Removing the lock on a 642!

Originally posted by dahermit
Quote:
This does, however, bring us right back to the original question of this thread: why do people who dislike the lock choose to buy guns without it rather than simply removing or disabling it?

I will agonize over this until the day I die. I must know, and will keep posting about it until I get the people who can not tolerate the lock to admit that it is just a matter of aesthetics. But, I am not obsessed about it. Not me. No. Admit it damn you, admit it!
Click to expand...

I'm not agonizing over anything. As I said clear back in post #6, many people simply cannot abide the look or idea of the lock. Removing it would certainly cure/prevent any reliability issues, real or imagined, that it represents, but many refuse to consider a revolver that's ever been cursed witht he infernal device. So, do you refuse to buy an ILS gun because you think it represents a reliability issue or is it because, as you asserted in post #9, because you can't abide the sight of a hole in the frame?
 
So, do you refuse to buy an ILS gun because you think it represents a reliability issue or is it because, as you asserted in post #9, because you can't abide the sight of a hole in the frame?
Click to expand...
It represents a reliablily issue in that, "...what can go wrong will go wrong..." Nevertheless, my real "other" reason was outed in post #9.
 
Webleymkv said:
I only take issue with those who claim that the lock is a significant compromise in reliability because that simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

My reasoning on it is quite simple.

I am convinced that some lock-equipped guns have malfunctioned because of the lock.

I am positive that no guns without the lock have malfunctioned because of the lock.

That alone would be reason enough for me.
 
I agree with Sarges reasoning. Statistics mean little when it's you that it happens to. I'm sure those that have had the locks engage improperly feel better knowing it isn't statistically significant.


Regarding the Ruger/Smith extractor rod question, I don't see it as a step up in reliability to go to a Ruger because of that single issue. Rugers have transfer bars. Transfer bars occasionally break. I've personally had more tranfer bars break (3) than Smith extractor rods back out (2) and cause trouble in the 35 or so years I've fooled with them both. I torque extractor rods, and have never had one come loose after being torqued.
 
Regarding the Ruger/Smith extractor rod question, I don't see it as a step up in reliability to go to a Ruger because of that single issue. Rugers have transfer bars. Transfer bars occasionally break. I've personally had more tranfer bars break (3) than Smith extractor rods back out (2) and cause trouble in the 35 or so years I've fooled with them both. I torque extractor rods, and have never had one come loose after being torqued.
Click to expand...

A S&W hammer block can break just as easily as a Ruger transfer bar, so both designs are roughly equal in that regard.
 
A S&W hammer block can break just as easily as a Ruger transfer bar, so both designs are roughly equal in that regard.
Click to expand...
God forgive me, I am going to throw gasoline on the fire.
I have read more incidents of Ruger transfer bars breaking than S&W hammer blocks breaking. As a matter of fact, when I routinely peruse the gun smithing forums, I have seen several instances of Ruger transfer-bar failures but I do not remember any instances of S&W hammer blocks failing. So, that would seem to indicate that both designs are not, "...equal in that regard..." Unless you want to blame it on the part and not the design, that is.
 
A S&W hammer block can break just as easily as a Ruger transfer bar, so both designs are roughly equal in that regard.
Click to expand...

That's news to me. I'm interested where you got that bit of information.

I've haven't had, or heard of a Smith hammer block breaking. It isn't a part thats even stressed, unless the gun is dropped on the hammer. Transfer bars are stressed every time the gun is fired or dry fired.

IMG_0453.jpg
 
Originally posted by dahermit
Quote:
A S&W hammer block can break just as easily as a Ruger transfer bar, so both designs are roughly equal in that regard.

God forgive me, I am going to throw gasoline on the fire.
I have read more incidents of Ruger transfer bars breaking than S&W hammer blocks breaking. As a matter of fact, when I routinely peruse the gun smithing forums, I have seen several instances of Ruger transfer-bar failures but I do not remember any instances of S&W hammer blocks failing. So, that would seem to indicate that both designs are not, "...equal in that regard..." Unless you want to blame it on the part and not the design, that is.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by Malamute
Quote:
A S&W hammer block can break just as easily as a Ruger transfer bar, so both designs are roughly equal in that regard.

That's news to me. I'm interested where you got that bit of information.

I've haven't had, or heard of a Smith hammer block breaking. It isn't a part thats even stressed, unless the gun is dropped on the hammer. Transfer bars are stressed every time the gun is fired or dry fired.
Click to expand...

Here's a report complete with pictures:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=413431

And Grant Cunningham mentions the issue here:

"Save for the aforementioned Colt firing pin issue, parts failures in revolvers are very rare. Other than things like hammer spurs being broken from impact or cylinders being blown apart by faulty handloads, broken parts are few and far between. The only major exception that occurs to me is the hammer block safety in very recent Smith & Wesson "J" frame revolvers (those with external hammers only - the shrouded hammer Centennial series does not have that part.) This part is relatively thin and S&W decided to make it with the MIM (metal injection molding) process."

http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/899a57a1e74c483860015b1819fcc8b9-1043.html

I've not personally seen nor heard that many reports of hammer blocks or transfer bars failing, so I really don't think that either case is particularly common, but they're not impossible.
 
