I've heard a couple of guys mention that some of the S&W ultra-light weight revolvers like the 340, 340 PD,386 PD, etc. with Scandium frames have given problems when using stout defensive ammo. Supposedly , the built-in lock engages somehow during recoil and locks the action at what could really be an inappropriate time if you're dealing with an emergency. Can anyone VERIFY an ACTUAL occurence of this kind of thing happening and give the particulars?
Any Problems with S&W Revolvers w/ Locks?
- Thread starter Captain38
- Start date
Alaskanmonte
New member
I have the 340PD and have shot .38, .38+P, and .357 Mag. and have not had any problems............(knock on wood). So far I've been very happy with my Smith and have every confidence in my gun. Untill I have a problem I will not have a problem carrying the 340PD.
NOTE: I do shoot this little hand cannon every weekend, so far so good, I have about 1500 rounds through it.
NOTE: I do shoot this little hand cannon every weekend, so far so good, I have about 1500 rounds through it.
Ayoob wrote about "reports" he received from a guy who had TWO lock equipped S&W self actuate their locks on him in the same range trip. 
Then another from a guy who carries a 329 44 mag revolver as his DUTY gun he claims the flag piece flew out.
There were no pictures and no in depth look at what possibly happened.
What I did: Opened the gun. Lifted the hammer out and looked in there myself. Now, I'm not a gunsmith but it's pretty easy to tell that all the lock's parts (there are 5) are trapped in place by the hammer. The only way something will fly out is if the hammer flies out. The hammer is not going anywhere. If the little coil spring that puts pressure on the cam that actuates the lock breaks then the lock relaxes to an UNLOCKED position. So there you have it.
Reports of the lightweight guns locking up probably involved bullet pull due to the heavy recoil.
Oh and it appears that you can removethe lockwithout affecting function. I should try this...
Then another from a guy who carries a 329 44 mag revolver as his DUTY gun he claims the flag piece flew out.There were no pictures and no in depth look at what possibly happened.
What I did: Opened the gun. Lifted the hammer out and looked in there myself. Now, I'm not a gunsmith but it's pretty easy to tell that all the lock's parts (there are 5) are trapped in place by the hammer. The only way something will fly out is if the hammer flies out. The hammer is not going anywhere. If the little coil spring that puts pressure on the cam that actuates the lock breaks then the lock relaxes to an UNLOCKED position. So there you have it.
Reports of the lightweight guns locking up probably involved bullet pull due to the heavy recoil.
Oh and it appears that you can removethe lockwithout affecting function. I should try this...
I am the kinda dude that doesn't believe anything unless it's firsthand information, and I personally haven't seen any problems with any of mine yet.
All things mechanical can break, and the less parts the better, but I think there are more important things to worry about than the lock breaking.
I wonder if any gunsmiths that hang out here have noticed any problems....
All things mechanical can break, and the less parts the better, but I think there are more important things to worry about than the lock breaking.
I wonder if any gunsmiths that hang out here have noticed any problems....
I don't know if it was one of the cases mentioned by Ayoob, but I know that one report of a defective lock was a flat lie. The guy just hated the idea of a lock so much that he went nuts and began spreading the story that his S&W locked up on him in the middle of a shootout. It turned out that he had never been in any kind of a shootout and didn't even own an S&W with a lock on it.
That does not, of course, mean there might not have been problems, but it does indicate the extreme mind set of some of the "anti-lock" types.
Jim
That does not, of course, mean there might not have been problems, but it does indicate the extreme mind set of some of the "anti-lock" types.
Jim
The Lock's are pretty much hated (!!) by most old time S&W fans. I think its more on principle than actual "issues" .I asked about lock failures on several forums before I got my mod 60-14. Lots of nasty words but no failure reports. I bought the, tossed the key in a draw and hae been shooting it (without problems) for well over a year.
progunner1957
Moderator
Smith and Wesson "lawyers up" their revolvers
I have a model 629 and a model 25, both with the lock. I haven't had any trouble with it yet. My biggest objection to the current S&W revolvers is the godawfully heavy double action trigger pull
. It is so heavy that it requires the hand strength of a gorilla on steroids to fire double action.
