Also, something I heard mentioned by someone in customer service, and a revolver repair tech ... and then observed for myself during the revolver armorer class ... is that if someone opens the gun and fools around inside, it's possible to unintentionally dislodge the short leg of the locking arm's torque lock spring. The locking arm wouldn't be held downward under tension after that happened.
The bottom leg of the spring is held under a small recessed shelf in the machined groove in which the bolt sits & moves. I noticed in the class that if the hammer were removed (so essentially nothing was holding the locking arm against the left side of the frame), and then the frame were tipped the wrong way, the weight of the locking arm could pull it away from the frame, which could dislodge the bottom leg of the spring from its recessed shelf. (Not something that I could get to happen when the hammer was in its normal position.)
I've heard it speculated by folks at the company that they've sometimes wondered if some of the revolvers they received for warranty complaints about the ILS might have been opened by the owners, and the proper positioning of the locking arm adversely (albeit unintentionally) affected and compromised.
Of course, I was also told that most of the warranty claims for revolvers with "lock problems" that caused the guns to "seize up", had actually been problems involving something else (hammer sear fit & clearance, for example, although upwards of 90% of the new style MIM sears are able to drop-in and work in the new guns).
One of the folks with whom I'd discussed this subject some years ago acknowledged that the company had also looked to any potential production/assembly QC issues when the locking arms were being installed, to make sure their revolver production cell workers were putting them together properly.
As an armorer, installing the torque lock spring in the locking arm is a bit of a pain. It's really, really small. I use reading glasses AND my magnifying bench lamp. I've generally only done it for practice a few times, except for once in a J-frame. In that case I felt the spring tension was lighter than I liked, even though the gun hadn't had any unintentional ILS engagement during shooting (by the cop who carried it as a secondary & off-duty weapon). I installed a new (revised) spring and the tension was then similar to all the other J-frames I'd owned and inspected.
FWIW, during the armorer class the subject of the ILS was covered rather briefly. We disassembled and inspected the guns, including the locking arms, and they had us replace the spring in a locking arm (but we were told to leave the rest of the frame-mounted ILS parts alone). The instructor said that he'd not yet had any agency armorers report functioning problems with the ILS in guns being used by LE (meaning mostly J-frames, since they're very popular for LE users).
Also, when I asked around the class I couldn't find any armorers who had experienced, or had reported to them, problems with the ILS. There were some older armorers (in my age group) who didn't necessarily "like" the added 5 parts making up the ILS (or the frame hole), but they didn't have any complaints with the actual functioning & operation in working guns.
Don't worry, this will be safe since I'll only load one round into the cylinder at a time.