cylinder.
So I have seen it with my own eyes that the internal locking mechanism malfunctions!! Has anyone else experienced this?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Tangle]

I've got 'em on three 686s, and used them at Gunsite for nearly 1000 rounds in the desert and about 1200 rounds before I went, shooting fast enough to heat up the gun and have yet to see a problem with the lock.

[Scott]

It happens, but it is extremely rare. I can tell you that when a revolver has a failure it usually requires tools to remedy. A good friend of mine is a moderator at the S&W forum and he has been tracking IL related failures on S&W revolvers.

I couldn't pull up his thread but I'll shoot him an email and see what his count is up to right now. I can tell you that whatever his findings are he still carries a J-Frame snub with the lock, and I do as well, although for me it is a back-up gun vs a primary.

-Scott-

[Bud White]

I've pounded quite a few full powered 500 S&W mags out of my X frame and it hasn't broke the internal lock i have 3 Smith wheelies at the moment and had not problems with them ...

Since the 500 didn't come apart that pretty much makes the worry about the lack a non issue for me

[P95Carry]

I wouldn't say lack of trust quite but ''uneasy'' - yes.

I only have two - M629 and M625 and neither is or will be carry anyways. Neither has had the lock used ever nor will they and I think that is maybe a factor that makes for less perceived risk.

It's just something I'd prefer was not there!

[ka0azs]

To me, provides no benefit from a safety stand point and just adds another toy for Murphy to play with from a reliablity standpoint.

Glad my J and K frames were made before this PC nonsense took hold.

[soflasmg]

To me, provides no benefit from a safety stand point and just adds another toy for Murphy to play with from a reliablity standpoint.

Glad my J and K frames were made before this PC nonsense took hold.

Yup.

[Zundfolge]

So can the locks be removed? Or modified to not funciton?

Kind of like removing the magazine disconnect on a BHP.

[Tangle]

H&K USPs have locks, too, FWIW.

[jarhead79]

You could get struck by lightning if you go outside. You could die if you drink the water.

I'm not meaning to be a smart a$$. There are a billion things that could happen to any gun. Every type of gun has had problems. You just don't stop using a gun just because someone somewhere (even if you know them) had a problem with it. If you do, you don't get a gun, sorry.

Nothing is 100%.

[Euclidean]

The problem with the Smith and Wesson lock isn't so much that there's a lock per se, but that it's such a piss poor design. The Taurus design is much more elegant. Ruger is at least going to put them inside the grips.

First of all a revolver doesn't need an internal lock it's just something else to go wrong. An padlock will secure a wheelgun just fine.

Second of all it should be an option not a requirement. I can see the appeal of it for some uses/people/situations.

Third the problem is they put the lock where it can easily be manipulated and thus engaged at the wrong time, AND it's right where all the recoil of the revolver impacts.

They can be disabled at the cost of your warranty, but the spiderhole will still be there.

I am honestly surprised no one has started making replacement sideplates or a plug. I know a lot of people, self included, who would be interested in having the lock disabled and the sideplate replaced.

The thing that angers me about them is that S&W could easily offer pieces with or without the lock but they don't bother to. They are alienating themselves more and more from their customers.

My new 625 has one, I'm going to ignore it. I figure if it malfunctions then at least my family will become rich suing S&W.

[Trebla]

Euclidean: Did I read your post correctly-Ruger is going to start installing internal locks on their revolvers or semi-automatics?

[Trebla]

jarhead79: You were being a smart a$$ but its ok because I am one to at times. I own a S&W 686 with the internal lock and it never malfunctioned, but its a heavier gun. Actually I am just getting back from one of the gun shops I frequent and they had a NIB 442 with the lock so I passed. There is a gun show in March that I will attend and I hope I can find a 442 NIB without the locking mechanism.

[Bud White]

So can the locks be removed? Or modified to not funciton?

Kind of like removing the magazine disconnect on a BHP.

Yes they can

[Bud White]

Euclidean: Did I read your post correctly-Ruger is going to start installing internal locks on their revolvers or semi-automatics?

All ready are my new single action 50th flattop 357 has it so do all the new vaqueros