Question about S&W Internal lock ....

[dgb553]

I'm thinking about buying a 4" 617 and I'm curious about the internal lock they have been using for the last 7-8 years. Do most owners just turn the lock off? And does the lock have any effect on the action smoothness/trigger feel?

Thanks in advance!

[Playboypenguin]

I just never engage the lock period.

There have been very rare accounts of the lock engaging on it's own while firing large bore magnum rounds. If that worries you, you can file off the catch inside the lock that engages it.

Otherwise I do not think there is much to worry about.

[SilentHitz]

Never use mine either, as PBP said, it's easily disabled...even heard of some folks using loc-tite so they don't move. Don't think it's necessary myself, or I would just remove it altogether and plug the hole. Don't bother me as much as it does some folks.

[Webleymkv]

I've owned a grand total of 4 S&W revolvers: 2 without the lock (one P&R and both .357 Magnums) and 2 with the lock (one .44 Special and one .44 Magnum). I've never had a problem with the lock and both revolvers that were equipped with it had just as smooth if not smoother actions than my pre-lock revolvers. I engaged it once with the .44 Special just to see how it worked, I never even unpacked the key for the .44 Magnum.

[Kreyzhorse]

I've got four S&W revolvers and only one has the lock. To me, the trigger just as nice as the other non-lock triggers.

As far as the lock goes, I've never engaged mine and have never had an issue with it.

[JollyRoger]

I've got several no-lock J-frames of various vintages and different configurations. I finally broke down and bought a used 642 with a lock. The action is every bit as good as any J-frame I've got. The wide smooth trigger and larger sights S&W is currently using are perfect for the revolver, too.
I have fired some pretty heavy +P's in the gun with no inadvertent engagement of the lock. I think a lot is being made out of a few failures that are within the expected quality-control stats.

My understanding of the lock is that it engages a slot in the hammer: otherwise it is an entirely separate mechanism, so it shouldn't affect the action at all.

[akr]

I think some of those guys who see themselves as big traditionalists and rednecks are just telling stories about the lock, if you know what I mean. They are just mad because they didn't get their way. Having said that, I'm aware that there has been a real failure out of all of these guns, where that has happened for some reason or another.

[Hammer1]

If you do not intend any serious use of your S&W, the internal lock is OK.

Avoid hunting, serious competition, and self-defense situations where you, loved ones, or friends are in jeopardy, or you have a Good Samaritan duty and you will be OK.

With those exceptions noted, the lock will not cause any troubles.


Same is true of Remington's j-lock.

.

[Playboypenguin]

Avoid hunting, serious competition, and self-defense situations where you, loved ones, or friends are in jeapordy, or you have a Good Samaritan duty and you will be OK.
Why? I see no evidence to support this decision at all.

[CraigC]

I think some of those guys who see themselves as big traditionalists and rednecks are just telling stories about the lock

You see, it's offensive posts like this that bring me out of the woodwork. Personally, it's not just about the obtrusive internal lock that is COMPLETELY unnecessary. It's not about the "agreement" at all. It's about the overall quality and feel of these guns. S&W has cheapened everything they possibly can......except the price. The lettering is horrendous, flashy sights, poorly done finishes, injection molded parts all the while prices do nothing but climb. I'm a traditionalist because I prefer traditional guns, not because I'm a stick in the mud, a "redneck", an old fart or because I'm holding a grudge. I prefer the older guns because to me, they are not only better but in many cases they're also less expensive. So hell no, I ain't payin' $1000 for a new M24 with the internal lock, crappy lettering, MIM parts and a less than stellar finish when I can find an `80's model for $600.

And the S&W forum is way too chockful of lock failure stories to arbitrarily dismiss the possibility. You guys can have them and attempts to sway shooters to your side serve only to cement our positions. That goes double for inflammatory posts like the one quoted above.

[lagavulin62]

I used it once just to see how it works but since then never used it. I agree it really is a senseless add on and it would be nice if they would discontinue the practice. they should survey those that own lock guns and I'm sure the percentage is close to nill for those that use it. why install a lock that nobody will use? it's all liability in this age where nobody is at fault. but it won't work, someone will still sue the company if a child kills himself using a gun that was not locked. how do you properly child proof a gun? ....keep the dang thing away from him.

[orionengnr]

At one point, I owned six ILS-equipped revolvers, and carried one or another regularly. I read a number of posts about the ILS self-engaging, but I was in denial--couldn't happen to me...after all, I "never used it".

Then IT happened to an acquaintance--he had his 360 lock itself while dry firing. That was enough for me. Denial was shattered. All of mine were soon sold, to be replaced with older S&Ws or reliable semi-autos.

If I ever own another ILS equipped S&W (possible, but at this point, doubtful) then it will be a range toy only.

[RickB]

I don't like the lock, but I've never engaged it, and it's never engaged itself.

[akr]

CraigC--

You ever heard that one, "The smeller's the feller?" I'm like you about these inflammatory posts, except I don't like the other kind. You think that's a one way deal? Puh-leeeze. I'm glad you like the old guns, and I do too, but I also like the new guns as well....and that IS MY RIGHT!! I have two new S&W's and none of the problems you mentioned are applicable to them, except that it has a lock. I suppose that means you don't know what you are talking about. :p ....and I don't give a rat's a$$ whether you come over to my side or not...I hope you don't.

[orionengnr]

I certainly hope that IT never happens to you, or anyone you know, especially when the chips are down.
And if it does, I hope that someone learns a lesson and emerges from denial.
As previously stated, I've been there, done that.

Learn or Burn--your choice.

[xrmattaz]

I simply popped the sideplate and removed the lock "flag" from both my 325PD and 329PD.......no further issue. And I can return 'em to stock in 5 minutes, if I choose to sell either.

[akr]

I have 31 OTHER guns that I can use for defense if I choose, Orion, so I'm not too worried about either one of my two new S&W's that I use for range. Thank you very much. :p

[redrick]

I talk to a gunsmith yesterday, he said for it to fail and lock your revolver you would have to be holding it upside down or standing on your head, because that is the only way that the spring could fall out and lock it up if there was enough force to break it.

[orionengnr]

I have 31 OTHER guns that I can use for defense if I choose, Orion, so I'm not too worried about either one of my two new S&W's that I use for range. Thank you very much
Good for you. I think you just said pretty much what I did--an ILS S&W is a range toy. See post # 12.

I'm more concerned with those who have only one, and don't know any better...or have been mis-informed.
I talk to a gunsmith yesterday, he said for it to fail and lock your revolver you would have to be holding it upside down or standing on your head, because that is the only way that the spring could fall out and lock it up if there was enough force to break it.
Just another example of why you should believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. To put it a bit less politely, your "gunsmith" is an idiot. There are plenty of examples of this happening (and I'll say it yet again, SEARCH IS YOUR FRIEND).
Of course, somewhere out there is a structural engineer who will tell you that an airplane could never bring down one of the twin towers...:rolleyes:

[bucknarley]

I recently bought a used 642-2 also. I spoke with a rep in the Tech Dept @ Smith regarding this very issue and he said, "There has never been one instance of a IL failure on any "airweight" model, if there had been you can bet there would have been a recall". I shot 50 rds in about 30 mins with some pretty hot loads in mine and it operated perfectly.

[Playboypenguin]

I recently bought a used 642-2 also. I spoke with a rep in the Tech Dept @ Smith regarding this very issue and he said, "There has never been one instance of a IL failure on any "airweight" model, if there had been you can bet there would have been a recall". I shot 50 rds in about 30 mins with some pretty hot loads in mine and it operated perfectly.
This is one of those places where it pays for them to be very specific in their comments. I agree that there has never been an IL failure in an "airweight" but I have seen one or two credible stories of larger bore magnums locking up when firing multiple heavy loads. That is such a small number though. It is statistically insignificant at best when you consider how many Smith's are on the market.

I am afraid I would call BS on anyone that claimed their IL failed while dry firing. Especially second hand accounts of such events.

[stevieboy]

I get myself in trouble regularly on these threads because I keep asking the same question: explain to me exactly how the lock fails? I'm not talking about the random malfunction. I suppose its possible that a spring will break or a part will be installed incorrectly. That would easily account for the very few credible stories of lock failure that get reported on this and other forums. But, the anti-lock folks have made a crusade out of arguing that there's some sort of inherent problem with Smith's lock that renders their guns useless for hunting or self-defense. Essential to their theory is that the lock is likely to fail. Although I've asked people to explain to me the basis for this theory I've never gotten a coherent response. Just a lot of rage from those who see the lock as part of some sort of surrender by Smith to the anti-gun lobby or who believe that the lock is simply additional evidence that the quality of Smith's products have gone to Hell in a handbasket.

I have Smith revolvers with locks and without them. They've all worked equally well for me and I don't believe that there's any reason not to buy a lock-equipped gun if the price is right and the purchaser wants it.

[CDH]

I get myself in trouble regularly on these threads because I keep asking the same question: explain to me exactly how the lock fails? I'm not talking about the random malfunction. I suppose its possible that a spring will break or a part will be installed incorrectly.

I think you answered your own question.

I also get in trouble for my opinion, so I'll just short-cut it and say that anything made with more parts than are necessary for proper operation is just adding more parts that can fail.

I refuse to carry a Smith with a lock for SD, but I have no issue with having one for range use with a lock. Now that's my "practical" take on the subject.

My "ethical" take on the subject is that just looking at the hole in the frame ticks me off because it's a constant reminder of how gun rights are constantly under assault. Obviously, that's just me, and a lot of people don't have that kind of problem.

But, locks do fail, unless you believe that every one of the people who report having them are lying.
Do a google on "smith and wesson lock failures" and prepare to be enlightened.

[jephthai]

Just another example of why you should believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. To put it a bit less politely, your "gunsmith" is an idiot.

Does that apply to what you heard about your buddy who said his locked up during dry firing?

I enjoy watching a good flame war any day. But, I think both of you are too entrenched to have a productive discussion. You don't like the lock -- have chosen what things you hear that you will trust, and that's great.

Yet, there are reasons other people either choose to buy the new ones or have to buy them. There does, indeed, seem to be a correlation with heavy cartridges. Maybe there's also a correlation with spec-pushing hand-loading (or strange behavior, like tipping sideways?). It's hard to tell, since no one's going to admit that if it was.

I'm not too paranoid about the lock. I don't like it. I think the Taurus one is better, based on my own physical inspection (have both). But, I can deal with it.

