A serious discussion of newer S&Ws, "reissued" S&Ws and The Lock

[awp_101]

I've been considering a list of upgrades I'd like to make to the accumulation collection and high on the list are a couple (or maybe several) S&W models. The short version is I'm mostly priced out of the market when it comes to price vs condition for "the good stuff made when barrels were pinned, chambers were recessed and locks were on the case instead of the gun" unless I want a beater or cosmetically challenged sample. I've had those and they generally aren't an upgrade.

I'll get this out of the way now: I dislike the ILS cursed be the name. I dislike what it represents. I dislike how it looks. About 10 years ago I inadvertently made my wife cry when I expressed my deep and abiding dislike of the ILS and claimed I'd never own one. How was I supposed to know she'd already put a brandy new 638 on layaway for my Christmas present? But I digress and now find myself in a position where I have to at least consider an ILS model either because what I want only came with the lock (4" .45 ACP 625s come to mind) or something like a 21-4 makes much more sense for me to get than trying to round up an original Model 21.

The first question I have is, has anyone here actually had the ILS fail on a gun they own? Not heard it from a friend, not heard it from the gunshop counter guy, etc. I've read about the potential to fail much more than I've actually seen reports of failure and I've not actually run into anyone that's had it happen. Not saying it doesn't happen, not saying it won't happen and if someone here has had it happen I'm sure not going to dispute it. And for a safe queen/range toy, does it really matter?

Second, I know not to buy a new S&W without having it in hand to inspect, especially anything with a 2 piece barrel. What about the Heritage and Classic series? I briefly handled a TRS 21-4 this afternoon and was impressed with the finish. The barrel didn't appear to be off kilter and I recall reading the throats and bore are properly sized. Is that the norm with these lines?

[Lester Polfus]

I had a mid-oughties vintage 638 engage the lock while firing..... mmm.... I'm pretty sure it was 158 Grain +P LSWCHP.

It now has a plug.

[kitchen's mill]

I had a s&w 360 lock engage with about 20 rounds of +p

well the flag came up, but the nub had been ground off,

hasn't done it since.

I got a TRS 21-4 that's been good, even with some Keith style 250gr special loads.

nubs ground off on that one too

that's been a pretty good gun, gold crap on the side plate and all:rolleyes:

[awp_101]

Thanks, I knew I was forgetting something! The plug is always an option.

Yeah, I’m not real keen on the gold logo myself but I figure if push came to shove I could darken it with one of the temporary paints for painting up ARs and hunting rifles.

[kitchen's mill]

the gold loggo is ok, you could always get another side plate I suppose, but why bother

the guy I got the 21-4 from couldn't give it away, so I bought it cheap for a knock around .44

turned out to be a good shooter.

highly recommend

[HeavyDuty]

I have two ILS revolvers, neither of which were ever offered in “pure” versions - a 69 and a 619. I plugged them and got over it.

[oregon45]

As much as I disagree with S&W's corporate decision to retain the internal lock, if I were buying a S&W revolver for heavy use I would be looking at recent production guns (personally inspected first; S&W quality control is atrocious) or guns built in the 1990s. Guns of that vintage and newer incorporate all of the important engineering changes that enhance durability and usability; for example, better heat treating and internal parts configurations, as well as being drilled and tapped for scope mounts. The MIM parts are a non-issue for me, and from a pure user perspective I prefer the frame mounted firing pin, which is less susceptible to primer flow with magnum cartridges. I also prefer non-recessed cylinders, because they accommodate greater overall cartridge length allowing longer, and heavier, bullets to be used; and for how I use revolvers, I prefer heavy for caliber bullets.

I have never had an internal lock engage on its own, but I also have never owned a light-weight IL gun and shot it with hard-kicking ammunition. That appears to be the common thread among IL malfunctions.

[Duelist]

One ILS revolver: 2003 production 642-2. Finish flaked and discolored in short order, S&W was willing to refinish at nearly 1/2 the cost of the gun. Thousands upon thousands of rounds, many of which were mild reloads, mild to heavy factory loads, a limited number of hotter reloads, and a limited number of factory +p, and the gun has never bobbled or missed a beat, nor locked when I did not insert the key in the lock and lock it. Contemplating a lock-ectomy and plug anyway.

