Smith and Wesson Revolver locking mechanism, whats the big deal?

1) The math isn't a statistical analysis of a random sampling of lightweight revolvers equipped with the ILS. It's just a look into what "wear" means in the context of the article.
Click to expand...

The math doesn't really tell us anything as its all based on complete conjecture. Neither you nor I knows for sure how many times Bane cycled the action of his revolver nor how many times he engaged/disengaged the lock. As such, conjecture about "wear" based on that incident is pretty meaningless.

2) Five minutes of research on the web will show hundreds or more anecdotal posts regarding ILS lock failures. Check the S&W Forum for their huge lock thread. The failure rate is likely closer to 0.0000091%.
Click to expand...

Yes and those posts are nearly all anonymous forum posts which present numerous reliability issues. First and foremost, some people simply have an axe to grind with S&W and I wouldn't put it past a few of them to fabricate stories about the lock. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, the knowledge level of an anonymous poster is not known and cannot be verified so, unless very detailed information is given, many "auto locks" may actually be caused by other issues but mistakenly blamed on the ILS. Finally, we have the internet echo chamber which skews the number of reports.

For those that don't understand it, here's a brief explanation of the internet echo chamber: Suppose we have three range buddies named Bill, John, and Tom. One day, while all three are at the range, Bill experiences an "auto lock" with his S&W revolver which John and Tom are witness to. After leaving the range, Bill posts about his experience on TFL, THR, and Glock Talk under three different handles, John posts about what he witnessed on the S&W forum, Colt forum, and Ruger forum also under three different handles, and Tom does likewise on Gun and Game, Warrior Talk, and Taurus Armed. Even if we assume that all three people are knowledgeable enough to diagnose a true ILS-induced lockup and all three are 100% honest about what they experienced/witnessed, one incident now appears to be nine. This and the other above-mentioned reasons are why anonymous internet posts are not a reliable indicator of the magnitude or frequency of an issue.

3) RE: Lightweight magnums: Bane has stated that repeatedly, not I. He says he can get the gun to do it on demand. I have no reason to doubt his credibility on the issue; he has far more to lose than I for saying it.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link or other citation for Bane stating this? He stated in the link you provided previously that he intended to have the lock removed from all of his so-equipped S&W revolvers, so I don't really see how he could repeat the problem even if he wanted to.

The ILS opens the California market to S&W revolvers due to various silly laws there. It gives the parent corporation a client. It may or may not apply to the Clinton agreement (I thought that was gone).
Click to expand...

Actually, it is Maryland rather than California which requires the lock. Also, Saf-T-Hammer no longer owns S&W and the ILS never met the requirements of the Clinton Agreement to begin with as that agreement specified a locking mechanism with a key unique to each individual firearm while the ILS keys will work on any so-equipped revolver (I've tried it myself).
 
Aesthetics aside , for many long time Smith revolver shooters it is simply a solution to a non-existing problem.
Click to expand...

I don't like the lock, but to say it's a "non existent" problem is to miss the fact that there are 1,400 accidental firearms deaths annually. While not in the top 10 ways one can die, it's enough to be a legitimate issue. So, in short, I think there IS a problem, just that the IL isn't the right fix.
 
Do you have a link or other citation for Bane stating this? He stated in the link you provided previously that he intended to have the lock removed from all of his so-equipped S&W revolvers, so I don't really see how he could repeat the problem even if he wanted to.
Click to expand...

Go listen to the "Guns that get me home no matter what" episode. It's one of the recent ones. There are others before that, but I'm not going to listen to 20 hours of podcasts I've already heard.

All the stats in the world don't matter if a guy can put heavy loads in a light revolver and get it to fail on demand. That's what this comes down to. Quote engineering theories and stats all you like.
 
All the stats in the world don't matter if a guy can put heavy loads in a light revolver and get it to fail on demand. That's what this comes down to. Quote engineering theories and stats all you like.
Click to expand...

Outright dismissing those theories and stats because you heard of a single case where a guy claims to have a problem with the ILS, despite the fact that he has posted no real proof of the issue is just plain silly. You can't ignore millions of guns that function just fine because you don't like the ILS.
 
Go listen to the "Guns that get me home no matter what" episode.
Click to expand...