What I don't like is one side calling the other a bunch of rednecks because they don't like a mechanical device. I also don't like you calling some gunsmith you've never met an idiot because he doesn't mind a mechanical device.

I thought an armed society was a polite society?

-Jephthai-

[Webleymkv]

You see, it's offensive posts like this that bring me out of the woodwork. Personally, it's not just about the obtrusive internal lock that is COMPLETELY unnecessary. It's not about the "agreement" at all. It's about the overall quality and feel of these guns. S&W has cheapened everything they possibly can......except the price. The lettering is horrendous, flashy sights, poorly done finishes, injection molded parts all the while prices do nothing but climb. I'm a traditionalist because I prefer traditional guns, not because I'm a stick in the mud, a "redneck", an old fart or because I'm holding a grudge. I prefer the older guns because to me, they are not only better but in many cases they're also less expensive. So hell no, I ain't payin' $1000 for a new M24 with the internal lock, crappy lettering, MIM parts and a less than stellar finish when I can find an `80's model for $600.


I disagree wholeheartedly. I've own or have owned both a new M21 and a new 629 both of which have the lock. Their finishesare just as nice, actions are just as smooth, and accuracy every bit as good as both my P&R M28-2 and my dad's P&R M29-2.

So far as the lock is concerned, I think we need to separate the wheat from the chaff when reading posts about it. While I don't think that everyone who reports a lock failure is lying, I think a good deal of them are and thusly the problem is overly exaggerated (let's face it, anecdotes told anonymously over the internet don't exactly prove anything). The vast majority of halfway credible lock-failure stories I hear are of lightweight (usually scandium) guns firing heavy (typically magnum) loadings. I have heard few, if any, reports of such failures with steel framed revolvers. Rather than convince me that the lock is unacceptable, this just reinforces my belief that heavy (particularly magnum) loads in a lightweight revolver just isn't a good idea. Likewise, it seems that when the locks do fail, they do so fairly early on. I've yet to read a story of someone having their revolver for years and/or putting several thousand rounds through it before having a lock failure. This just reinforces my belief that you should spend adequate range time with any gun before relying on it. Finally, S&W has excellent customer service and will fix a gun that "auto-locks," I've yet to hear of someone having their revolver lock up twice.

I guess what I'm saying here is that while I don't particularly like the lock and do believe there is a very remote possibility of the lock self-engaging on one of my guns, I don't think that it's any more likely than breakage of any of the other small parts that could tie the gun up. Afterall, it's not as though older S&W revolvers have never locked up for one reason or another. Because of this, I still buy new S&W revolvers because the old one are often too expensive, too difficult to find, or do not offer the features that I want.

[orionengnr]

I am afraid I would call BS on anyone that claimed their IL failed while dry firing. Especially second hand accounts of such events.
pbp--I'll be glad to put you in touch with him--he posts on this board. PM me and I'll give you his user name.
I spoke with a rep in the Tech Dept @ Smith regarding this very issue and he said, "There has never been one instance of a IL failure on any "airweight" model, if there had been you can bet there would have been a recall".
Now I'm calling BS on this one. The one I am refering to above was a 360, which is actually an AirLight J-frame, but it's far from the only one I've read of.
Once again, do a search--there is enough to keep you busy for days.

[Hammer1]

Likewise, it seems that when the locks do fail, they do so fairly early on. I've yet to read a story of someone having their revolver for years and/or putting several thousand rounds through it before having a lock failure.





Sorry, but later failures after over 1,000 rounds have happened too.

One married couple, retired with money, has a pair of matching S&W with the locks. They shoot a lot including going to several shooting schools a year. Enjoy the schools and shooting like others like golf or fishing.

They were big fans of S&W and made light of folks who were concerned with the locks.

After a couple of years, both had their S&W locks lock-up during schools. They have since sold their S&W with locks.


Most people buy a gun, admire it, enjoy showing it to friends, discuss it on the internet, but shoot very little due to scarcity of time and expense of ammo. Those folks are less likely to see a failure in any gun -- S&W with internal lock, Series 80 Colts, or anything else. But those who shoot a lot will find the weak points.

It's just like S&W before IHMSA silhouette competition became popular. No one ever thought of S&W Model 29 44 Mags as being weak. Who had ever shot more than a box of full-power ammo from one ? But once IHMSA competition had thousands of folks weekly shooting hundreds of rounds through them the S&W weaknesses came through loud and clear. After the first couple of years you never saw S&W on the IHMSA ranges any more. It was all Ruger and Dan Wesson.


.

[Webleymkv]

One married couple, retired with money, has a pair of matching S&W with the locks. They shoot a lot including going to several shooting schools a year. Enjoy the schools and shooting like others like golf or fishing.

They were big fans of S&W and made light of folks who were concerned with the locks.

After a couple of years, both had their S&W locks lock-up during schools. They have since sold their S&W with locks.


Can you provide any documentation of this event or any others like it? Sorry, but anonymous secondhand internet anecdotes do not a convincing argument make.

[BillCA]

The S&W forum has a sticky post about lock failures. It's enlightening reading.

From my perspective, it seems like the majority of lock issues crop up in Airlite Scandium guns with magnum loads and heavy magnums, especially with 4-inch or shorter barrels.

So far, I have not seen or heard of anyone performing a qualified failure analysis on a failed unit or attempting to establish the conditions required for failure.

As for my experience... I have a 432PD, a 649, a late model 66 and a 617 with the locks. Each gun was checked to ensure the lock engaged and disengaged with the key and functioned appropriately. The locks were then disengaged and left that way. None of them has exhibited any sign of a problem and none have failed. During cleaning, I carefully check the lock for "creep" -- that is I carefully turn the key to ensure the lock is fully disengaged. None of them have moved so far. All of these guns are steel framed guns except the 432PD Airweight.

The purpose of the lock is as a storage lock, for storing the gun when not in use. It is designed to prevent unauthorized use of the gun, not act as a "safety" device.

With regard to "build quality" and such, I find such comments laughably absurd. My opinion is that the people who complain about MIM components, 2-piece barrels, matte finishes, etc., are the same ones complaining about price. But, would they pay $1900 for a Model 29 .44 Magnum built like they did in 1970? I doubt it.

That $1900 figure is no joke. It's a best-estimate using an inflation calculator and pre-1980 prices. I walked away from a 29 in 1975 priced at $499.95 as far too steep. Today, that works out to $1906.85. But I doubt that takes into account the extra costs imposed by updated EPA regulations for handling bluing salts and other manufacturing compounds.

That means your Model 66, a $250 item in 1975, would be $953 today - retail (about $1,120 MSRP). People claim they want the "old fashioned quality" of revolvers, but few are willing to pay over $1,000 for a handgun.

I don't buy pre-lock guns because I have a deep-seated hatred for the lock, or the Klintonista agreement (done by the British) or some other haughty principle. I buy pre-lock guns for 4 reasons - I'm cheap and pre-lock guns are less expensive (sometimes); they represent an excellent value per dollar; I dislike the look of the lock; and lastly, because more blued guns are available which is my preference.

That's my $0.10 worth (that's $.02 in 1972).

[Hammer1]

Can you provide any documentation of this event or any others like it? Sorry, but anonymous secondhand internet anecdotes do not a convincing argument make.





Have known the party for years. Known them to the truthful and honest. Have heard them brag on their S&W revolvers for years. Have heard them tell the story of the S&W failure and tell me about selling their revolvers and cussing them.

Don't have the Form 4473 where they originally purchased the handguns or their bill of sale when they sold them.

No, I am not going to go pester personal friends to make a notarized, witnessed affidavit to post on an internet forum to convince anonymous folks who doubt things and who will not be convinced anyway. There is better use of my time and theirs.

Not going to post good friends' names, phone numbers, addresses, and their travel schedules for the past few years on the internet either.

No, they did not call in reporters or go on Larry King Live or Oprah at the time with their story either. Doubt they knew to have a home movie camera filming them when the failures occurred.

And you don't accept scores of similar experiences reported by a wide variety of people posted on various internet sites as proof...


So, guess will not meet the internet forum standard of proof.


It is no sweat off my back if anyone chooses a particular handgun and it either works or fails when called upon. Each decides for themselves.

Al Gore has thousands of pieces of documentation on his Global Warming scam that he's made hundreds of millions on. Documentation for scams is easy and the first thing a scam artist prepares.

.

[mec]

I considered the mere presence of the lock a non issue until a couple of people I know experienced the spontaneous engagement.(I know a good many more who have had no problems but it is a real phenomena that occurs with some frequency) This problem was largely considered an internet legend until Michael Bane, had on on his new 329 pd.
The problem occurs not only with magnums but also with light weight snubs but I would not expect any lock problems with a rimfire or any adverse effects on the smoothness of the action.

[Playboypenguin]

I am sorry, but in this day an age such occurrences would not be able to be kept limited to a few "this guy I know" stories on the internet. If there truly was an issue it would be a big deal. Just like it was with the Ruger's failing drop tests. In fact, the lock issue would be much more evident.

This is just a bunch of people who are trying to make a false case to force S&W from producing the locks on their guns. A bunch of purists do not like the locks and try to make them look bad in the only way they know how. There is no evidence, no credible reports, no consistent trends, no records of repairs (where are all the documents showing the locks being repaired), etc.

In fact, I asked a person on THR where his documentation was once about his lock repair and he said "I did not bother getting it fixed. I just threw it away since it is junk." I knew right then and there he was a liar because this was the same guy that would complain that Ruger's were too expensive.

[Hammer1]

This is just a bunch of people who are trying to make a false case to force S&W from producing the locks on their guns. A bunch of purists do not like the locks and try to make them look bad in the only way they know how. There is no evidence, no credible reports, no consistent trends, no records of repairs (where are all the documents showing the locks being repaired), etc.







Guess you are heavily invested in internal lock S&W revolvers and trying to save your financial investment portfolio.

Same accusation and argument.



What does it say about all the traditionalist S&W fans that so many of them are liars ?

How does S&W attract such liars to their market ?

Are there other topics that S&W owners lie about ?

What other products are liars attracted to ?

What topics do Colt owners prefer to lie about ?

Should honest people associate with products that attract liars ?


.

[Hammer1]

... where are all the documents showing the locks being repaired...





That's an interesting question.

Someone asking for the repair of something that is not "broken" but flawed by design.

Replace the existing "non-broken" part with an identical "non-broken" part.

That' s pretty good.