S&W probably made them that way in an attempt to lawyer-proof the revolvers; the DA trigger pull is so heavy that a small child couldn't fire the gun - but neither could an adult with weak hands. Cocking the hammer back to fire SA is the same way. That's the price we all pay in order for bottomfeeding lawyers to sue thier way to being multimillionaires.
Fortunately, I have a model 29 that was built in the early 60's. The bluing looks like black glass and it has had an action job that makes the DA pull as smooth as silk. Too bad we can't get craftsmanship like that today.
I have a model 629 and a model 25, both with the lock. I haven't had any trouble with it yet. My biggest objection to the current S&W revolvers is the godawfully heavy double action trigger pull
. It is so heavy that it requires the hand strength of a gorilla on steroids to fire double action.S&W probably made them that way in an attempt to lawyer-proof the revolvers; the DA trigger pull is so heavy that a small child couldn't fire the gun - but neither could an adult with weak hands. Cocking the hammer back to fire SA is the same way. That's the price we all pay in order for bottomfeeding lawyers to sue thier way to being multimillionaires.
Fortunately, I have a model 29 that was built in the early 60's. The bluing looks like black glass and it has had an action job that makes the DA pull as smooth as silk. Too bad we can't get craftsmanship like that today.
Yankee Doodle
New member
Take a couple of drops of clear nail polish and force it into the lock hole on the outside of the frame with a razor blade. When it dries it will hold the lock in place. I imagine you could do the same thing with epoxy cement, but that would freeze the thing in place forever. Might make it hard to sell or trade in the future.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Yes, I hate the locks. I don't WANT an ugly hole right there in my sideplate. Even IF it never causes any problems. I haven't bought a Smith with a hole in it yet. I won't say I never will since surely S&W will someday start to sell something I can't live without.
My big beef with S&W and the lock is why does it have to be so cosmetically ugly? And my complaint becomes even more valid now that Ruger has introduced the Blackhawk and Vaquero with internal locks. I was all prepared to say I was never going to buy one until I saw pictures. Those crafty Ruger engineers put the lock _inside_ the grips with no hole at all! You can take the grips off to engage the lock for storage. Or you could drill a small hole in the grips if you were the 1 person in 1000 who really wan't to use the damn thing. Why the heck can't the Smith work like that? And the new Ruger lock works by limiting how far the spring can compress. If you lock it, the hammer can't be drawn to full cock which means the transfer bar can't rise all the way to firing position. So the Ruger lock doesn't have _any_ effect on the lockwork. FAR better solution.
I'm _getting_ one of those new 50th Anniversay Flat Top Blackhawks when they finally start selling them in Jan! No doubt!
Gregg
My big beef with S&W and the lock is why does it have to be so cosmetically ugly? And my complaint becomes even more valid now that Ruger has introduced the Blackhawk and Vaquero with internal locks. I was all prepared to say I was never going to buy one until I saw pictures. Those crafty Ruger engineers put the lock _inside_ the grips with no hole at all! You can take the grips off to engage the lock for storage. Or you could drill a small hole in the grips if you were the 1 person in 1000 who really wan't to use the damn thing. Why the heck can't the Smith work like that? And the new Ruger lock works by limiting how far the spring can compress. If you lock it, the hammer can't be drawn to full cock which means the transfer bar can't rise all the way to firing position. So the Ruger lock doesn't have _any_ effect on the lockwork. FAR better solution.
I'm _getting_ one of those new 50th Anniversay Flat Top Blackhawks when they finally start selling them in Jan! No doubt!
Gregg
My gunsmith told me that is was not an issue. He says it cannot, REASONABLY, fail or lock itself. I hate them as they look like a scratch in the side. I found myself carrying my non locked 342T as both back up and off duty and thought I might be better off with something with a hammer for primary carry off duty. I sucked it up and went with a 360SC. It's a work gun so the ugliness is'nt as much of an issue. Not a problem yet except for the ferocious recoil with magnums. I had it magna ported and this is the only time I've really felt the the porting helped.