Many other non-ILS revolvers. That 642 has more days and miles carried on it than all the rest of my guns combined, though my G26 is striving to catch up.

[OlongJohnson]

Tom Givens has posted about this before. I think they kept keys on the range at Rangemaster to solve whatever problems arose. There are at least a couple other threads worth digesting around here if you search.

[mtnbkr]

I only own one ILS revolver, a 625JM. The lock has never engaged on it, but I mainly shoot factory 45ACP ball or my own light ACP and AR handloads.

A buddy has an ILS Airweight 38spec J-frame. He's never mentioned the lock engaging on his.

If I were going to carry the gun for SD, I'd install the Plug, but for a range toy (my 625 for example), I won't bother with the expense.

Chris

[Borderland]

I have an ILS gun but it isn't a carry. Probably shot 2-3K with it and zero problems. I don't even carry a key anymore.

[blues]

I sold a 3" 686+ because I couldn't get comfortable with the idea of carrying it with the internal lock, and I didn't want to mess with the innards.

(I otherwise enjoyed that gun.)

[Wise_A]

I own one ILS gun, a 327 R8. I've not had it long enough to put up any more than rookie numbers, but I haven't had a problem. I don't think I'd be inclined to get a lock'd gun if there was a no-lock version available for a reasonable price--for instance, if I got a 610, I'd get a new one if it was significantly cheaper than the old versions.

When it comes to carry guns, I would probably stick to pre-lock guns. To me, there's no reason to bother with a new gun for that purpose. It's not like Smith revolvers wear out, they're nearly always available, and the pricing isn't bad. Their new models, in my opinion, tend to be pretty expensive for what you actually get. And to be honest--it's a carry gun. No disrespect to LTTs and such, but I don't look for anything other than basic features, finishes, and triggers. There are plenty of J-, K-, and L-frame models that do what a carry gun needs to do without needing to look for very specific, limited-availability options.

[Willard]

Problem with your question is there are probably a lot of folks this forum who refuse to purchase a locked equipped version and cannot give you feedback on direct experience with a failure.
There have been posts here from credible people claiming first hand experience. I believe them...YMMV. If you want to talk yourself into purchasing one, go ahead. First though, compare the price of new S&W with ILS to used S&W without. It is enlightening. There is absolutely no reason I would ever own an ILS equipped version.

[awp_101]

I have never had an internal lock engage on its own, but I also have never owned a light-weight IL gun and shot it with hard-kicking ammunition. That appears to be the common thread among IL malfunctions.
That's sort of what I've come up with as well. Same parameters for bullet pull if you discount the ILS.

This is becoming...therapeutic. I still wouldn't willingly carry an ILS if I could help it but for fun guns I don't feel so bad about looking at them now.

[awp_101]

Problem with your question is there are probably a lot of folks this forum who refuse to purchase a locked equipped version and cannot give you feedback on direct experience with a failure.
There have been posts here from credible people claiming first hand experience. I believe them...YMMV. If you want to talk yourself into purchasing one, go ahead. First though, compare the price of new S&W with ILS to used S&W without. It is enlightening. There is absolutely no reason I would ever own an ILS equipped version.

I don't doubt the ones that have had a failure and most of the ones I've looked at are used. I won't buy a new S&W at all without a hands on inspection first. Actually, I could almost stop at "I won't buy a new S&W at all" because it would have to be something pretty special to get me to fork over money directly to S&W.

[Caballoflaco]

One ILS revolver:2003 production 642-2. Finish flaked and discolored in short order, S&W was willing to refinish at nearly 1/2 the cost of the gun.

That part of your story is identical to mine, including the time frame, two days of carry and a completely trashed finish.

However mine did lock up once during dry-fire. I ground the nubbin down to nothing and it’s been 100% since.