When I was a naive teenager, had a new Plymouth with a "defective" automatic choke. During the winter season it left me stranded about a mile from home frequently. Had to wait quite a while to get it to run again. The local Plymouth dealer replaced it under warranty umpteen times (or so he said and had paperwork to prove). When the warranty expired and I had to pay for the repairs myself (and couldn't afford to), I asked the Plymouth dealer what I was supposed to do. He said the Plymouth part was defective by design and replace it with a Holly that would work every time. Did, and it worked without another issue. Have always wondered whether that dealer ever replaced the Plymouth part under warranty (he had paperwork) or just said he did.

.

[akr]

Hammer 1, you are being a troll.

[Hammer1]

Sorry that you feel that way.

Is Playboypenguin being a troll too ?

Or just us who don't buy into internal S&W locks and don't enjoy the accusation of being called liars ?


Have been a member since 2004 (think that this nearly five years) and have posted very little. The few posts I have made were mostly single inquiries or questions and then just sat back and read the comments, usually widely variable and almost all helpful. This is one case where I thought my knowledge might be helpful to others, but realize now that I was mistaken.

Again, sorry for commenting.

.

[Playboypenguin]

Hammer1,

Everything you have posted in conjecture and posturing. Asking for credible evidence and pointing out the lack thereof is not unfair. Trying to circumvent the discussion with bluster and innuendo is weak.

Most of my S&W revolvers are pre-lock. I only own two or three with locks and six or seven without. I have no vested interest in the locks one way or the other. I do have issue with the bullying tactics of people who try to further their illegitimate agenda. It all comes down to put up or shut up. Stop trying to defend anecdotal evidence as anything of any value. If that is all you have you have lost already.

As for repair documentation, where are all the repair documents that show lock replacement?

[Hammer1]

... where are all the repair documents that show lock replacement?






Again, why would you repair an unbroken part ?

There is nothing to repair.

The design is faulty.

You would just be replacing one part with another identical part.

Why would one bother to spend money or time to send a handgun in for repair when all one needs to do is take the key, return the lock to an acceptable position, and sell it to someone else ? Then buy a gun that does not have the design flaw.

My local gunsmith who has done a fair amount of work for me has never supplied me with a receipt of any kind. I ask how much I owe. He says $50. I hand him $50 and am out the door. Would probably double the repair cost and repair time if he started keeping records.


Have reported incidences which occurred to known honest people. Multiple witnessed accounts do not count as credible evidence. Will not waste the time of friends to respond to internet chat.




Apologize for commenting to begin with.



Enjoy what remains of your weekend.

It is sunny and warm for a February day and I am going outside to enjoy what remains of mine.


.

[Master Blaster]

I have 5 S&W Revolvers with the lock and many without.

I carry a 642, and I carried it with the lock for a couple years, shot 2000 or so rounds in practice, and never had it engage. I took it out about a year ago. The problem with having a lock on a 642 is that you can't see the flag, so unless you pull the trigger to test it you don't know if the lock is on or off.

I dont use the lock on any so equiped revolvers, nor do I care for it, I would prefer S&W make revolvers without it.

Its a 5 minute job to remove the sideplate, and the hammer, and then the lock flag.

I have now done this on all my lock bearing Smiths. My 629 mountain gun never locked itself but the lock was not right on it. If you engaged it with the key, it would not drop down when disengaged, you had to push it down with your thumb. S&W offered to fix it for me free, but I decided the best fix was to remove it. That was the first lock I removed. I use that gun for home defense.

I also removed the lock on a 686, TR22, and a 627PC, I have them in a bg in case they become a collectors item or I sell the guns, in which case I will put the lock flag back in.

[Webleymkv]

Hammer 1, when you send a firearm in to S&W for repair, it returns with an invoice detailing what they did to it while it was there. It would not be hard at all for someone who claimed to have a lock failure and send his revolver to S&W to scan a copy of said invoice, blur out or otherwise remove any personal information, and post said invoice here or on any other discussion forum as proof that their revolver failed. Even something as vauge on the invoice as "made repairs to internals" or "repaired lockwork" would be sufficient proof for most of us. However, someone who anoymously posts that he knew someone who is also anonymous that this happened to is not all that convincing. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not necessarily calling you or anyone else a liar, said incident may have indeed occured. However, with the information you've provided, it's impossible for me to know one way or the other. You must admit, people who post on the internet aren't always beacons of truth (such as those who claim to be "operators" and such but obviously have little or no knowledge of firearms) and thusly and undocumented information presented here must be viewed with a degree of skepticism. For this reason, I cannot accept an unverified anencdote from someone I don't know about someone else I don't know as a proven fact. Also, the art of debate typically dictates that the burden of proving a claim rests on the person who made it.

[AZAK]

Simple question. Anyone out there want the IL on their new Smith? Would you be willing to pay extra for it at the gun counter?

"We have the XX Smith for $YYY.00 and then you can upgrade and get it with the IL for only $ZZ.00 more!"

Whether for or against, does the end consumer demand this "option"? Did Smith & Wesson do market research and come to the conclusion that their end user wanted this feature?

From what I have heard, observed, and read concerning S&W owners, myself included, there is no grass roots movement demanding ILs on their revolvers.

So, why are folks defending them? You say that is perhaps just the way it now is? I say it is giving an inch, and watch out for that elevator shaft...

I own S&W revolvers, Don't own any ILs.

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein

[Gun 4 Fun]

I don't give a hoot whether the locks that have failed can be proven or not. Those of you who doubt it can go over to the S&W forum and read all day about it. Some of you here that seem to want proof are already members over there. Is everyone on that forum a liar? Give me a break.:rolleyes:

The stupid thing doesn't need to be there. Is was put on Smiths to placate one liberal state. Smith should just stop selling to that state until the people there put enough pressure on their state government to change that law.;)

The IL is useless, it is ugly and creates extra parts to fail at the worst possible moment. If even one innocent person EVER loses their life or is harmed in anyway due to the lock, it would be a tragedy beyond measure, since it could have been totally avoided. Sure any mechanical devise can fail, but why add an extra and unnecessary one to an otherwise great design?:confused:

[Playboypenguin]

Simple question. Anyone out there want the IL on their new Smith? Would you be willing to pay extra for it at the gun counter?
They would never sell a single locking version. no one "wants" the lock...except for people who do not own guns or want anyone else to own them.

That is still not a reason to go around making up stories. I do not like the locks. I much prefer my pre-lock S&W's...but I will not talk garbage about a product just because it is not catering to my own personal preferences.

Then you have the even more offensive subject of the people who make all these claims and then attack anyone that asks for proof. They know their case is weak at best so they get all defensive and start bullying at the first sign of anyone wanting a straight story.

[AZAK]

no one "wants" the lock

Since we, those who are buying the product, are saying "OK" to the IL each and every time that we buy one, how does that make sense?

Each of us has the choice to buy an IL revolver or one without; other revolvers new and used. By voting for/purchasing the IL we are supporting what," no one 'wants'."

I have a very difficult time understanding this train of thought.


And if no one bought them, this very thread would be a non-issue.

[Playboypenguin]

Since we, those who are buying the product, are saying "OK" to the IL each and every time that we buy one, how does that make sense?
You are making a huge leap by trying to equate "accepting" something and actually "desiring" it.

The IL is something that has been done for awhile and we have just had to accept it.. You always have the option of not buying a S&W product. Obviously not many people have made that decision since they are still around and still including the lock. Not adding the lock could have easily spelled the end for the company due to upcoming litigation that the locks avoided.

Maybe someday the locks will disappear, but it will take time and there will have to be an acceptable public atmosphere. SImply saying "if we do not buy the guns they will remove the locks" is not even close to true. The way the gun market is today, if people stopped buying the guns they would most likely not be able to afford to change tooling and manufacturing and have to just close up shop.

[Gun 4 Fun]

The way the gun market is today, if people stopped buying the guns they would most likely not be able to afford to change tooling and manufacturing and have to just close up shop.


Or simply go back to the tooling they used before the lock.;)
I know Smith could. They still have the older tooling in their plant.

[AZAK]

The IL is something that has been done for awhile and we have just had to accept it..

With all due respect PBP, I disagree.

I hardly believe that S&W would close their doors if tomorrow gun purchaser's began buying only pre-lock S&Ws and other brands of revolvers.

It may be that the ILs are in part due to the possibility of litigation/suits; however, if no one (as in no one "wants" them no one) purchased them any longer, I think that most business models could adapt to this contingency.

S&W has stock. They are a for profit business, with stock holders that they are accountable to. If the gun buying public tomorrow demanded "Hello Kitty" bathing caps (Hello WildAlaska) included with every purchase or they would go shopping else where, you can bet your SWHC stock that there would be that option in packaging; if this demand were ongoing and on a large scale.

I will say again, give an inch...

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by AZAK
Whether for or against, does the end consumer demand this "option"? Did Smith & Wesson do market research and come to the conclusion that their end user wanted this feature?


No no market research was done. S&W was boycotted when their owners, Tomkins PLC, entered into a controvesial agreement with the Clinton Administration in 2000. Due to the financial damage done by the boycott, Tomkins sold S&W to Saf-T-Hammer who was the designer and manufacturer of the lock. After that, it's pretty obvious why the lock is there. Ironically, many of the people who were screaming for the death of S&W due to the agreement with Clinton are the same ones now raising heck about the lock, so it could be argued that these people have themselves to blame.

So, why are folks defending them? You say that is perhaps just the way it now is? I say it is giving an inch, and watch out for that elevator shaft...


Because the issue is a mole hill that's been built into a mountain. I and many others like Playboypenguin grow tired of a great many discussions of new S&W products digressing into a lock-bashing thread.

Originally posted by Gun 4 Fun
I don't give a hoot whether the locks that have failed can be proven or not. Those of you who doubt it can go over to the S&W forum and read all day about it. Some of you here that seem to want proof are already members over there. Is everyone on that forum a liar? Give me a break.


No one ever said that the locks never fail. However, as is often the case on internet forums, the issue has been vastly exagerrated and blown out of proportion. Until the number of documented cases of lock failure increases dramatically, I will continue to believe that it's a rare occurence.

The stupid thing doesn't need to be there. Is was put on Smiths to placate one liberal state. Smith should just stop selling to that state until the people there put enough pressure on their state government to change that law.


This has been tried with "high-capacity" magazines, so-called "assault weapons", and .50 caliber firearms. Guess what, they're still illegal in many places.

The IL is useless, it is ugly and creates extra parts to fail at the worst possible moment. If even one innocent person EVER loses their life or is harmed in anyway due to the lock, it would be a tragedy beyond measure, since it could have been totally avoided. Sure any mechanical devise can fail, but why add an extra and unnecessary one to an otherwise great design?

