J frame internal lock question

This is a discussion on J frame internal lock question within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; From what I've been reading a lot of people dislike the internal lock on j frame revolvers. Is that just for aesthetic reasons or is ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: J frame internal lock question

  1. #1
    Member Array brian l's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42

    J frame internal lock question

    From what I've been reading a lot of people dislike the internal lock on j frame revolvers. Is that just for aesthetic reasons or is there a concern for an increased likelihood of malfunction?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    CMR
    CMR is offline
    Member Array CMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ypsi, MI
    Posts
    235
    The internal locks have locked up while firing.
    Had a LEO practicing with his 642 BUG on the range, on the third shot the gun locked up. The lock engaged.
    For a lot of people, being a victim is a way of Life. That's a Life I choose NOT to live.

    A Shepherd must tend to his Flock. And at times........fight off the wolves.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,332
    I had some issues with my 442 internal lock "locking up" when I was rapidly firing. I'd have to let off of the trigger completely and then re-engage. It would catch. I used to use the lock at times too, and discovered one day to my dismay that I had been carrying it for several days with it locked. I decided to remove the little flag (super easy, youtube videos walk you through it) and I ordered a set of Wolff Springs shooter pack and replaced the hammer and trigger return springs and polished the contact points while I was in there. Now, it shoots smooth as silk and I don't have to worry about the lock or it catching anymore. I've never been able to duplicate the issue since I removed the lock, so it must have been the problem.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  5. #4
    Member Array xeero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    288
    Is there an option to buy the 642 or 442 without the internal lock?

    Edit: Nevermind. Saw another post from CMR & that answered my question. It is possible.

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by xeero View Post
    Is there an option to buy the 642 or 442 without the internal lock?

    Edit: Nevermind. Saw another post from CMR & that answered my question. It is possible.
    It is possible, but it is even easier to disable the lock. Both my J frames came with the lock. The first one took 15 minutes to "delock" he second less than 10. The outside appearance does not change, you just take out the lock mechanism on the inside. The lock look neither appeals to me nor bothers me. I couldn't care less about it unless I can use it for bargaining leverage.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array alachner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,232
    The internal lock will not engage itself and disable the gun completely, but sometimes when performing rapid fire the trigger locks halfway and you have to release it all the way out to fire again. Therefore, it is better to buy one without a lock or remove it if it comes with one. It is very simple to do with basic tools and by following this video:

    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous... If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid for?" [Clint Smith - Thunder Ranch]

  8. #7
    Member Array brian l's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Awesome thanks everyone. I had a feeling that it would cause the gun to lock up when you least want it to. Take care.

  9. #8
    Member Array Cartman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale
    Posts
    286
    I have been considering this for my 638, but one question: if I am forced to defend myself (god forbid) and it goes to trial, can the plaintiff's attorney paint a picture of me as a rabid gun nut who "removed the safties" from my weapon in my twisted desire to shoot someone? Not being funny, I am truly concerned about it. I would take off the thing in a minute if my concern was unfounded. I could probably get better official advice from a source other than the internet, but I am always impressed by the sprectrum of knowledge here.
    "Some men, you just can't reach"

  10. #9
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Why remove it? , put a small dab of blu loctite on a toothpick and carefully put it on the threads, put it in unlocked position and press on.

  11. #10
    Member Array 18DAI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    197
    S&W is currently producing lock free 442's and 642's and is advertising other lock free J-frames.

    There is no reason to purchase a J-frame with a lock. Unless you want to be stuck with one. The IL guns have little resale potential. No lock, only and always. Regards 18DAI.

  12. #11
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,944
    My question is: why is the loathsome lock really there in the first place? Folks are required to dab Loctite, grind off things, or otherwise modify or remove parts in order to defeat the wretched thing so that they can truly have a reliable revolver? Smith & Wesson does a disservice to its customers by manufacturing revolvers with locks. They should be ashamed even offer this poorly conceived feature.