Is this the episode you're referring to?

http://www.downrange.tv/blog/down-range-radio-253-the-44-magnum-revolver-and-rifle-get-me-home-package/13375/

While I skipped some of the parts about the Marlin, the only two references I found in that episode to the ILS were at 24:26 and 49:24 and in neither case did Bane say that he was able to make the gun fail on demand. Likewise, I did a search of Bane's blog and could not find any quote saying that he could make the gun lock up on demand.

All the stats in the world don't matter if a guy can put heavy loads in a light revolver and get it to fail on demand. That's what this comes down to. Quote engineering theories and stats all you like.
Click to expand...

The problem is that there's no evidence that the gun can be made to fail on demand. You have claimed that Michael Bane said that he can make it do so, but you've not been able to provide a citation of that nor have I been able to find one myself.

Just to be sure, I tested it again to two different ILS-equipped revolvers: my own 629-6 and my younger sister's 64-8. The lock could not be engaged while the action was at full lockup, which means that the hammer was fully forward and in contact with the firing pin, nor could it be engaged through any part of its rearward travel during a DA trigger stroke. Because the recoil impulse will not occur until the primer is detonated, which requires the gun to be at full-lockup, I still see no way in which the lock could be engaged by recoil without broken, defective, or improperly fitted parts.
 
I bought one of S&W's 1917 "replicas" about a year and a half ago, and, while I wasn't overly thrilled about the ILS, I was more grossed out by the very cheap die cast appearance of the internals.

Now, I realize these are MIM parts made from steel, but, when you see the hidden parts of the innards, they sure look like cheap diecast Zamak parts.

At any rate, the ILS is easy to defeat and/or remove. If you don't like the hole, plugs are made to fill it.

Personally, I haven't had any problems with the ILS yet, but the 1917 is a heavy gun and .45 ACP isn't all that punishing.
 
Webleymkv said:
For those that don't understand it, here's a brief explanation of the internet echo chamber...
Click to expand...

And for those who don't understand it, here's an example of 'failing to heed a warning'. Joe is crossing a four-lane street while listening to Steven Hawking on his IPod and reading Understanding Statistics on his Kindle. Fred the bricklayer looks down from his scaffold and sees a Wonder Bread truck bearing down on Joe. Fred bellows "LOOKOUT!!!" Joe hears Fred but ignores him because he cannot attribute the comment to a specific, reliable source and besides, the statistical likelihood of being run over in a crosswalk is actually quite small. So Captain Oblivious suffers the demise we were warned repeatedly about at the KCPD Academy.

And now, on to locks.

Note to manufacturers supplying the US firearms market-I will NOT buy ANY firearm with an Integral Locking System. I also won't deactivate a factory-installed lock, in order to have a gun without one. I simply don't need a new gun bad enough to put up with this nonsense anymore.
 
Last edited:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ya know, I would NEVER have bought a new gun with ILS, except for this 1917 replica. It's just so darn cool, and a lot of fun to shoot. I don't want to have to worry about ruining a nice original, so I'll put up with the ILS this ONE TIME, but no more.:D
 
They are sweet revolvers for sure, gyvel. If my anti-lock jihad fails, it will likely be when they offer a 22-4 in 45 Colt. :D
 
tut tut 18DAI we must all needs be precice and acurate in our internets posting.

It was Captain Oblivious that got hit by the Wonder Bread truck not Captain Obvious.
Captain Obvious was the guy that showed up later and said 'Have an accident?’ to which Captain Oblivious replied ‘No thanks, I just had one.’

(I’m pretty sure I stole that line from Mad Magazine’s Don Martin or Al Jaffe.)
 
And for those who don't understand it, here's an example of 'failing to heed a warning'. Joe is crossing a four-lane street while listening to Steven Hawking on his IPod and reading Understanding Statistics on his Kindle. Fred the bricklayer looks down from his scaffold and sees a Wonder Bread truck bearing down on Joe. Fred bellows "LOOKOUT!!!" Joe hears Fred but ignores him because he cannot attribute the comment to a specific, reliable source and besides, the statistical likelihood of being run over in a crosswalk is actually quite small. So Captain Oblivious suffers the demise we were warned repeatedly about at the KCPD Academy.
Click to expand...