[Spartan1980]

I've had two different 4" 625 JMs. Not exactly a lightweight or really heavy recoiling caliber, though 250 rounds of major PF ammo in a day will make you feel it. The first one was tuned by the S&W Performance Center when I had to return it for a hammer replacement. Had the issue before the trip back to birthplace and after. The second one I tuned the trigger and action myself but left all the lock parts in it. It also had the issue.

The issue: After a few rounds fired this occured. The tiny little spring holding one of the lock parts in place would never stay seated in its proper place. Inertia from recoil would dislodge it and it looked like it was going to come out and let the flag move into the locked position and tie up the gun,

OR

that little spring could well lock up the action itself depending on where it ended up.

It never did come completely out but it sure looked as if it was going to. You could look down into the frame on the left side of the hammer and see it was barely hanging in it's seat on one end. Like said it never caused me an issue with a fair number of rounds fired, but I soured on the 4" both times and and sold them. I went to a 5", pre-ILS, pre-MIM, hammer nose gun (simply because they didn't make a 6").

I've seen an awful lot of the "Classic Series repro" models that were just gorgeous in fit and finish and desirable in every way, right up until I turned them over and see that eyesore on the left side. :(

[Salamander]

I've only owned two ILS guns: A 642 which went a few hundred rounds of 38 without any problems before I traded it for something with better sights and no lock; and a 625-9 that I didn't fire until after I'd installed a plug, because that mountain gun gets some backcountry carry and I'm not taking any chances.

I did ask at the range tonight, and one of our old timers (30+ years as a RSO) says he's seen several S&W lock up, at least two fairly recently. He didn't recall a lot of details but thinks they were mostly smaller/lighter variants. Rick is our lead RSO and is there a great deal more often than anyone else, so he's far more likely to be aware of issues than the rest of us. A bit of context: While we see a lot of revolvers at this range, most are older pre-lock guns and I personally have not yet seen any (non-user induced) major malfunctions with a revolver in 8+ years of once every two months RSO duty there; we did have a brand new name-brand semi-auto tonight that couldn't fire two consecutive rounds without a stoppage, owner is taking it back to where he bought it tomorrow, and I have seen several variations of that in the past. Difference is those have been attributable to a diverse array of different QC issues and were apparent very early. Not the same as one specific item such as ILS that could manifest at any time.

I wouldn't worry about it with something intended for range use only. Carry is an entirely different matter.

[TheNewbie]

I want a current production DAO snub revolver with a bobbed hammer. Even if I had to have the hammer bobbed and gun converted to DAO, I would do it. The only real option* I have is S&W, but that ILS is just a no go for me.


* Yes there is the SP101 DAO, but that’s heavy for 5. Charter Arms I know little about, but there doesn’t seem to be much trust in them from what I read.

The Taurus 856 is a possibility. It’s a gun I want to work, like the size of, and like the 6 round capacity. If they continue to show to be reliable, I might just pick one up.

[revchuck38]

I have three S&Ws with the ILS - a 21-4 and a 22-4, both bought new when they first came out, and a 642-2 bought used about a year ago, apparently a KSP trade-in. I've got a couple thousand rounds through each of the N frames with no problems, including some +P HST through the 22-4. I've got 7-800 rounds through the J frame, including R-P LSWC-HP, my old IDPA RNL handloads which chrono 848 fps from my 4" M10, factory-equivalent wadcutter handloads and my current handloads of 125-grain RNFPs at about 850 fps...plus about a box each of R-P GS and Winchester 130-grain bonded JHPs. No issues there either.

[john c]

Knock yourself out and get the ils versions. As shooters, they’re great. If you get one with a lock that self engages, deal with it through a number of different methods that all work great. In fact, you should take it as a challenge to try to engage the lock.

Doing this is a good way to keep the miles off a better example.

I have a few ils Smiths, and they’re fine. I vastly prefer pre versions, but I don’t sweat the new ones. These aren’t carry guns, which doesn’t make sense considering the better options these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[awp_101]

I want a current production DAO snub revolver with a bobbed hammer. Even if I had to have the hammer bobbed and gun converted to DAO, I would do it. The only real option* I have is S&W, but that ILS is just a no go for me.
S&W used to do runs of no lock 442 and 642, I wonder if they still do?

