This will be my one and only post in this thread as I've participated in more long, drawn-out, and frustrating lock debates than I care to remember and have no desire to get mired in another one.
The lock, to me, is a non-issue. The two ILS-equipped revolvers that I've owned shot just as well, if not better, than the pre-lock revolvers I've owned. After researching the issue, I've come to the conclusion that the number of documented cases in which a S&W revolver failed to function properly because of the ILS is so small as to be statistically insignificant. I've come to the conclusion that the S&W lock is not significantly more likely to cause a revolver to malfunction than any of the other parts which could potentially cause a S&W, or any other handgun for that matter, to fail. The whole issue has, IMHO, been blown out of proportion by questionable reports of anonymous posters within the internet echo chamber.
I've also come to the conclusion that in the extremely rare instance in which the lock does cause a problem, it is due to defective, broken, or improperly-fitted parts rather than a design flaw. The reason for this is because I understand the manner in which the lock works. When engaged, the lock "flag" rotates up and back towards the shooter thus allowing a small tab on the "flag" to engage a recess in the hammer and prevent it's movement. The "flag" cannot engage the hammer when the revolver is at full lockup, as it would be at the moment it's fired, and the recoil arc of the gun will force the "flag" down and out of engagement through inertia. I also notice that reports of problems with the lock seem to be most common in lightweight guns such as those with scandium-alloy frames firing heavy-recoiling ammunition such as .357 and .44 Magnum. This makes sense as a defective or improperly-fitted part will be more likely to fail and fail sooner if subjected to the extra beating of a lightweight magnum. I also notice that repeated lock failure is nearly unheard of if, after the first incident, the revolver is returned to S&W for repair.
It seems to me that the majority of people who bash the S&W lock do so out of personal preference and that the motivation for such is usually rooted in aesthetics or politics. As far as looks is concerned, I will concede that I don't find ILS guns to be quite as visually appealing as pre-lock examples, but I still think that S&W makes one of the better looking revolvers in the market. As far as looks is concerned, I personally feel that a half-lug revolver with the lock still looks better than a pre-lock gun with a full underlug, but that's simply my personal preference and I don't disparage the quality of full-lug guns nor the people that prefer them.
Politics is the other major factor that seems to be at play here as many still begrudge S&W for the Agreement of 2000 with the Clinton Administration. Such people often stoop the the use of childish invectives like "Smith & Clinton" or "Hillary Hole" thus exposing their underlying bias. I, personally, think that it's somewhat silly to continue boycotting S&W over this as the parent company which entered the agreement no longer holds interest in S&W, the new owners have publicly stated that they consider the agreement null and void, and S&W was never in full compliance with the agreement to begin with. If we boycotted every company who ever failed to maintain a "no compromise" attitude with gun-control advocates, many of the larger firearm makers would be out of business and the gun grabbers would get exactly what they wanted.
So there you have my take on the subject. I'm sure that some here will disagree with me vehemently and I've probably debated the subject with most of those people before. I simply don't have the time or patience to circle that tree again, but a search on the subject will reveal a great deal of information to those who are unsure or curious. If anyone has a legitimate question on the issue, I'd be more that happy to answer a PM, but I'm not getting drawn into another urinating competition.
