Fifteen minutes worth of work. Go to you tube.

 

Yep... and you can get the little plug to fill the hole in. I hate that S&W went in this direction, but what can you do? It's not ill-advised. It just convertss your revolver into one of the millions of pre-hole models out there in the wild. The S&W forum has all sorts of never-ending discussions on this topic, if you have tons of free time on your hands.

Here's info on the 'plug': http://smith-wessonforum.com/accessories-misc-sale-trade/460110-plug.html

 

I never understood, given all the negativity on the internal lock models, why they didn't just stop making them. I have a fairly new 442 Pro, without the lock...why did they produce the heritage series (guns made to look like some older Pre-model guns) with those locks? Why make their "classic" series (29 Classic, 10 Classic, etc.) with that ugly lock?
It is probably because most people don't care. That lock is a deal breaker for me, though.

 

I agree. They must have received some pretty strong pressure from anti-liability types to have stuck with it this long. It's a shame, really, to alter the classic look like that. I know some folks don't mind it, but I'm with you, I'm a pre-lock kind of guy. Oh, I just thought of something: does this make me an S&W revolver 'purist'? Reckon it must.

 

I bought this plug and polished it up:
20140914_094019 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

Made these three myself:
20150312_104857 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr
20151116_092739 (1) by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr
20151116_084317 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

It ain't no thang.

 

I bought this plug and polished it up:
20140914_094019 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

It ain't no thang.

Good job! The font style on the barrel above looks so much better than the newer font style on the other three guns. Another reason I prefer the older guns.

 

Rick A, nice work with the plugs...

Snorkel, the IL is really a no-big-deal thing. However, I own 6 of S&W's revolvers and none have the IL. Any of my revolver conquests are now older guns without the lock. I know it is petty, but don't think I'll own one with a lock.

Another consideration, look over the 686 closely. I noted quite a few of the 686s in the local gun shops several years ago with canted or "clocked" barrels.

Edmo

 

Here is mine.

 

So, for those of us who came into shooting after S&W began installing the much maligned lock, what are the issues with it? I have a couple of S&W revolvers with the lock but have never used it. Should I bother to remove it?

 

1) It's ugly
2) Reliability - some are concerned that the hole allows dirt to get into the lockwork, and others are afraid that the lock could accidentally engage at an inopportune time (i.e. you pull your gun in a defensive scenario and it doesn't go bang)
3) People are pissed off that Smith caved to the lawyers and anti-gunners

 

There are plenty of documented cases where the lock engaged itself under recoil and prevented the gun from firing - mostly on heavy recoiling light weight guns - but the possibility is there. Murphy runs the Universe and he's quite capable of ruining your day even without your help. Adding something else that can go wrong on a firearm is just stupid. In the news is a story about Obammy directing the Pentagon to diligently pursue research in smart gun technology for soldiers. Yup, that's just what you need on the battlefield - a weapon that will only fire in the hands of the dead soldier that just dropped it. I can only imagine what the reaction of the top Generals was when they saw this. You can't make this stuff up.

 

Let's see some documented cases. Can you prove it or is it just hearsay? Many know a person who knows a person that the lock failed. Don't get me wrong I would rather not have the lock but I have 5 revolvers that have the lock and thousands of rounds and never had a failure. I think a lot of people spend more time on forums and less time actually shooting.

 

^^^^
And there have been some reported failures to fire when the lock broke/engaged itself. I personally observed one, so I know that it is at least possible. It also destroyed the clean traditional lines of the J & K frames where they altered it to accept the lock mechanism.

 

Years ago, my wife bought a S&W 642 with the Hillary hole. I promptly plugged it. I was one of the first guys to get a plug.

Havanajim posted a link to the guy that builds and sells "The Plug" in post #3

If an old barb wire cowboy can do it, anyone can.

 

Smith makes a few revos without the safety. J Frames.

I asked the Smith Rep at SHOT about getting more models without them and he said that "everyone they talk to loves the internal safety."

All I could do was nod and walk away.

 

Smith makes a few revos without the safety. J Frames.

Exactly, they figured it out for certain models, but not others. Just 86 them altogether!

 

If the lock bugs you , why buy it? :scratch: That's like ordering a cheeseburger and complaining it has cheese on it.

I see plenty of 686 without the lock for sale. It's one of the most common .357 revolvers I see.

 

I see plenty of 686 without the lock for sale. It's one of the most common .357 revolvers I see.

I wish I was in your area. The one I saw, is the first 686 I have seen in over a year.

 

My 642 is one of the newer factory-lockless guns

 

"everyone they talk to loves the internal safety" Who on Earth on they talking to?

 

The ruling class, of course.

 

I really can't understand the theory of having a lock on a revolver. When would you want it to be locked? So that you can leave a loaded gun lying around the house for anyone (kids especially) to pick up and play with?