[HeavyDuty]

I want a current production DAO snub revolver with a bobbed hammer. Even if I had to have the hammer bobbed and gun converted to DAO, I would do it. The only real option* I have is S&W, but that ILS is just a no go for me.


* Yes there is the SP101 DAO, but that’s heavy for 5. Charter Arms I know little about, but there doesn’t seem to be much trust in them from what I read.

The Taurus 856 is a possibility. It’s a gun I want to work, like the size of, and like the 6 round capacity. If they continue to show to be reliable, I might just pick one up.

I’m still liking my K6 - is that an option? They have quite a few variants now.

[awp_101]

I soured on the 4" both times and and sold them. I went to a 5", pre-ILS, pre-MIM, hammer nose gun (simply because they didn't make a 6")

Yeah, those 5” 625s are so tempting but a 4” is the sweet spot for balance and aesthetics to me. I might go that route anyway but it’ll have to be a non-ported version.

[awp_101]

I’m still liking my K6 - is that an option? They have quite a few variants now.

I’ve never handled one, but I thought they were closer to SP101 sized than J frame sized?

[jetfire]

I have never had an internal lock engage on its own, but I also have never owned a light-weight IL gun and shot it with hard-kicking ammunition. That appears to be the common thread among IL malfunctions.

This is pretty much the general consensus. While accidental ILS activation has occurred with steel framed guns, the most common culprits are extremely lightweight guns shooting hard kicking ammo. If I recall correctly, one of worst for this was the Scandium framed .44 Mag, which would lock the gun up after the first shot with hot magnum ammo.

Over a three year period before I switched to Ruger revolvers, I fired 7,170 rounds through S&W revolvers, all of which were L or N frames outfitted with an ILS. I never had a lock activation during that time. I also only shot .38 Special, normal pressure .357 Mag, or .45 ACP through the guns, so it wasn't like I was out hammering super high pressure bullshit.

[HeavyDuty]

I’ve never handled one, but I thought they were closer to SP101 sized than J frame sized?

They are, but six shot capacity.

[HeavyDuty]

This is pretty much the general consensus. While accidental ILS activation has occurred with steel framed guns, the most common culprits are extremely lightweight guns shooting hard kicking ammo. If I recall correctly, one of worst for this was the Scandium framed .44 Mag, which would lock the gun up after the first shot with hot magnum ammo.

Over a three year period before I switched to Ruger revolvers, I fired 7,170 rounds through S&W revolvers, all of which were L or N frames outfitted with an ILS. I never had a lock activation during that time. I also only shot .38 Special, normal pressure .357 Mag, or .45 ACP through the guns, so it wasn't like I was out hammering super high pressure bullshit.

This is why I decided to immediately plug my 69 after a quick test fire session to make sure it was a keeper - I figured it was exactly the type of gun most prone to spontaneous ILS lockup.

[TheNewbie]

S&W used to do runs of no lock 442 and 642, I wonder if they still do?

They do but I want an external hammer to thumb when holsteting.

Regarding the K6. They have an external hammer, but only in DA/SA format. At this time, I’m not aware of anyone converting them to DAO. The K6 DAO with an external hammer would probably be the ideal set up for me.

Maybe I’m asking too much, but what I want is what I want.

[deputyG23]

S&W used to do runs of no lock 442 and 642, I wonder if they still do?

Yes. #150544 for the 442 and #103810 for the 642.

[FrankB]

They do but I want an external hammer to thumb when holsteting.

Regarding the K6. They have an external hammer, but only in DA/SA format. At this time, I’m not aware of anyone converting them to DAO. The K6 DAO with an external hammer would probably be the ideal set up for me.

Maybe I’m asking too much, but what I want is what I want.

Not as easy, but you could hold your thumb on the cylinder to (hopefully) prevent an ND.