It could then be argued that the whole design of a S&W is overly complicated and obsolete. Afterall, a S&W has many more small parts that are arguably uneccessary and could fail than say a Ruger. This argument doesn't hold water.

[Gun 4 Fun]

This has been tried with "high-capacity" magazines, so-called "assault weapons", and .50 caliber firearms. Guess what, they're still illegal in many places.

Yea, in many places. This is only one state setting the standard for all states.:rolleyes:


It could then be argued that the whole design of a S&W is overly complicated and obsolete. Afterall, a S&W has many more small parts that are arguably uneccessary and could fail than say a Ruger. This argument doesn't hold water.

You are just trying to defend your position here. Smiths are famous for their simplicity in design. You are the only person that I personally have ever heard say that, and it simply isn't true!;)
Not if you compare a Ruger double action to a Smith.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by AZAK

Since we, those who are buying the product, are saying "OK" to the IL each and every time that we buy one, how does that make sense?

Each of us has the choice to buy an IL revolver or one without; other revolvers new and used. By voting for/purchasing the IL we are supporting what," no one 'wants'."


No, I'm voting "OK" to the other features on the revolver that I do want. Often times, a pre-lock revolver with the same features as a new one is too expensive, too difficult to find, or simply non-existant. While I don't particularly want the lock, it's simply not that big a deal to me and I'm willing to live with it in order to get the other features that I want.

I hardly believe that S&W would close their doors if tomorrow gun purchaser's began buying only pre-lock S&Ws and other brands of revolvers.

It may be that the ILs are in part due to the possibility of litigation/suits; however, if no one (as in no one "wants" them no one) purchased them any longer, I think that most business models could adapt to this contingency.


This was tried before when S&W was boycotted due to Tomkins' agreement with Clinton, it resulted in S&W being sold to the company who put the lock in it in the first place. Personally, I'm not willing to risk the company being sold to someone who may incorporate and even more asanine feature (remember, it can always get worse).

[Gun 4 Fun]

Webleymkv- you need to look at what you post. The above quote credited to me is not mine.;)

[AZAK]

Because the issue is a mole hill that's been built into a mountain. I and many others like Playboypenguin grow tired of a great many discussions of new S&W products digressing into a lock-bashing thread.

The IL is an issue. If "no one 'wants' them" why do they exist? Yes, there are many reasons that can be brought up; however, the market can be driven by the consumers. Giving in/purchasing and saying that that is just the way it is, is a pretty defeatist attitude; especially given the agreement that every one has the choice to shop else where.

And just because something is "not wanted" but continuing to support it with each and every vote/dollar spent is really beyond my understanding.

Yes, it may be rare for an IL to engage unintentionally. But, why are we supporting and defending them in the first place?

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Gun 4 Fun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
This has been tried with "high-capacity" magazines, so-called "assault weapons", and .50 caliber firearms. Guess what, they're still illegal in many places.

Yea, in many places. This is only one state setting the standard for all states.


So you think that California and Massachusetts are going to change their laws because people in Indiana and Texas aren't buying S&W's? I doubt it.

Quote:
It could then be argued that the whole design of a S&W is overly complicated and obsolete. Afterall, a S&W has many more small parts that are arguably uneccessary and could fail than say a Ruger. This argument doesn't hold water.

You are just trying to defend your position here. Smiths are famous for their simplicity in design. You are the only person that I personally have ever heard say that, and it simply isn't true!
Not if you compare a Ruger double action to a Smith.

Have you ever taken both apart? Have a look at the shematics, the Smith looks a lot more complicated to me.

http://www.e-gunparts.com/productschem.asp?chrMasterModel=1980z686

http://www.e-gunparts.com/productschem.asp?chrMasterModel=1910zGP100

[45reloader]

READ THIS
if you feel the lock is going to bug you.They have a picture of the small bump that makes up the lock.5 minute job if your careful.It can also be put back in later for resale

http://www.gunblast.com/SW625Mountain.htm
http://www.gunblast.com/SW-340MP.htm

The lock is a non issue if it's removed.We really don't need these locks on any gun.Some anti gunner has caused bad feeling between members posting on this thread.RELAX your enemy is not in this room ;)

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Gun 4 Fun
Webleymkv- you need to look at what you post. The above quote credited to me is not mine.

Sorry, it sometimes gets difficult to carry on two different arguments at the same time :o

Originally posted by AZAK
The IL is an issue. If "no one 'wants' them" why do they exist?

See posts number 48 and 50.

Yes, there are many reasons that can be brought up; however, the market can be driven by the consumers. Giving in/purchasing and saying that that is just the way it is, is a pretty defeatist attitude; especially given the agreement that every one has the choice to shop else where.


That's been tried before, again see posts number 48 and 50

Yes, it may be rare for an IL to engage unintentionally. But, why are we supporting and defending them in the first place?


I'm not defending the lock, I'm defending S&W from sweeping attacks based on a very rare malfunction.

[Gun 4 Fun]

Have you ever taken both apart? Have a look at the shematics, the Smith looks a lot more complicated to me.

Yes, I have taken both apart, many times. One is no more complicated than the other. Smiths are very easy to work on once you have learned the correct way to do it. Same goes for Rugers.

[Gun 4 Fun]

Mistakes happen;) I'm not above making them, just ask my wife who is watching me at this moment, and correcting my spelling:D

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Gun 4 Fun
Yes, I have taken both apart, many times. One is no more complicated than the other. Smiths are very easy to work on once you have learned the correct way to do it. Same goes for Rugers.

I don't disagree that Smiths are relatively easy to work on, but they do have many more small parts and a more complicated action.

[AZAK]

This was tried before when S&W was boycotted due to Tomkins' agreement with Clinton, it resulted in S&W being sold to the company who put the lock in it in the first place. Personally, I'm not willing to risk the company being sold to someone who may incorporate and even more asanine feature (remember, it can always get worse).

Sounds like a business opportunity. Capitalism. Sounds like someone making money. For a privately held (as in non-government owned) business with stock, the primary business of SWHC is to make profit.

If the buying public did not buy a product for a specific reason, most business models would have options for dealing with this contingency. I believe that equating the sale of SW and the continued success of the ILs was not primarily driven by the boycott.

Again simple economics, if the company found that a particular line was not selling for a length of time, and isolated the reason (IL), they would do everything in their power to change that situation; see basic rule for privately held business with stock holders, the need to make as big of a profit as possible.

If, on the other hand, they can include the IL (attempting to cover liability) and still get the buying public to play along, they make/save more money. So, if people swallow the bait, better for the stock holders.

But, you get an IL on your Smith revolver, and only options/profit if you own SWHC.

[45reloader]

READ THIS
if you feel the lock is going to bug you.They have a picture of the small bump that makes up the lock.5 minute job if your careful.It can also be put back in later for resale

http://www.gunblast.com/SW625Mountain.htm
http://www.gunblast.com/SW-340MP.htm

The lock is a non issue if it's removed.We really don't need these locks on any gun.Some anti gunner has caused bad feeling between members posting on this thread.RELAX your enemy is not in this room

[Gun 4 Fun]

I will admit that I wouldn't mind the lock near so much if it were in a different location. That ugly eye staring at me from the side of the frame ruins the look of the finest looking handgun of all time. If they would design one that didn't show ( like Ruger single actions), and was 100% totally reliable in function, then I believe most of this talk would disappear. Most that don't like the lock, don't ever want to have to worry about a malfunction at the worst time, and hate the way it looks. FWIW

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by AZAK
Quote:
This was tried before when S&W was boycotted due to Tomkins' agreement with Clinton, it resulted in S&W being sold to the company who put the lock in it in the first place. Personally, I'm not willing to risk the company being sold to someone who may incorporate and even more asanine feature (remember, it can always get worse).

Sounds like a business opportunity. Capitalism. Sounds like someone making money. For a privately held (as in non-government owned) business with stock, the primary business of SWHC is to make profit.


As I said, this was tried before with Tomkins. Who's to say that the next owners of S&W won't incorporate an even dumber feature such as some sort of digital keypad or fingerprint scanner so that only one person can use the gun (don't laugh, the anti's have come up with even more ridiculous proposals).

If the buying public did not buy a product for a specific reason, most business models would have options for dealing with this contingency. I believe that equating the sale of SW and the continued success of the ILs was not primarily driven by the boycott.


You're forgetting that the IL didn't appear until after Tomkins sold S&W to Saf-T Hammer. I highly doubt that Tomkins took a loss in selling S&W just because they thought that a lock was the right thing to do. It is easily argued then, that had the boycott not taken place, we wouldn't have the lock at all or at least not in its current form.

Again simple economics, if the company found that a particular line was not selling for a length of time, and isolated the reason (IL), they would do everything in their power to change that situation; see basic rule for privately held business with stock holders, the need to make as big of a profit as possible.


S&W's didn't sell for a length of time for an isolated reason (Clinton agreement) under Tomkins, the solution for their stockholders was to cut their losses and get rid of the company that was losing money. So who's to say that the new owners would do the same thing? The lockless 642's sold out rather quickly, I'd think that would send a sufficient message to S&W. Of course, if revolvers suddenly quit selling, it could just as easily be interpreted that there isn't a market for DA revolvers anymore and S&W, like Colt, may simply discontinue all of them and focus on autos (which would sell because they don't have the lock, right?)

[mec]

"Or just us who don't buy into internal S&W locks and don't enjoy the accusation of being called liars ..."
Don't feel too singled out. It happens every time the subject comes up. I'm in the same position. I know several heavy shooters who have had no problem with the locks but the ones I know who have are completely trustworthy. I don't like seeing them called liars either but that's the inescapable reality of the internet fanboard universe.

By the way, that semi-famous string about lock failures seems to have evaporated from the S&W forum. The new managers have been reconfiguring that board and the string is either gone or misplaced.

[AZAK]

Who's to say that the next owners of S&W won't incorporate an even dumber feature such as some sort of digital keypad or fingerprint scanner so that only one person can use the gun (don't laugh, the anti's have come up with even more ridiculous proposals).

That would be you. And I. And all of the rest of the gun buyers. They can introduce a truly "no one 'wants' one" and if really no one bought one...

It is easily argued then, that had the boycott not taken place, we wouldn't have the lock at all or at least not in its current form.

And to answer:
Who's to say that the next owners of S&W won't incorporate an even dumber feature such as some sort of digital keypad or fingerprint scanner so that only one person can use the gun

That again would be you and I.

