So what's the no lock?

[45dotACP]

I feel like a total idiot even asking, but what is it, and is there any particular reason people prefer a "no lock" revolver to their contemporaries? I haven't had the chance to shoot a gun with the lock, but is there really that much of a difference or are there other concerns aside from trigger pull (like safety, reliability etc...)?

[Totem Polar]

That question will open up a can of worms. Very short answer: there are some documented (and publicized) instances of the lock engaging under recoil and locking up the gun, pertaining to S&W revolvers. I am given to understand that some PDs have expressly de-authorized lock guns as OD/BUG, leading to S&W doing runs of 442/642/whatever in older no-lock form.

I am one who will not own a lock gun. Folks here will likely split on that issue.

Grab some popcorn and wait for more informed opinions.
:D

[Tamara]

I've changed my views slightly since I wrote this post (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2008/05/lock-mess-monster.html), but I remain convinced that the lock worries are vastly overblown on the internet. In years of working at an indoor range, I saw one lock itself: A Model 357PD firing heavy loads. (Corbon, IIRC.)

FWIW, the 432PD I carried for years has the lock. I presume the lock works, although I'll never turn it to find out.

[ST911]

The guns most susceptible to self-actuation and most prevalent in trouble reports are the lightest models (scandiums, etc) shooting harshest ammo. Problem potential remains for the rest, but there's surely some internet at work as well. Still, a small selection of new lock-less models remain available, so there's little reason to take the chance if you don't have to. And one can always disable the lock.

Mechanics aside, I also dislike the lock for the added variable an owner must process. Especially the LCD owner.

[DocGKR]

On more than one occasion I have watched an officer's BUG lock-up during quals--color me unimpressed with integral locks on firearms...

[Tamara]

The annoying thing about it is that any issues are caused by a fairly glaring design flaw.

[CompressionIgnition]

A lock gun has an internal mechanism that disables the gun when the user inserts and turns a key.

[45dotACP]

Okay, yeah the lock sounds like a fairly bad idea. Is there any way to disable or remove the locking device? Or is the general consensus to just look for a no-lock snubby or LCR?

[RevolverRob]

In terms of trigger function - As near as I can tell, the lock makes absolutely no difference regarding the quality of the trigger pull. It may cause some reliability issues. It is not a difficult device to remove/deactivate/etc. A lot of folks object to the lock on a political basis, viewing internal locks as, without putting words in their mouths per se, the reflection of the Nanny State, because of their origin. I cannot honestly remember the whole origin myth of the lock. I have guns with and without locks and the pre-lock guns are more finely machined and appear to be better built, but many of the post-lock guns are excellent firearms. My lock equipped guns have the locks disabled.

-Rob

[idahojess]

Is there any way to disable or remove the locking device?

The 340 Pd thread in the revolver section has some discussion in it on removing the lock and what to watch out for.

[Tamara]

Okay, yeah the lock sounds like a fairly bad idea. Is there any way to disable or remove the locking device? Or is the general consensus to just look for a no-lock snubby or LCR?

If it frets your knickers that badly, here (http://smith-wessonforum.com/accessories-misc-sale-trade/143299-fs-plug-new-add-please-read.html) you go. :)

[Tamara]

In terms of trigger function - As near as I can tell, the lock makes absolutely no difference regarding the quality of the trigger pull.

This is correct.


I have guns with and without locks and the pre-lock guns are more finely machined and appear to be better built...

While older (and by "older", I mean "pre-Bangor Punta") Smith & Wessons are beautifully finished, in a cosmetic sense, a quick peek under the sideplate will put the lie to the "more finely machined" thing pretty quick. CNCBOT 5000 does not know if it's milling an area that's going to be covered with stocks or sideplate and doesn't care whether it's Monday morning or Friday afternoon and is never hung over from drinking too much 40 weight after getting in a fight with the cute Coke machine down in Accounts Receivable.

[NETim]

I avoid lock guns 'cause those darn kids on my lawn probably like them.