It would seem to me that we would have a lot more accurate data for subjects like aircraft parts where we use logs that track failures/hours used than we would for parts failures on revolvers where we rely on people to report incidents.

Any rare event is more likely to be over reported than under reported. An event that happens ten times out of 5000 gives us a chance to have 4990 false positives reported and only ten chances for a false negative to be reported.
 
I'm just curious what a "documented" occurrence of lock failure is. One certified by the International Internal Lock Commission? Those that S&W admit to? Only those that happen in the presence of a famous gun writer?

Do people lie on the internet? Of course, but some accounts are probably true as well.

I think current S&W revolvers are overpriced and I'm not likely to buy one, but if I did, I would probably remove the lock and plug the hole, for aesthetics and to eliminate a possible source of failure, no matter how statistically insignificant.

Ejector rods, hammer blocks, and transfer bars are necessary to operate the gun. Internal locks are not.
 
Why are you guys still arguing this??? :confused:

If you don't like the ILS in the S&W revolvers, don't buy the guns made with them after 2000. If you like the Centennial style guns, S&W offers some of those models made without the ILS, so you can still buy those.

In the meantime, I just had someone bring in a NIB S&W M617 in which the hand spring had somehow gotten loose and stopped the hand from indexing the cylinder. The long spring leg got caught up between the moving parts and was cut off. :eek: (Oddly enough, nothing seemed to be wrong with the ILS in that gun. :p )

Never saw that happen before, and probably won't again, either.

As an armorer, the ILS is the least of my worries when it comes to maintaining/servicing S&W revolvers.

Everybody else among the internet gun forums can argue about it as long as they care to do so. ;)

Buy what you like, and don't buy what you don't like. Simple enough.
 
Unbelievable but very interesting thread!

Never thought it would take three pages of back and fourth to answer my simple question! I do appreaciate all who contributed and tried to tell me I should not just remove the lock etc. HOWEVER I now see the two sides clearly. Thanks to all. Ted
 
The idea that an internal lock makes it OK to leave a loaded gun where a child could get it is simply irresponsible.

The idea that locking a gun with an internal lock makes it OK to leave it unsecured in your car or a hotel room is equally irresponsible.

If you own a firearm, it is your personal responsibility to ensure that it is either under your control or secured at all times. The ILS fails to meet my standards for "secured".

The basic concept that it is a bad idea to add a mechanism which could possibly cause my gun to jam when I need it most seems perfectly rational to me. Even if it is a one-in-a-million chance. That is a lottery I do not care to participate in.

I am mystified by Webleymkv's motivation here.
 
Originally posted by TheTinMan
The idea that an internal lock makes it OK to leave a loaded gun where a child could get it is simply irresponsible.

The idea that locking a gun with an internal lock makes it OK to leave it unsecured in your car or a hotel room is equally irresponsible.

If you own a firearm, it is your personal responsibility to ensure that it is either under your control or secured at all times. The ILS fails to meet my standards for "secured".

The basic concept that it is a bad idea to add a mechanism which could possibly cause my gun to jam when I need it most seems perfectly rational to me. Even if it is a one-in-a-million chance. That is a lottery I do not care to participate in.

I am mystified by Webleymkv's motivation here.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to circle this tree again as it's become tiresome (that's why I stopped posting in this thread three weeks ago). I will, however, say that the insinuations about my motivation are becoming very bothersome. If anyone here wishes to accuse me of something, I sure wish they'd come out and do it rather than hint around about how "mystified" they are.
 
I am not "mystified" by your motivation Webleymkv. I agree with you that it is mostly a matter of taste. But it would be more fun to accuse you of something.:D I am not sure of what though, if anything. Got any favorites?
 
I am not "mystified" by your motivation Webleymkv. I agree with you that it is mostly a matter of taste. But it would be more fun to accuse you of something. I am not sure of what though, if anything. Got any favorites?
Click to expand...

I sure wouldn't mind being accused of being the smartest or best looking person around (not that such a thing would ever happen) or even of being a connoisseur of fine cheeseburgers:cool:
 
Dead thread, resurected.

Please forgive me for reviving this old thread, but something just occurred to me relative to Webleymkv's posts number 6, 10, etc. relative to the S&W ILS being a emotional response to the flag hole in the side of a S&W, and that it would not be a problem for us (those who hate it), if we did could not see it. It occurred to me that I have the same negative "emotional" response to the Colt series 80 firing pin lock although it does not manifest itself externally and thus, cannot see it. In that case, I still know that it is there. An un-needed, superfluous abomination, as is the ILS on revolvers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top