So who's to say that the new owners would do the same thing?

That again, the buying public.

It really does not matter who owns SW. If they produce "whatever" and we buy "whatever", we are not only condoning it, we are promoting it.

Many companies change the way that they do business based on customer demand. If not, in a capitalistic economy, someone else will.

Simple for me. I don't like the lock. I don't buy the lock. That's one vote.

I and many others like Playboypenguin grow tired of a great many discussions of new S&W products digressing into a lock-bashing thread.

What is the title of this thread?

[akr]

I really don't find that IL hole to be any uglier than a screw or a sideplate. I like a gun to look nice, but let's understand that a gun is really supposed to be a tool. I will use both my IL guns for range guns, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to use either one for a self defense weapon. One weighs 40 oz and the other weighs 42 oz., so the recoil isn't violent enough to shake the parts loose, particularly if I keep an eye on them. I don't care for it but it is part of life.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by mec
"Or just us who don't buy into internal S&W locks and don't enjoy the accusation of being called liars ..."
Don't feel too singled out. It happens every time the subject comes up. I'm in the same position. I know several heavy shooters who have had no problem with the locks but the ones I know who have are completely trustworthy. I don't like seeing them called liars either but that's the inescapable reality of the internet fanboard universe.


So if everyone who reports a lock failure is totally truthful, why are so few of them able to provide documentation to prove it? Lock-bashers shouldn't feel too mistreated, the same skeptisism is applied to claims of Glock KB's.

AZAK
Quote:
Who's to say that the next owners of S&W won't incorporate an even dumber feature such as some sort of digital keypad or fingerprint scanner so that only one person can use the gun (don't laugh, the anti's have come up with even more ridiculous proposals).

That would be you. And I. And all of the rest of the gun buyers. They can introduce a truly "no one 'wants' one" and if really no one bought one...


Quote:
It is easily argued then, that had the boycott not taken place, we wouldn't have the lock at all or at least not in its current form.

And to answer:

Quote:
Who's to say that the next owners of S&W won't incorporate an even dumber feature such as some sort of digital keypad or fingerprint scanner so that only one person can use the gun

That again would be you and I.


Quote:
So who's to say that the new owners would do the same thing?

That again, the buying public.

It really does not matter who owns SW. If they produce "whatever" and we buy "whatever", we are not only condoning it, we are promoting it.

Many companies change the way that they do business based on customer demand. If not, in a capitalistic economy, someone else will.

Simple for me. I don't like the lock. I don't buy the lock. That's one vote.


Then why do we still have locks? There seem to be plenty of very vocal people who oppose it and won't buy a revolver equipped with it. Of course the answer is that there are more of us that aren't too bothered by it but who's to say the situation would be much different with an even dumber feature?

Quote:
I and many others like Playboypenguin grow tired of a great many discussions of new S&W products digressing into a lock-bashing thread.

What is the title of this thread?

I was not referring specifically to this thread. But ones like these

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=320635&highlight=S%26amp%3BW+lock

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=303447&highlight=S%26amp%3BW+lock

[AZAK]

Then why do we still have locks? There seem to be plenty of very vocal people who oppose it and won't buy a revolver equipped with it. Of course the answer is that there are more of us that aren't too bothered by it but who's to say the situation would be much different with an even dumber feature?

Slippery slope. We will buy a product with a dumb feature that we don't like/want and hope that you will not change the product to include a dumber feature in the future.

When is the "too bothered" line crossed? And at that point, what can you do about it after compromising to that degree?

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Then why do we still have locks? There seem to be plenty of very vocal people who oppose it and won't buy a revolver equipped with it. Of course the answer is that there are more of us that aren't too bothered by it but who's to say the situation would be much different with an even dumber feature?

Slippery slope. We will buy a product with a dumb feature that we don't like/want and hope that you will not change the product to include a dumber feature in the future.

When is the "too bothered" line crossed? And at that point, what can you do about it after compromising to that degree?


There's a difference, while I don't particularly like the lock, I don't really dislike it and it doesn't bother me. My personal feelings about the feature are best described as indiferrence. So, why would I refuse to buy a product that has several features that I like and want in order to force the company that makes it to drop a feature that I don't care about one way or the other at the risk of hurting that company and causing a buyout by another company that may incorporate a feature that I genuinely dislike.

[mec]

Documentation? Interesting concept but handguns returned from S&W and others do not generally have detailed statements of corrective action taken.
Documentation? http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2007/08/s-revolver-safety-failure.html
The author of this constitutes a credible source to many shooters and industry sources. From the article, it is evident that he has no preconceived negative feelings about the locks and is not an enemy of Smith and Wesson or modern innovations in manufacturing or materials. He is a strong supporter of the shooting industry and the shooting public and is the director of the National Shooting Sports Foundation Media Education Program.

Here's a partial bio:
http://www.dovetailstudio.com/michaelbane/

[Playboypenguin]

Mec,

You must have never sent a S&W back for repairs. They come back with a very detailed list of every thing done to them and not done to them.

You think a blog is a credible source?

[vox rationis]

I have not read the whole thread so sorry if someone else has posted this video.

Excellent video on removing the potentially offending IL bits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVPYgohVCNM&feature=related)

[Father Time]

Great vid Son of Vlad Tepes its nice to know that there are informative videos on you tube hidden between all the bs.

[mec]

"You must have never sent a S&W back .."
Beg Pardon. I've had a 29-2 retimed and reblued. I've also run this one through the custom shop:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42127&stc=1&d=1234067568
More recently, I sent a model 25 in for some repairs. The work was very well done but the information I got on receipts was minimal except in the case of the custom shop revolver which was the subject of several telephone conferences with the company. People who have had lock problems have told me various things ranging from no written explaination to " replaced lock spring." Of couse, since I did not see this material it is hearsay.
Bane's blog is a minor aspect of Bane himself. He is well known in the industry and shooting press, produces shooting programs for the various Outdoor television channels, founded the IPSC house magazine " Front Sight" and is well respected as an industry consultant. When he bought the 329PD, he regarded the reports of lock failures as internet gibble-gabble and intended the revolver for protection in bear country. When it locked up on him, he merely shared the information.

[454c]

But, why are we supporting and defending them in the first place?


Financial interest or brand loyalty are the common cause.

The funny,or sad, part is there is no legit reason for the IL and a manu. can drop them if they choose. Ask Remington.

[azsixshooter]

I don't know how anyone could ever buy a smith until they remove those stupid locks. At least make them an option, then all of you who want them can have them.

[AZAK]

There's a difference, while I don't particularly like the lock, I don't really dislike it and it doesn't bother me. My personal feelings about the feature are best described as indiferrence. So, why would I refuse to buy a product that has several features that I like and want in order to force the company that makes it to drop a feature that I don't care about one way or the other at the risk of hurting that company and causing a buyout by another company that may incorporate a feature that I genuinely dislike.
Emphasis by AZAK

I respectfully do not share your concerns and tactics.

Companies failure or success, or addition/or deletion of "disliked features", are not generally determined by their customer's indifference; or customer's concern about "hurting that company", noted exception would be stock holders.

I agree with you that the recent success of the re-introduced no lock 642 is telling S&W something.

These are the buyers voting. They are telling S&W what they like.

And following your line of reasoning I, and others, believe that we are already at that "another company" that has incorporated a feature that we genuinely dislike. As someone else noted earlier in this thread: it is a feature that "no one 'wants'."

And I have not heard anyone speaking up and demanding that the ILs stay in production on the revolvers.

[Webleymkv]

Companies failure or success, or addition/or deletion of "disliked features", are not generally determined by their customer's indifference; or customer's concern about "hurting that company", noted exception would be stock holders.


The lock was not added because of a demand by the customers, it was added because it was good for S&W's then parent company (Saf-T Hammer). Given that it's still there, it must benefit S&W in some way (most likely liability) otherwise they wouldn't want to incur the cost to put it there.

I agree with you that the recent success of the re-introduced no lock 642 is telling S&W something.

These are the buyers voting. They are telling S&W what they like.

I agree, a some buyers are voting to get rid of the lock. However, the rest of us who continue to buy S&W revolvers must, by your logic, either want the lock or, like myself, aren't bothered by it.

And following your line of reasoning I, and others, believe that we are already at that "another company" that has incorporated a feature that we genuinely dislike. As someone else noted earlier in this thread: it is a feature that "no one 'wants'."


That may be so, but there seem to be enough of us that aren't at that point to keep the company selling revolvers. I think you're misunderstanding the concept of "want," I don't particularly want seatbelts in my car, but their presence there doesn't bother me and, like the S&W lock, I can simply ignore them. Just because I don't want a feature doesn't me that I think a product equipped with it is somehow inferior to one that is not, it just means that it's different. Let me explain it to you this way, if S&W made the lock an option and offered two revolvers that were identical in every aspect except the lock, I'd buy the one that I could get the best price on.

And I have not heard anyone speaking up and demanding that the ILs stay in production on the revolvers.

Given that it's still there, the people such as yourself demanding that it be removed must be in the minority.

[stevieboy]

Well, ok, this one goes down as yet another one of those threads which produce much heat and very little light. I'm amused that, after eight years, this little issue -- which probably matters not one iota to people out there in the real world -- continues to stir so much passion.

But, for all of the back and forth ranting, here's the bottom line. Smith, the largest manufacturer of revolvers in the world, has obviously enjoyed considerable success for nearly a decade selling lock equipped guns. For Smith the decision to sell the guns with locks is purely a business decision. Liability considerations cannot be a major reason for putting the locks in the guns, especially because, a few years ago Congress passed a law effectively immunizing firearms manufacturers from product liability suits. Political considerations certainly haven't been a big factor either, because during the entire period from 2001 when Smith first installed locks until January of this year, the government was controlled by the gun friendly Bush administration. What is motivating Smith is that it can continue to attract a large market for its revolvers while augmenting its sales price slightly and enriching the company that owns Smith (and which makes the locks) without hurting sales. That's the sort of thing that companies with major market share can get away with when demand is high for their products, as it assuredly is for Smith's revolvers.

So, appreciating the passion with which some members of this and other forums approach this issue, I say to those of you who feel strongly about the issue -- as good naturedly as I can -- you need to accept realilty and move on. If you hate lock equipped revolvers don't buy them. But, don't assume that you're going to have much of an impact on Smith's decision making because you aren't.