[EM_]

The annoying thing about it is that any issues are caused by a fairly glaring design flaw.

You mean besides the fact that it has an integral lock? ;)

[Tamara]

You mean besides the fact that it has an integral lock? ;)

Yes.

2570

:p

[Alpha Sierra]

Is there any way to disable or remove the locking device?
Remove the sideplate

Remove the hammer

Unscrew the cylinder release thumb piece

Remove the cylinder bolt

Remove the lock arm and lock arm return spring (this is "the lock")

Reassemble minus the lock arm and lock arm return spring.

Now you have a normal S&W revolver.

[LSP972]

Now you have a normal S&W revolver.

And one that is subject to fail at any time. Just removing the flag (what you referred to as the "lock arm") does indeed deactivate the lock mechanism. It also leaves 1-2mm of free space between the hammer and the remaining lockwork. Over time, if the gun is shot a lot (or even knocked about a bit), that remaining lockwork can (and has) become dislodged and fall into the frame against the hammer… locking things up just as tightly as if the lock were intact and engaged.

This is not conjecture on my part. I've seen it happen twice… once on MY M-360PD.

There are TWO ways to properly deactivate the S&W lawyer lock. Remove the ENTIRE mechanism and install The Plug (see Tam's reference to the S&W Forum above), or remove the flag ("lock arm"), grind off the nub that blocks the hammer from moving when the key is turned, and REPLACE the flag in its place in the mechanism. Even if it did self-engage... and you would have to carefully re-engage the tiny spring when re-installing the part before that could occur… nothing bad would happen.

Alpha Sierra, I'm sure you meant well, but there are a lot of people who followed that advice, who are now walking around with guns just waiting to malfunction. I was one. And I should know better, because I've been an S&W armorer since 1987. But I took the quick, obvious path, and got bit. Fortunately, I was not on the two-way range when it happened.

.

[45dotACP]

Yes.

2570

:p

I get the feeling Tommy would be more of a "no lock" kind of guy...just based off my reading between the lines of the whole debate ;)

[Tamara]

Tommy is an actor whose firearms opinions don't mean jack to me, but he can deliver a withering glance. Pretend he's giving it to you now, too. ;)

[45dotACP]

Haha, consider me withered.

And thanks for the link!

[Lester Polfus]

I have installed a "Plug" in my 638. Working with the innards of a J-Frame make me heart my Glocks, but once it was installed, it has given me 6 or 7 hundred problem free rounds.

[Chuck Haggard]

I've seen a S&W lock auto engage in a gun that was knocked off of a workbench and landed on a rubber mat over concrete floor.

I'll let you guys decide if this type of impact to a handgun might be possible during the course of a fight.

[Tamara]

I've seen a SIG P-228 shear its roll pin and bend the breechblock like a banana.

The lock can be disabled mechanically, removed, or (alternatively) Loctite is cheap.

[jetfire]

That's weird, none of my Rugers have locks on them.

In all seriousness though, I like no-lock guns because I think they look better. That little dot on the side of the gun is kind of ugly. With that being said, I have had lock guns that I've shot quite a lot with no issues. I don't really worry about the lock engaging on my 929, 986, or 625. It never was a problem on my 686. The only guns where the lock really sort of concerns me are those flyweight magnums - whether it's a scandium j-frame shooting full house .357 or a scandium N-frame in .44, those are guns that I'd disable the lock. But I wouldn't own one of those guns, because I like the bones of my hand all right where they are right now.

[LSP972]

. The only guns where the lock really sort of concerns me are those flyweight magnums - .

And those are where most of the self-actuations have occurred.

But not all. The one I witnessed was on a plain vanilla M-64, shooting Federal 158 RNL standard pressure ammunition.

What happened to my M-360PD was different; I altered the mechanism without taking the time to fully understand how it worked, and it eventually let me know just how derpy that was.

But I am surprised somewhat at a few of the folks who pooh-pooh (more or less) the notion that the lock is a potential catastrophe looking for a place to happen. I cannot speak of other brands, but the S&W lock mechanism is flimsy; period. There are FAR too many documented instances of it self-actuating, or downright failing, to dismiss the notion as urban myth, etc. Sure, it really doesn't matter on a game or sporting gun. But on one carried for defense?