    I have lots of Smith & Wessons, all so old that they don't have locks. They will never fail due to this lock design. They are wonderful revolvers.
    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Cartman View Post
    I have been considering this for my 638, but one question: if I am forced to defend myself (god forbid) and it goes to trial, can the plaintiff's attorney paint a picture of me as a rabid gun nut who "removed the safties" from my weapon in my twisted desire to shoot someone? Not being funny, I am truly concerned about it. I would take off the thing in a minute if my concern was unfounded. I could probably get better official advice from a source other than the internet, but I am always impressed by the sprectrum of knowledge here.
    Very possible an attorney could paint the picture and sell it to a poorly educated jury, but the IL really doesn't serve the purpose of a safety. It's a lock, and as such does what a cable and a padlock do. One of my revolvers came equipped with the thing and I disabled it with no worries. It's un-necessary gadgetry IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    My question is: why is the loathsome lock really there in the first place? Folks are required to dab Loctite, grind off things, or otherwise modify or remove parts in order to defeat the wretched thing so that they can truly have a reliable revolver? Smith & Wesson does a disservice to its customers by manufacturing revolvers with locks. They should be ashamed even offer this poorly conceived feature.

    I have lots of Smith & Wessons, all so old that they don't have locks. They will never fail due to this lock design. They are wonderful revolvers.
    That's where I am on the issue.

  14. #13
    Member Array Sleipnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    429
    If it ever came to it all you would have to do is explain that it is not a safety, it is an immobilization device for the times when it is not under your direct control and I'm sure a defense lawyer could articulate that to much better effect than I.

    I like the locks on my SP101 () and on my Springfield 1911. Springfield's solution is ingenious as it rotates a piece to block the mainspring from cocking the hammer and can't be activated without the key nor can it be activated while the hammer is cocked. My 1911 has had over 800 rounds through it with no issue so far and expect none in the future! Smith's idea of an immobilizing device is horrid.
    Attached Images

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member Array Ghettokracker71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Under a rock.
    Posts
    1,763
    OK, to verify, when you "disable" the lock, the firearm appears to still have the lock in place ? (That is to say, there isn't just a hole in the side of the frame where the keyhole was? I can leave the part where you stick the key in, to keep dust/etc out?)

    I regret that my 442 has a lock :-(.


    "To blame a gun for a mans decision is to foolishly attribute free will to an inanimate object"- Colion Noir.

  16. #15
    Member Array roadrash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    311
    I worry about the IL in my 642 about as much as I worry about getting struck by lightning,probelems with the IL in the airweights are rare as hens teeth,I do not like the idea of disableing the IL,I would either remove it completely and plug the hole/leave it alone/or sell the gun,I would not want some unsuspecting user to think they made a gun safe when in reality they turned the key on a deactivated lock.My gun has many problem free rds through it,and as far as resale goes it is pretty hammered from daily pocket carry so who gives a hoot.

    If buying a new Smith today I would definately buy a no lock if it was available in the model I wanted.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Question about my S&W's internal lock
    By 1911luver in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 5th, 2009, 05:36 PM
  2. S&W Internal Lock Fix
    By semperfi.45 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: January 30th, 2009, 09:11 AM
  3. S&W Internal Lock on an M&P
    By PSIShapiro in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 4th, 2007, 07:52 AM
  4. What's an Internal Lock??
    By austinguy23 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2007, 11:44 PM
  5. Internal Lock?
    By 45ACP4ever in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: September 6th, 2006, 05:05 PM

Search tags for this page

642 internal lock

,

internal lock revolver

,

j frame internal lock

,
j frame no internal lock
,
revolver internal lock
,
s&w 638 internal lock
,

s&w 642 internal lock

,

s&w j frame internal lock

,
s&w j frame no internal lock
,

smith and wesson 642 internal lock

,
smith and wesson internal lock problems
,

smith and wesson j frame internal lock

Click on a term to search for related topics.