As for me, I remain indifferent about locks. I don't use the ones on my lock-equipped revolvers but, by the same token I have no interest in disabling them (I'm surprised that Smith would continue to honor the warranty on any of its revolvers with disabled locks. Do they?). And, I'm still unconvinced, occasional anecdotes aside, that there's a systematic defect in those locks. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how that can be -- especially in that Smith has never issued a product recall for its locks.

[akr]

+1

[batmann]

The 'No Lock' 442's are not a new item, but, I believe left over frames and not a new run.

[AZAK]

Let's look at this a different way.

Say that the time comes that S&W introduces a lock on all models that truly offends you personally; dna, fingerprint, blood pressure, I.Q., mood ring, I really don't care, except that for whatever reason you genuinely dislike it. Regardless of whether or not you are in the minority or majority, you find it a big mistake in your opinion.

What are you going to do about it?

[AZAK]

I'm amused that, after eight years, this little issue -- which probably matters not one iota to people out there in the real world -- continues to stir so much passion.

For lack of a nail...

[Michael Bane]

Hi kids;

I have owned and shot S&W revolvers since I was 12 years old, which is a lot longer ago than I would care to think about.

My 329 .44 Magnum lock failed with Buffalo Bore 255-gr Keith loads specifically designed for the 329. As near as I can tell, the flag caught the hammer as it was falling on the 2nd or 3rd shot of a DA string and jammed the gun up tight.

I had previously fired at least 100 240-gr Black Hills JHPs through the gun without incidence.

At the request of Jim Stroh of Alpha Precision, who had tuned the gun (which I bought used), I returned the gun to him. After several months he returned it to me with a note that said on advice of counsel he could not remove, alter or disable a factory "safety." My attorney, OTOH, informs me that a "lock" is not a "safety" per se.

I kept the 329 because it is a really nice .44 Special. I'm comfortable with Magnum loads up to 240-grain. I would NOT depend on the gun as a back-up gun for dangerous game using heavy bullets.

I believe the internal lock problem is all tied up with the recoil pulse of heavy, high velocity rounds, which cause the flag, not under spring tension, to "hang" just long enough to trap the hammer as it falls. I have certainly never heard of a lock failure on lighter bullets or steel-framed guns. I have put some looney-tunes loads through the .500 Mag without problem on its internal lock.

You pays your money and you takes your chances...

Michael B

[akr]

That is the most informative post that I have read in this thread, and one that I believe. That makes sense, and I believe that most of us have rightfully come to the conclusion that it doesn't affect the heavier, steel guns. I feel better now, so I'm going to go get my sucker.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by AZAK
Say that the time comes that S&W introduces a lock on all models that truly offends you personally; dna, fingerprint, blood pressure, I.Q., mood ring, I really don't care, except that for whatever reason you
Quote:
genuinely dislike

it. Regardless of whether or not you are in the minority or majority, you find it a big mistake in your opinion.

What are you going to do about it?


At that point I would no longer buy that product. However, if I refuse to do so based on a subjective dislike rather than a mechanical deficiency or design flaw, I would be sure to mention that in my posts regarding the matter (much the same as I do when commenting about how J-Frames don't fit my hands and the fact that Glocks are not asthetically appealing to me).

Originally posted by Michael Bane
I believe the internal lock problem is all tied up with the recoil pulse of heavy, high velocity rounds, which cause the flag, not under spring tension, to "hang" just long enough to trap the hammer as it falls. I have certainly never heard of a lock failure on lighter bullets or steel-framed guns. I have put some looney-tunes loads through the .500 Mag without problem on its internal lock.


In reading the few credible lock-failures that I've come across (yours is one of them), I've come to the same conclusion as you: lock-failure is much more likely in lightweight guns firing heavy recoiling loads.

[AZAK]

At that point I would no longer buy that product. However, if I refuse to do so based on a subjective dislike rather than a mechanical deficiency or design flaw, I would be sure to mention that in my posts regarding the matter

I've come to the same conclusion as you: lock-failure is much more likely in lightweight guns firing heavy recoiling loads.
Both quotes from Webleymkv post #85 Emphasis by AZAK

If this does not qualify as a mechanical deficiency, I would like to see your definition of the term. Works fine on all, BUT occasionally/rarely fails BUT only on these models.

If you re-read my posts you will find that all along I have been supporting the idea, in the wording that someone else brought up and so far no one has challenged, that "no one 'wants'..." the locks.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by AZAK
Quote:
At that point I would no longer buy that product. However, if I refuse to do so based on a subjective dislike rather than a mechanical deficiency or design flaw, I would be sure to mention that in my posts regarding the matter

Quote:
I've come to the same conclusion as you: lock-failure is much more likely in lightweight guns firing heavy recoiling loads.

Both quotes from Webleymkv post #85 Emphasis by AZAK

If this does not qualify as a mechanical deficiency, I would like to see your definition of the term. Works fine on all, BUT occasionally/rarely fails BUT only on these models.

If you re-read my posts you will find that all along I have been supporting the idea, in the wording that someone else brought up and so far no one has challenged, that "no one 'wants'..." the locks.


If you re-read post #25, you will find that I posted the following

The vast majority of halfway credible lock-failure stories I hear are of lightweight (usually scandium) guns firing heavy (typically magnum) loadings. I have heard few, if any, reports of such failures with steel framed revolvers. Rather than convince me that the lock is unacceptable, this just reinforces my belief that heavy (particularly magnum) loads in a lightweight revolver just isn't a good idea.

I don't like lightweight magnums with or without the lock. Besides the rare "auto-lock", there are also issues with excessive recoil which causes poor accuracy, crimp-jumping bullets, and often shorter gun life depending on the material. Because of this, I will not buy a lightweight revolver in any caliber larger than .38 Special. My opinion is that the lock is not so-much the problem with the lightweights as the whole concept in and of itself. Your logic would dictate that because some S&W's crack their forcing cones (K-Frames with 125grn Magnums), they all must be poorly designed or that because some Rugers send their barrels downrange when fired (early Redhawks) they all must be defective.

[AZAK]

Your logic would dictate that because some S&W's crack their forcing cones (K-Frames with 125grn Magnums), they all must be poorly designed or that because some Rugers send their barrels downrange when fired (early Redhawks) they all must be defective.
Emphasis by AZAK
Not my logic, yours. Your quotes, you brought up the issue and addressed it yourself.

[Webleymkv]

AZAK, you're not seeing the forest because the trees are in the way. In post # 86, you said the following

If this does not qualify as a mechanical deficiency, I would like to see your definition of the term. Works fine on all, BUT occasionally/rarely fails BUT only on these models.


You asked for my definition of mechanical deficiency so here it is: the feature consistently fails on every model it is put on. In so far as I've seen, that does not apply to the IL as it only inconsistently fails on certain models and very rarely if ever fails on others. You on the other hand seem willing to condemn the entire feature base on a few failures within a few models of S&W's line (models which have other problems endemic to them already). My logic dictates that since all the lightweight magnums seem to consistently have the same types of problems (not just the lock as I explained in post #87) that perhaps the problem is that lightweight revolvers are not well suited to magnum calibers.

[AZAK]

You on the other hand seem willing to condemn the entire feature base on a few failures within a few models of S&W's line

No. I am opposed to them being on a revolver in the first place. And agree with everyone, since not one person has stepped forward and said, "I want one."
They would never sell a single locking version. no one "wants" the lock...except for people who do not own guns or want anyone else to own them. Playboypeguin post #43

You are the one who brought "mechanical deficiency" to the table.
I have said nothing on this topic in this thread, other than to follow your logic and quotes.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
You on the other hand seem willing to condemn the entire feature base on a few failures within a few models of S&W's line

No. I am opposed to them being on a revolver in the first place.

So if they are not a mechanical deficiency or design flaw, why do you oppose them? I was led to believe that you think there is a problem with them when, in post #41, you said

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein


and in post #52, you said

The IL is an issue

again in post #64, you said

Simple for me. I don't like the lock. I don't buy the lock.

So the question remains, if they're not a mechanical deficiency, why do you oppose them?

You are the one who brought "mechanical deficiency" to the table.
I have said nothing on this topic in this thread, other than to follow your logic and quotes.


You asked me the following question in post #81

Say that the time comes that S&W introduces a lock on all models that truly offends you personally; dna, fingerprint, blood pressure, I.Q., mood ring, I really don't care, except that for whatever reason you
Quote:
genuinely dislike

it. Regardless of whether or not you are in the minority or majority, you find it a big mistake in your opinion.

What are you going to do about it?


I answered your question when I posted the following in post #85

Originally posted by AZAK

Quote:
Say that the time comes that S&W introduces a lock on all models that truly offends you personally; dna, fingerprint, blood pressure, I.Q., mood ring, I really don't care, except that for whatever reason you
Quote:
genuinely dislike

it. Regardless of whether or not you are in the minority or majority, you find it a big mistake in your opinion.

What are you going to do about it?

At that point I would no longer buy that product. However, if I refuse to do so based on a subjective dislike rather than a mechanical deficiency or design flaw, I would be sure to mention that in my posts regarding the matter (much the same as I do when commenting about how J-Frames don't fit my hands and the fact that Glocks are not asthetically appealing to me).


You then chose to question my definition of mechanical deficiency when you posted this in post #86

If this does not qualify as a mechanical deficiency, I would like to see your definition of the term. Works fine on all, BUT occasionally/rarely fails BUT only on these models.


Based on that, I conclude that you would consider a feature to be defective if it fails, even occasionally, on any of the models it is installed on. Therefore, I replied with the following in post #87

Your logic would dictate that because some S&W's crack their forcing cones (K-Frames with 125grn Magnums), they all must be poorly designed or that because some Rugers send their barrels downrange when fired (early Redhawks)

Which you took issue with in post #88. Therefore, I replied with the following in post #89

AZAK, you're not seeing the forest because the trees are in the way. In post # 86, you said the following


Quote:
If this does not qualify as a mechanical deficiency, I would like to see your definition of the term. Works fine on all, BUT occasionally/rarely fails BUT only on these models.

You asked for my definition of mechanical deficiency so here it is: the feature consistently fails on every model it is put on. In so far as I've seen, that does not apply to the IL as it only inconsistently fails on certain models and very rarely if ever fails on others. You on the other hand seem willing to condemn the entire feature base on a few failures within a few models of S&W's line (models which have other problems endemic to them already). My logic dictates that since all the lightweight magnums seem to consistently have the same types of problems (not just the lock as I explained in post #87) that perhaps the problem is that lightweight revolvers are not well suited to magnum calibers.