[deputyG23]

I bought my first new S&W revolver since the '80s in 2013 when I ordered, sight unseen, a 442-2 from Quantico Tactical.
Yes, it had the ILS and never thought about it until I read all the stuff about the guns locking up.
Mine has been through about 850 rounds and has exceeded all my expectations. It serves as a pocket off duty gun. The keys never came out of the box.
I am strongly considering buying one of the newer vintage K frames to serve as a practice/training gun to lessen wear on my older Ks I carry on occasion.

[john c]

They do but I want an external hammer to thumb when holsteting.

Regarding the K6. They have an external hammer, but only in DA/SA format. At this time, I’m not aware of anyone converting them to DAO. The K6 DAO with an external hammer would probably be the ideal set up for me.

Maybe I’m asking too much, but what I want is what I want.

With that criteria, you're stuck with either an SP101 or maybe an LCRx, if you can find someone to make the modification.

I wouldn't rule out a pre-lock 637 or similar. There are plenty of parts and gunsmith support. You don't need factory support. Use that for carry, and get an ils version for practice. My combo is a non-lock 642 for carry, and a 640 for practice. My 642 is vetted, so it only gets shot for qualification, for the most part.

[LtDave]

I want a current production DAO snub revolver with a bobbed hammer. Even if I had to have the hammer bobbed and gun converted to DAO, I would do it. The only real option* I have is S&W, but that ILS is just a no go for me.


* Yes there is the SP101 DAO, but that’s heavy for 5. Charter Arms I know little about, but there doesn’t seem to be much trust in them from what I read.

The Taurus 856 is a possibility. It’s a gun I want to work, like the size of, and like the 6 round capacity. If they continue to show to be reliable, I might just pick one up.

Colt Night Cobra?

[TheNewbie]

Colt Night Cobra?


Duh! Didn't even remember to consider that.

Hopefully the reliability is worth the price.

Honestly if I knew it would work (or at least had a high amount of confidence it would), I would buy the Taurus 856.

[Baldanders]

Duh! Didn't even remember to consider that.

Hopefully the reliability is worth the price.

Honestly if I knew it would work (or at least had a high amount of confidence it would), I would buy the Taurus 856.

We have had at least a few pretty positive reviews of Taurus revolvers here in the past year or so. If I was in the market for one of their products, I would be willing to roll the dice.

[FrankB]

I own several S&W revolvers with the awful hole, but it’s never been a problem. It’s certainly an eyesore, and should have been dropped when Slick Willie left office.
This Model 627 was traded yesterday, for 4,000 rounds of 9mm range ammo. I hoarded way too much in 2016. I took a jewelers loupe to the shop (not unusual for me), and this specimen is perfect. The LGS/range is tickled to have ammo, I’m tickled to have this fine revolver, and the patrons will be tickled until about noon tomorrow. The 4,000 rounds were nearly gone in 24 hours, and they’re only selling one box per visit(!!!!).
ETA The side plate was removed, and the internals were picture perfect. DA trigger pull average 9lbs 5 Oz, and single averages 4lbs 2 Oz. I used a calibrated Lyman trigger gauge (hang 5lbs of water form the gauge, and if it reads 5lbs, it’s calibrated. 😉
59090

[Screwball]

I have one of the earlier no-lock 642-1s. Picked it up off Gunbroker, maybe a few months after they started offering them. All I can say... there is no lock to lock up. I’m good with that.

That being said, I’ve only heard of one revolver locking up, which a local range was boxing it up to head back to S&W after it locked up on the line (they sold the gun to the owner). It was either a 340 or 360, and no idea on the ammo that was used. No idea what the verdict was, since I sort of stop going there for a different range around that time. It may fall in the “heard from gunshop guy,” but I did see it physically packed up to go back to S&W.

Personally, there are a few newer models that I’d like to invest in... which do not have no-lock options. Maybe one day in the future. But I can wait as long as possible to see if S&W has a change of heart (which they won’t).

[Zeke38]

Newbie help me out here. I have two K6s, one is a 2" DAO concealed hammer (think Smith Centennial 640) and the other a 3" DA/SA. Which is safer from an accidental discharge while holstering or in ease of drawing the DAO. A hammer spur is like "teats on a boar hog" on a concealed hammer revolver. Carried revolvers in police work from 1965 to 1983. DAOs with bobbed hammers were optimal for safety and ease of drawing as well as a bit lighter DA trigger stroke. Obviously don't know about SA on a bobbed hammer revolver outside of it's risky to try it without a hammer spur of some type. Good luck.