S&W is acting like a typical liberal afraid of guns.

OTOH, I have several S&W revolvers with the lock, and just pay no attention to it. Really don't even know where the "keys" are.

 

Still can't over the IL issue, but get that it hits the "hot button" for some folks. I have some S&W's with and without the IL and really couldn't care less. I don't have kids in the house anymore and never use the locks. Never had one fail either.

IMHO, some of the "plug" jobs I've seen degrade the appearance of the gun and shout-out ""some-one fiddled with this thing". I suggest that if you want to remove it, it really is a simple job. Probably best though to keep the original parts and re-install them in the event you ever try to sell the gun.

 

There are plenty of new and rather naive gun owners that say, "I have kids, I need a safety" and plenty of them think the lock is a great idea.

Most seasoned firearms enthusiast have no use for it. Most, like some here, tend to ignore it.

I just think it's ugly having a big grey hole on the side of the frame for a device I'll never use.

Removing a sideplate and dumping the lock parts is a simple job.

Some people have no mechanical aptitude and probably shouldn't try, but it's always obvious by tool marks, buggered screws, and the sideplate seam being peened over.

There's plenty of people that seem to think that being able to disassemble a gun qualifies them to be able do action work...and I just tend to avoid such guns.

 

I read somewhere that the deal was that J-frames have no-lock version because the people who buy them don't like the locks as they are "on the street" type guns - CCW, backup for cops, etc... That market is less tolerant of these things. The audience for the rest of the revolvers is mainly a gun "non-gun" people keep in the house for burglar-repellant, rarely shoot it, and it's reassuring to know little Timmy can't fire the gun. Some of the "big" revolvers get used for hunting and competition as well, so maybe they figure those folks will alter them regardless - may as well leave the lock on them to appease critics of removing the lock - no harm no foul.

Seems like a stretch, but sort of makes sense too.

 

There is another possibility - if everyone boycotted S&W because of the locks and they ignore it long enough - they could very well just go under unless they have other products that far outsell their revo line. Their current management seems to be pretty out of touch IMO.

 

So you boycott them and they go under.

Who really wins?

 

Don't buy the lock. Don't support stupidity.

There are plenty of used Smiths out there in great condition.

Buy them!!

BTW......for all the mechanics who have removed them or the folks that have guns with locks and want to ignore the problem.......here's the thing.

You simply don't know if your gun will fail at a time of need.

Get a gun that never had a lock. They WILL go bang and you can count on it for sure.

 

I was in no way implying that they "should be" boycotted by anyone or that I wish them to go out of business. I don't really care what they do. They are not the same company that I grew up with. I have enough old vintage S&Ws to last me the rest of my days (although I do wish they still offered parts for the older guns). I was simply pointing out that if they ignore their customer base they may find themselves circling the drain. It's happened to others.

 

You simply don't know if your gun will fail at a time of need.

This is true for ANY gun. The lock is only one of many reasons it might not fire. :bawling:

I am not a fan of the lock, however, substantive evidence of failures seems to be hard to find.

 

With the lock, you simply don't know if your gun might fail at the critical moment.

This is true for ANY gun. The lock is only one of many reasons it might not fire.

I've been doing this for 62 years and I've never had a gun fail to fire. Yes, I've encountered a few malfunctions and misfires, but they were rare and all could be overcome in a second or two and then the gun DID fire.

The lock malfunctions that I've read about (yes, there are a few reports out there that appear legit) have all DISABLED the gun.

I'll agree with you that the chances are slim, but why add to the things that could go wrong?

 

S&W was being boycotted when I purchased my first couple in the late 90's. They caved to political pressure from the Clintons. IIRC they were owned by the Brits at the time as well which didn't sit well with many. A change to MIM hammer/trigger and the frame mounted FP didn't sit well with traditionalists, either. In the early 2000's Safe-T-Hammer in the U.S. purchased them, and you got the locks.

There aren't enough people that are against the locks for it to make much of a difference, and there are plenty of "pre-locks" on the market that people are willing to pay like new prices for.

I think they should be offered both ways, as some on the Airweight and Airlite guns are, but that's unlikely as S&W has been mute on the subject for decades.

 

The only way I could imagine the lock jumping out of the detent is if some one did not have it rotated fully to it's stop. That said I removed mine.
Then I sent my TRR8 to Apex to do every thing they can. I informed them that I removed the lock. They said to send it, and they installed it. Something about supporting the hammer? So if Apex builds reliable competition revolvers why would they install locks that would render a competition revolver unreliable?

 

For the same reason you must install a shim when you remove the firing pin safety parts on a Ser. 80 Colt frame. Why would S&W machine the frame in a way that weakens it so that it needs an extra part for support? Cuz lawyers and politicians. They will be the end of us all....... Yes, guns can fail for multiple reasons but we certainly don't need to add more reasons in the belief they will protect dumb people from themselves or each other.