So, I only brought up mechanical deficiency in order to demonstrate that it is a separate issue from personal preference. You chose to take issue with my definition, so I explained it. So, if indeed you do not believe the lock is a mechanical deficiency and you dislike them for some other reason (looks, politics, etc.), that's fine. You have your opinion and I have mine and we can agree to disagree and neither on of us would be 'right' or 'wrong' as it becomes an issue of personal preference. However, if you do maintain that the lock constitutes a mechanical problem with S&W revolvers, that notion I take issue with.

[AZAK]

S&W pre-lock revolvers do not "hang up" due to the locks in IL versions, ever. (And that should be enough right there.)
The locks were not put there due to customer demand.
I have yet to hear any claim that the ILs have improved the gun world in any way.
Not one person has stepped forward and claimed that they want an IL.


In my opinion, revolvers are beautiful in the minimalistic and highly reliable nature of the design.


I don't care if it is due to mechanical deficiency or not, putting a hole and a lock on a revolver is as the old saying goes, "Like putting lipstick on a pig."

[AZAK]

Happy Trails

[akr]

SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN TWIST TWIST TWIST. I think I'm gittin plumb tard.

[Webleymkv]

S&W pre-lock revolvers do not "hang up" due to the locks in IL versions, ever. (And that should be enough right there.)


So then, you believe that the lock is a poor design that compromises the reliability of the gun, correct? As I've already illustrated, I disagree with that point based on the fact that well documented lock failures are extremely rare and that the lock is one of many small parts in a S&W that can malfunction/break and tie-up the gun.

The locks were not put there due to customer demand.

That's been established and the reasons for it explored at length.

I have yet to hear any claim that the ILs have improved the gun world in any way.

I've yet to see any hard evidence that they're a detriment to it either

Not one person has stepped forward and claimed that they want an IL.

But several of us have stepped forward and claimed that we do not oppose it.

I don't care if it is due to mechanical deficiency or not, putting a hole and a lock on a revolver is as the old saying goes, "Like putting lipstick on a pig."


So you also dislike it for asthetic reasons? At this particular juncture it simply becomes a matter of personal taste and I can just agree to disagree.

[Boats]

The last thing a Smith & Wesson revolver needs is yet another way to break or get tied up. Between the ejector rod back outs and the lost timing issues S&Ws almost uniquely present these days as Colt is out of the DA wheelgun business, one more thing to go wrong is not the design direction to follow.

Relying on an ILS so close in proximity to recoil forces to not "statistically" go wrong is foolish. The more prudent position to take on an SD revolver is to use one that entirely eliminates that possible malfunction. One less point of failure on such an antiquated design is the way to go.

[AZAK]

WARNING: NEVER RELY ON THE INTERNAL LOCK
MECHANISM AS THE SOLE METHOD TO SECURE
YOUR FIREARM FROM UNAUTHORIZED USE.

WARNING: ALWAYS RECOVER FROM A SITUATION
WHERE THE REVOLVER HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY
LOCKED WITH THE HAMMER COCKED BY FOLLOW-
ING THESE STEPS. THROUGHOUT THIS PROCEDURE, YOU
MUST TREAT THE REVOLVER AS IF IT WERE LOADED.

WARNING: NEVER ASSUME THAT THE USE OF THIS
LOCK IS SUFFICIENT TO SAFELY SECURE YOUR
FIREARM. pages 15-17 Smith & Wesson Safety & Instruction Manual Revolvers - Modern Style - Emphasis AZAK

What is the purpose of this internal lock?

Even S&W has three separate warnings in their manual concerning the fact that this lock is not fool proof and may be capable of being "incorrectly locked". Not one warning, not two warnings, but three warnings!

There were never any warnings about a pre-lock S&W revolver becoming "incorrectly locked". Because these parts can not fail since they do not exist!

So, statistically speaking one can correctly state that "post lock" S&W revolvers "hang up" due to the internal locking mechanisms at an infinite rate higher than "pre lock" S&W revolvers.

AZAKQuote:
I have yet to hear any claim that the ILs have improved the gun world in any way.
Your reply:
I've yet to see any hard evidence that they're a detriment to it either

Yet you also have stated:
Besides the rare "auto-lock"
and:
I've come to the same conclusion as you: lock-failure is much more likely in lightweight guns firing heavy recoiling loads.

I doubt that much of anything that I can present will likely change that equation.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Your argument presents that some/a small number of failures is acceptable, while I believe that the feature should not be on the revolvers in the first place as a zero failure rate is hard to improve upon.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
WARNING: NEVER RELY ON THE INTERNAL LOCK
MECHANISM AS THE SOLE METHOD TO SECURE
YOUR FIREARM FROM UNAUTHORIZED USE.


Quote:
WARNING: NEVER ASSUME THAT THE USE OF THIS
LOCK IS SUFFICIENT TO SAFELY SECURE YOUR
FIREARM.


These two warnings seem to suggest that one should not rely on the lock to prevent the gun from firing. As far as I can tell, the lock preventing the gun from firing is exactly what the lock haters dont want. So in effect, these warnings are saying that the gun may not do what you don't want it to do anyway.

Quote:
WARNING: ALWAYS RECOVER FROM A SITUATION
WHERE THE REVOLVER HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY
LOCKED WITH THE HAMMER COCKED BY FOLLOW-
ING THESE STEPS. THROUGHOUT THIS PROCEDURE, YOU
MUST TREAT THE REVOLVER AS IF IT WERE LOADED.


This is a warning about safe handling of a firearm that has been put into an unsafe condition by the user and does not prove any defect in the gun whatsoever.

Even S&W has three separate warnings in their manual concerning the fact that this lock is not fool proof and may be capable of being "incorrectly locked". Not one warning, not two warnings, but three warnings!

There were never any warnings about a pre-lock S&W revolver becoming "incorrectly locked". Because these parts can not fail since they do not exist!


So the lock is a poor design because an idiot who doesn't read the manual can use it incorrectly and have a negligent discharge after ignoring the basic rules of firearms safety? Kind of a weak argument.

So, statistically speaking one can correctly state that "post lock" S&W revolvers "hang up" due to the internal locking mechanisms at an infinite rate higher than "pre lock" S&W revolvers.


Let's see the statistics then. Pre-lock S&W's occasionally locked up too due to things like ejector rods backing out, internal parts breaking, dirty cylinders with tight barrel-to-cylinder gaps, and gas rings expanding when heated. I have yet to see any proof that S&W's are locking up at any higher rate than they did before the lock was put in them.

Your reply:

Quote:
I've yet to see any hard evidence that they're a detriment to it either

Yet you also have stated:

Quote:
Besides the rare "auto-lock"

and:

Quote:
I've come to the same conclusion as you: lock-failure is much more likely in lightweight guns firing heavy recoiling loads.

I doubt that much of anything that I can present will likely change that equation.


This has all been explained. I maintain that you will have a certain failure rate with any type of firearm regardless of whether it has a lock or not. I have yet to see evidence that S&W's failure rate is any higher now than it was before the locks became standard. Also, with regards to lightweight revolvers, as I've explained several times, I think the whole concept of a lightweight magnum is a bad idea. The still fairly rare lock malfunction is just one of the problems that such a platform presents. Thusly, I come to the conclusion that the locks on lightweight magnums arent the problem, but rather the gun the lock is attatched to is the problem.

Your argument presents that some/a small number of failures is acceptable, while I believe that the feature should not be on the revolvers in the first place as a zero failure rate is hard to improve upon.

Neither S&W nor anyone else has never had a zero failure rate, ever. Revolvers went out of time, frames were stretched and flame cut, parts broke, springs wore out, forcing cones cracked, cranes were bent, ejector rods backed out, and a few gus even blew up and it all happened before the lock became a part of the design. Undocumented internet anecdotes by anonymous posters does not prove that there is any higher rate of breakage and/or malfunctions with S&W revolvers than there was before the locks were installed.

[AZAK]

This thread is on the topic of the S&W internal lock. It did not ask for, nor did I, to discuss the other failures that occur with S&W revolvers. You continue to attempt to mix failures. You are straying off topic.

You stated:
This has all been explained. I maintain that you will have a certain failure rate with any type of firearm regardless of whether it has a lock or not. I have yet to see evidence that S&W's failure rate is any higher now than it was before the locks became standard. Also, with regards to lightweight revolvers, as I've explained several times, I think the whole concept of a lightweight magnum is a bad idea. The still fairly rare lock malfunction is just one of the problems that such a platform presents. Emphasis by AZAK

You state that the locks can/have failed. S&W has warned that the locks can be "incorrectly locked".

Just the statement by S&W, that they can mechanically be "in the wrong place at the wrong time", means that it is only a matter of time before it happens; whether by accident or accident, mechanical or individual.

And you have repeated posted here that it has happened. Yet continue to ask for "evidence" and why is it a problem, because you "have yet to see".

No lock = no locking "hang ups", no "incorrectly locked", "no hanging flags", no "locking up" problems; associated due to the IL.

You stated:
because an idiot who doesn't read the manual can

Vast differences between the internal lock section in a S&W manual and say, oh, can't find Ruger's example in a SP 101 manual (I wonder why?) except when going to their semi-auto manuals. Read one, Ruger does not even use the word, "Warning" once let alone three times concerning their internal locks. (And this is the same Ruger of the paragraph on the gun.) And Ruger uses only one page with a picture, versus S&W's three pages. And Ruger never says anything related to "incorrect locking" with the hammer back. Could be a correlation in that we do hear about S&W IL lock failures, but not Ruger's.

Neither S&W nor anyone else has never had a zero failure rate, ever.

If you read the entire section/argument, it is statistically correct. The subject is the internal lock. Zero failures of the lock, when it is not present. Infinite incident rate higher lock failures when the lock is present. One lock failure would constitute an infinite increase. And one failure is one too many.

The internal lock is a poor solution to a problem that did not exist, and created just one more new problem.

All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar

[Webleymkv]

This thread is on the topic of the S&W internal lock. It did not ask for, nor did I, to discuss the other failures that occur with S&W revolvers. You continue to attempt to mix failures. You are straying off topic.


No, you're missing my point. My point is that no one has yet presented any verifiable evidence the the overall reliability of S&W revolvers is any less now than it was before the lock.

Quote:
This has all been explained. I maintain that you will have a certain failure rate with any type of firearm regardless of whether it has a lock or not. I have yet to see evidence that S&W's failure rate is any higher now than it was before the locks became standard. Also, with regards to lightweight revolvers, as I've explained several times, I think the whole concept of a lightweight magnum is a bad idea. The still fairly rare lock malfunction is just one of the problems that such a platform presents.