Whatever. This seems to be one of those topics where most folks have their mind made up, in one direction or the other.

.

[Stephen]

That's weird, none of my Rugers have locks on them.

I know for sure LCRs had internal locks until about a year or two ago. I don't know if they still put them in their single-actions or not. But at least Ruger hid the lock rather than ugly-ing up the gun with it.

[jetfire]

I know for sure LCRs had internal locks until about a year or two ago. I don't know if they still put them in their single-actions or not. But at least Ruger hid the lock rather than ugly-ing up the gun with it.

I was about to say I don't own an LCR, then I remembered there's an 8-shot .22 LR LCR in my sock drawer.

To the IL issue on S&W wheelguns and back to LSP's point, the accidental engagement of the lock can happen. It's a documented thing, and I agree with that. I also don't have the IL on any of the S&W guns I carry, but on my competition guns I don't really mess with it.

[Tamara]

But I am surprised somewhat at a few of the folks who pooh-pooh (more or less) the notion that the lock is a potential catastrophe looking for a place to happen. I cannot speak of other brands, but the S&W lock mechanism is flimsy; period. There are FAR too many documented instances of it self-actuating, or downright failing, to dismiss the notion as urban myth, etc.

Nobody in this thread has done any of that.

I do not deny that it adds an additional failure point to the gun.

I will point out that I have seen more broken hammer noses on pre-MIM guns, more cylinders bound up from backed out ejector rods, more cylinders fall clean out of the gun from yoke screws that went air soluble, than I have failed internal locks, and nobody ever wrings their hands about that stuff. At least you can do something about the lock.

Anyhow, I've said my piece; I spent the morning at the range with a pair of wonderful pre-Bangor Punta guns and an ammo can full of rimfire rounds and I'm just not going to let anything kill this buzz for a while. :)

[LSP972]

Nobody in this thread has done any of that.



I wasn't referring to "nobody in this thread".

The wicked flee where no man pursueth...;)

As for the other stuff, you are right. The difference there is, that stuff is user-preventable. Cleeti can make a Glock, etc. malfunction through neglect (or via modifying something without thinking it through... guilty). The S&W lock is a nasty surprise waiting to inflict itself on the unsuspecting.

.

BTW... you forgot to add bound-up cylinders due to gradeaux under the extractor star.

[Tamara]

I wasn't referring to "nobody in this thread".

The wicked flee where no man pursueth...;)

I admit that I'm bad. In my defense, I try to be nationwide. ;)


BTW... you forgot to add bound-up cylinders due to gradeaux under the extractor star.

Oh I was trying to restrict myself to maladies that can pop up before the wheelgun runs out of its limited supply of BBs. ;) :D

[Kyle Reese]

JV & I were at the NRA Range a few years back and witnessed a brand spanking new J-frame (with lock) go tango uniform in fewer than 5 rounds. The gentleman and his wife were quite disappointed, and we suggested that they contact S&W CS pronto.

I had the option of picking up a new 442 with lock yesterday, and recalled this incident.

[naughtymoose]

I dont own any guns with a lock. Never mind the horror stories of them failing. The lock serves no purpose other than a feel good PC statement. Whomever came up with the idea should be punished. Luckily my preferences run towards revolvers made prior to the 1980's.

If you prefer the newer revolvers with the lock, please accept my heart felt thanks for passing on the older ones.

[WDW]

I can easily purchase no lock J frames, so I do so. They are as prevelant as their incumbered counterparts, so why choose the later?

[Tamara]

If you prefer the newer revolvers with the lock, please accept my heart felt thanks for passing on the older ones.

I don't know nothin' 'bout no older Smith & Wessons. They probably suck.

[Alpha Sierra]

It is so ridiculously easy to remove the offending part with zero risk of creating other malfunctions that I see no reason to pass on revolvers so equipped.

YMMV