I love both of my K6s and carry the 2" for SD in town and the 3" for woods bummin. I've had them for a couple of years and have worked nicely. They weigh 26oz for the 2" and 27oz for the 3". I also paid less than the retail asking price for both.

[TDA]

I've been considering a list of upgrades I'd like to make to the accumulation collection and high on the list are a couple (or maybe several) S&W models. The short version is I'm mostly priced out of the market when it comes to price vs condition for "the good stuff made when barrels were pinned, chambers were recessed and locks were on the case instead of the gun" unless I want a beater or cosmetically challenged sample. I've had those and they generally aren't an upgrade.

I'll get this out of the way now: I dislike the ILS cursed be the name. I dislike what it represents. I dislike how it looks. About 10 years ago I inadvertently made my wife cry when I expressed my deep and abiding dislike of the ILS and claimed I'd never own one. How was I supposed to know she'd already put a brandy new 638 on layaway for my Christmas present? But I digress and now find myself in a position where I have to at least consider an ILS model either because what I want only came with the lock (4" .45 ACP 625s come to mind) or something like a 21-4 makes much more sense for me to get than trying to round up an original Model 21.

The first question I have is, has anyone here actually had the ILS fail on a gun they own? Not heard it from a friend, not heard it from the gunshop counter guy, etc. I've read about the potential to fail much more than I've actually seen reports of failure and I've not actually run into anyone that's had it happen. Not saying it doesn't happen, not saying it won't happen and if someone here has had it happen I'm sure not going to dispute it. And for a safe queen/range toy, does it really matter?

Second, I know not to buy a new S&W without having it in hand to inspect, especially anything with a 2 piece barrel. What about the Heritage and Classic series? I briefly handled a TRS 21-4 this afternoon and was impressed with the finish. The barrel didn't appear to be off kilter and I recall reading the throats and bore are properly sized. Is that the norm with these lines?

Just because it's almost directly on point, I've got a TRS 25-4 (without the gold logo, even!) that I bought because it seemed really cool, I use it the way you're thinking of using it, and I have had no issues with the ILS. It's a range gun, and it's a steel N frame chambered for a non magnum cartridge, and it turned out to be really cool. If you like the TRS 21-4, you should get it.

[Dave T]

I've owned two 325 Night Guards, a 325 PD (4"), and a 386 Night Guard. Despite my objection to the IL, both philosophically and because they're just fugly, that hasn't been my main problem with newer Smiths. Except for the 325 PD, which came with the worst DA trigger pull I have ever experienced on a Smith & Wesson (and I've been shooting them since the early 1970s) my biggest problem has been poor ignition because of the floating, frame mounted firing pin. The PD fired every time but no primer invented by man could withstand the force of that hammer spring (lol).

I got tired of messing with the 325 NGs and traded or sold them off. The PD was going to be the answer to a carry gun in the proper caliber (45 of course - smile) but S&W quality came through again when the frame under the barrel threads cracked and they didn't care since I bought it second hand. The 386 was equally difficult to get to fire primers and when it was working it suddenly stopped advancing the cylinder. The bolt release had been the victim of tolerance-stack and was failing to be engaged by the trigger. Thanks to a good gun smith I got it working but it's taken a year to get it to where I trust it. It's now my carry gun...and I still wish it was a 45 (lol).

Dave

[TDA]

Since it’s all B.S. without pictures:

59241

[medic15al]

I had a mid-oughties vintage 638 engage the lock while firing..... mmm.... I'm pretty sure it was 158 Grain +P LSWCHP.

It now has a plug.

About the same time my 438 locked with RNL And MY S&W M25-13 Mtn Gun 45 Colt did as well with 250 grain LHP at about 925 FPS Factory Buffalo Bore standard pressure load.

Both locks were removed as they were my security duty guns in a revolver only post.

Sniff.... I miss those revolvers.....