Tulsa FWIW, the Smith lock does not have an effect on the lockwork. Let me restate that. Not anymore than the effect of the sideplate and the frame rubbing against the hammer in non lock Smiths.
I like Ruger's implementation of the lock too. It reminded me of the device that always appeared in old gun rag ads. It's a magnetic lock for Smiths that came with a special ring... Magna trigger? Of course, some enterprising ambulance chaser can argue that the Ruger's lock is not accessible enough for the casual user...
I like Ruger's implementation of the lock too. It reminded me of the device that always appeared in old gun rag ads. It's a magnetic lock for Smiths that came with a special ring... Magna trigger? Of course, some enterprising ambulance chaser can argue that the Ruger's lock is not accessible enough for the casual user...
I like ruger's idea. The only problem I really have with SW's lock is that its in a very, uhm, ugly spot. The best place, IMHO would be somewhere else. Why can't they just issue a stinkin trigger lock with the darn thing, you can still keep it loaded, just as quick to disable, required no reworking of anything on the gun, and does not have any cosmetic drawback. 
lawyers probably caused this issue more than common sense.
lawyers probably caused this issue more than common sense.Fwiw....
I hear people saying the lock on thier smith is 'ugly', 'in a bad spot' and/or 'in the sideplate'...i have a s&w m637 and the lock is tiny and just below the cylinder release lever on the left side, are they someplace else on most smiths? It isnt really noticable on mine unless you know to look for it. Is the location of the lock on mine unique to my model? just curious, as i havent looked for or noticed the lock on the other smiths i've handled brifly or seen pics of......
Maybe people would respond better to them if they put it where mine is.....just a thought
I hear people saying the lock on thier smith is 'ugly', 'in a bad spot' and/or 'in the sideplate'...i have a s&w m637 and the lock is tiny and just below the cylinder release lever on the left side, are they someplace else on most smiths? It isnt really noticable on mine unless you know to look for it. Is the location of the lock on mine unique to my model? just curious, as i havent looked for or noticed the lock on the other smiths i've handled brifly or seen pics of......
Maybe people would respond better to them if they put it where mine is.....just a thought
i stand corrected...
it is just above it, my bad, but the outermost part is covered a tiny bit by the release, still, not on the sideplate (the removeable one) or particicularly ugly or noticeable IMHO. i do stand corrected on the above vs below part, sorry....other than that error, is that the 'standard location' for it, or are they elsewhere on other models?
will add FWIW that i've fired 500+ rounds thru mine with no difficulty from the lock. also have only used itthe lock once, when first bought, to test it, since then, it has been untouched. (why have a loaded self defense gun that in locked in any manner...in my opinion)
it is just above it, my bad, but the outermost part is covered a tiny bit by the release, still, not on the sideplate (the removeable one) or particicularly ugly or noticeable IMHO. i do stand corrected on the above vs below part, sorry....other than that error, is that the 'standard location' for it, or are they elsewhere on other models?
will add FWIW that i've fired 500+ rounds thru mine with no difficulty from the lock. also have only used itthe lock once, when first bought, to test it, since then, it has been untouched. (why have a loaded self defense gun that in locked in any manner...in my opinion)
progunner1957 said:
Why suffer with an abominiable trigger pull?
Get a Wilson spring kit and replace the main spring and rebound spring in both your guns. Any decent 'smith can do this for a nominal fee. I've done this to previous S&W's and while I was there smoothed up some of the internal surfaces too, ending up with glass smooth actions that were 100% reliable.
$14.95 From Brownell's.
#178 Smith & Wesson K, l, & N - RP mainspring, RP 12, 13 and 14 lb. rebound springs.
Blue Heeler
Moderator
For what it's worth, I bought a new Model 66 in January this year, it has a lock of course - haven't had any problem with it (other than the understandable emotional thing) - I can't see any mechanical reason for it to malfunction, and it hasn't - if it worried me I'd just remove the device. No problem for any competent butcher.