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

[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