Actually, refusing to buy a gun with the ILS based solely on anonymous, unverifiable internet rumor is much more akin to refusing to eat Pop Rocks while drinking Pepsi because the roommate of a cousin of a friend of a friend did that and he supposedly expoloded.

You see, anyone can say anything when protected by the anonymity of the internet. If I believed even half of the unsubstantiated garbage I've read on various fora over the years, I wouldn't be able to find any gun that is trustworthy enough to carry. Too often, the claims of ILS-induced problems are a classical case of Burden of Proof fallacy: the anonymous poster makes a claim and then expects other to try to disprove him without presenting any actual evidence of his own.
 
Well I guess that's where we disagree, Webley. I haunted the S&W Forum for years and I saw enough reports, complete with photos, to convince me that ILS failures are not a myth.

If you haven't reached a point of conviction on this issue, I have no interest in changing your mind & I don't care how many ILS guns you buy. It is simply a small thing we disagree on.
 
Well I guess that's where we disagree, Webley. I haunted the S&W Forum for years and I saw enough reports, complete with photos, to convince me that ILS failures are not a myth.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that the ILS has caused problems on occasion, I am simply unconvinced that its common enough to be a cause of concern and due to a faulty design. As I've stated numberous times in this thread and others, all evidence points to the conclusion that, on the extremely rare occasion that the ILS does cause problems, the root of the problem is a QC issue and not a design flaw.
 
The problem is that there's no evidence that the gun can be made to fail on demand. You have claimed that Michael Bane said that he can make it do so, but you've not been able to provide a citation of that nor have I been able to find one myself.
Click to expand...

Well, then go listen to a few back. I don't remember the exact episode.
 
Well, then go listen to a few back. I don't remember the exact episode.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're not aware, but when someone makes a claim, it is generally expected that he provide his own evidence in support of that claim. When someone makes a claim and then expects those with whom he is arguing to disprove said claim, he commits a common logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance." You, my friend, have made the claim and thus the burden of proof to support that claim rests upon you.
 
Outright dismissing those theories and stats because you heard of a single case where a guy claims to have a problem with the ILS, despite the fact that he has posted no real proof of the issue is just plain silly. You can't ignore millions of guns that function just fine because you don't like the ILS.
Click to expand...

Again, you are taking things out of context. I have an 327 with the ILS. It's fine because I don't shoot heavy loads. I don't care that it's there. I would care if I were shooting heavy loads such as a 240 grain SJSP from a 329PD. I stated that Bane said it's repeatable in a light revolver with heavy loads and that you can find it in his podcasts (you'll have to look for yourself since it's not in the last episode like I thought). Those conditions do not apply to a standard 686 firing 158 grain bullets. Millions of S&W guns do work just fine with the ILS and I never said the contrary (though it was inferred by posters even though I kept saying "light gun, heavy load").

So, again:

Light framed gun + heavy bullet + heavy charge = some chance of ILS engagement.

Also, many people are complaining about the ILS and some have a legitimate problem with it. It is also likely, from some of the posts in this thread, that the ILS is being unjustly blamed for a failure. I do not doubt that claim at all. We also know that S&W won't release its problem numbers to us. It won't release its test data either. What we do know is people are complaining about problems. I have not heard about the ILS on Ruger revolvers engaging (perhaps they have). Why don't we hear about Ruger ILS problems, but we do hear about S&W ILS problems?

No stats are forthcoming and neither side can prove anything.

Actually, it is possible to prove something. Send me enough money to buy several thousand rounds of heavy Buffalo Bore ammo, something to mount the gun in to shoot from, and 30 new S&W revolvers equipped with the ILS. I'll run the tests and publish an article showing the failure rate (with video).

I doubt that will happen but this thread has been lots of fun!!
 
Quote:
Well, then go listen to a few back. I don't remember the exact episode.
Perhaps you're not aware, but when someone makes a claim, it is generally expected that he provide his own evidence in support of that claim. When someone makes a claim and then expects those with whom he is arguing to disprove said claim, he commits a common logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance." You, my friend, have made the claim and thus the burden of proof to support that claim rests upon you.
Click to expand...

His podcast archive is all sorts of messed up. I'm poking around a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top