Emphasis by AZAK

You state that the locks can/have failed. S&W has warned that the locks can be "incorrectly locked".

Just the statement by S&W, that they can mechanically be "in the wrong place at the wrong time", means that it is only a matter of time before it happens; whether by accident or accident, mechanical or individual.


So then, are semi-automatic handgun magazines all poor designs since "in the wrong place at the wrong time" someone could load a round into it backwards and cause their gun to jam? Operator incompetence does not prove deficiency in design.

And you have repeated posted here that it has happened. Yet continue to ask for "evidence" and why is it a problem, because you "have yet to see".

No lock = no locking "hang ups", no "incorrectly locked", "no hanging flags", no "locking up" problems; associated due to the IL.


A certain failure rate is both accepted and expected in any mechanical design. What I am trying to point out is that no one has been able to show documented evidence that "hang ups" whether due to the lock or any other component are happening at any higher, or even significantly different, rate now than before the feature was instituted.

Quote:
because an idiot who doesn't read the manual can

Vast differences between the internal lock section in a S&W manual and say, oh, can't find Ruger's example in a SP 101 manual (I wonder why?) except when going to their semi-auto manuals. Read one, Ruger does not even use the word, "Warning" once let alone three times concerning their internal locks. (And this is the same Ruger of the paragraph on the gun.) And Ruger uses only one page with a picture, versus S&W's three pages. And Ruger never says anything related to "incorrect locking" with the hammer back. Could be a correlation in that we do hear about S&W IL lock failures, but not Ruger's.


Or it could simply be that Ruger chose to run their manual by a different lawyer than S&W did. Wording in instruction manuals doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Quote:
Neither S&W nor anyone else has never had a zero failure rate, ever.

If you read the entire section/argument, it is statistically correct. The subject is the internal lock. Zero failures of the lock, when it is not present. Infinite incident rate higher lock failures when the lock is present. One lock failure would constitute an infinite increase. And one failure is one too many.


So let's see the statistics then. Better yet, lets see some statistics showing that the total number of breakages/malfunctions of S&W revolvers is greater, or significantly different, now than it was before the lock.

The internal lock is a poor solution to a problem that did not exist, and created just one more new problem.


So let's see some documentation to show how frequent this new problem is.

[AZAK]

So let's see the statistics then.

From zero to infinite. Statistically correct. Your own multiple admissions that the S&W ILs fail. If you don't believe your own "evidence" concerning the IL I am unsure what would sway you and frankly at this point don't care.

If you want to start a new thread looking for the documented differences in overall reliability of S&W pre and post lock, have at it. This would be taking into account multiple variables, and I have only addressed the one - the S&W IL on revolvers.

I will stand by my statement that:
When considering only the Smith and Wesson internal lock on revolvers it is a poor solution to a problem that does not exist, and itself does create an additional problem which did not exist before its arrival.

And further believe that any additional argumentation on this thread by me on any of your current pursuits is pointless, as I will stand behind what I have presented and let the truth of it's own merits stand alone.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
So let's see the statistics then.

From zero to infinite. Statistically correct. Your own multiple admissions that the S&W ILs fail. If you don't believe your own "evidence" concerning the IL I am unsure what would sway you and frankly at this point don't care.


OK, let me re-phrase it then. Let's see the average number of breakages/malfunctions of S&W revolvers per-year after the lock and the average number of breakages/malfunctions per-year for the same number of years immediately preceding the introduction of the lock. If the statistics are so obvious, surely it shouldn't be too hard to document.

If you want to start a new thread looking for the documented differences in overall reliability of S&W pre and post lock, have at it. This would be taking into account multiple variables, and I have only addressed the one - the S&W IL on revolvers.


What other variables are there? The basic action of S&W revolvers has remained virtually unchanged, with the exception of the lock, since the 1940's. MIM parts were in use before the lock was implemented before the lock was so that shouldn't have a great impact on the numbers. You're dodging the question.

I will stand by my statement that:
When considering only the Smith and Wesson internal lock on revolvers it is a poor solution to a problem that does not exist, and itself does create an additional problem which did not exist before its arrival.


And I will stand by my assertation:
No one has yet provided any verifiable evidence that the lock has had any significant impact on the overall quality and/or reliability of S&W revolvers as opposed to that immediately preceding their introduction.

[AZAK]

No one has yet provided any verifiable evidence that the lock has had any significant impact on the overall quality and/or reliability of S&W revolvers

So, if we assume that the numbers are the same, and you have stated that S&W ILs have failed, that would mean that the rest of the revolver has improved to make the equation balance.

Glad that S&W is improving the other variables in their revolvers!

[Webleymkv]

So, if we assume that the numbers are the same, and you have stated that S&W ILs have failed, that would mean that the rest of the revolver has improved to make the equation balance.

Glad that S&W is improving the other variables in their revolvers!


I wouldn't expect them to be exactly the same, but I'm interested to see if there's a significant difference (i.e. 5% or greater). Regardless, we won't know until you provide us the numbers.

[AZAK]

No one has yet provided any verifiable evidence that the lock has had any significant impact on the overall quality and/or reliability of S&W revolvers as opposed to that immediately preceding their introduction.

I wouldn't expect them to be exactly the same, but I'm interested to see if there's a significant difference (i.e. 5% or greater).

You sir have introduced a new proposition. The burden of proof is on your shoulders.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
I wouldn't expect them to be exactly the same, but I'm interested to see if there's a significant difference (i.e. 5% or greater).

You sir have introduced a new proposition. The burden of proof is on your shoulders.


How so? I did not make a claim with that statement.

Quote:
I wouldn't expect them to be exactly the same, but I'm interested to see if there's a significant difference (i.e. 5% or greater).


This is not an assertation of fact. I presented my expectations, but I never presented them as a proven fact (I can't, you still haven't provided me with the numbers to prove your own claim). You're still dodging the question.

[AZAK]

Point of fact, you did enter a new proposition by stating:
What I am trying to point out is that no one has been able to show documented evidence that "hang ups" whether due to the lock or any other component are happening at any higher, or even significantly different, rate now than before the feature was instituted.

Let's see the statistics then. Pre-lock S&W's occasionally locked up too due to things like ejector rods backing out, internal parts breaking, dirty cylinders with tight barrel-to-cylinder gaps, and gas rings expanding when heated. I have yet to see any proof that S&W's are locking up at any higher rate than they did before the lock was put in them.

You were provided with statistics concerning S&W IL lock failure versus no internal lock; again with your multiple admissions of lock failure.

As I have said before, if you want to explore another avenue/new proposition the burden of proof is yours.

Tu Quoque.

[Webleymkv]

You were provided with statistics concerning S&W IL lock failure versus no internal lock; again with your multiple admissions of lock failure.


That is not what I asked for. I asked for evidence of a significant impact on overall quality/reliability of S&W revolvers due to the lock. You have yet to provide the requested documentation.

As I have said before, if you want to explore another avenue/new proposition the burden of proof is yours.

Your posts regarding the internal lock and possible failures thereof suggest that they represent a significant detriment to the overall quality and/or reliability of S&W revolvers. To this end, I have asked for documentation of the supposed detriment to S&W's quality/reliability regarding their revolvers. You have yet to provide sufficient documentation other than to assert than any malfunctions at all represent an infinite increase in lock failure and therfore suggest a detriment to the quality/reliability of S&W revolvers. When I asked for concrete numbers regarding the magnitude of the detriment you suggested, you either refused or were unable to provide them. Therefore, you have thus far failed to substantiate your claim.

If I have misunderstood the implications of your posts, then please tell me: Do you believe that the internal lock represents a significant detriment to the quality and/or reliability of S&W's revolvers?

[AZAK]

Therefore, you have thus far failed to substantiate your claim.

My claim, please re-read post #101 Bolded selection, has only been supported by your multiple statements of S&W IL failure.

If you want to prove your own statement/proposition, or introduce any other, please be aware that it is your burden of proof; so please stop attempting to make it someone else's responsibility.

I too would be interested in seeing the numbers that you are seeking. Although they have nothing to do with my "claim"; which you have supported multiple times. Any other data would have to do with the other variables and the frequency of IL failure; not IL success.

It is possible that post lock S&W revolvers have an over-all same or less failure rate than S&W pre locks. If you believe that, and assert that, post that. I am merely discussing the lock itself.

I would be happy to know that S&W has improved the other variables in their revolvers. Just think that they would even be better/less failure rate with out the IL.

[Webleymkv]

So do you believe that the IL represents a significant detriment to S&W's overall quality/reliability or do you not?

If you want to prove your own statement/proposition, or introduce any other, please be aware that it is your burden of proof; so please stop attempting to make it someone else's responsibility.

I bear no burden of proof with regards to my statement in post #104, because I did not present any information as fact.

I too would be interested in seeing the numbers that you are seeking. Although they have nothing to do with my "claim"; which you have supported multiple times. Any other data would have to do with the other variables and the frequency of IL failure; not IL success.

If you are referring to my acknowledgement of a few lock failures, I have never said that the lock has not or cannot fail, anything man-made can. I have stated that I have yet to be presented with evidence that the rate of lock failure is high enough to represent a significant detriment to S&W's overall quality/reliability.

It is possible that post lock S&W revolvers have an over-all same or less failure rate than S&W pre locks. If you believe that, and assert that, post that. I am merely discussing the lock itself.


I never said one way or the other because I don't know. That's why I did not claim that the failure rate definately has not gone up but rather that no one has presented evidence that it has.

[45reloader]

Maybe you two should get a room....I'm just saying

[AZAK]

Do you believe that the internal lock represents a significant detriment to the quality and/or reliability of S&W's revolvers?

When they fail, pretty significant detriment; which they could not do if they were never installed.

No lock = no lock significant detriment possible.

[akr]

Since I don't have an ultra-light revolver, and I wouldn't shoot hot loads in one if I did, I'm not concerned with any lock failure at all.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Do you believe that the internal lock represents a significant detriment to the quality and/or reliability of S&W's revolvers?

When they fail, pretty significant detriment; which they could not do if they were never installed.

No lock = no lock significant detriment possible.


You're talking around the question. Allow me to re-phrase it to make it a bit more clear

Do you believe that the internal lock represents a significant detriment (as in a large number of failures) to the overall (as in regarding the entire line of revolvers) quality and/or reliablity of S&W revolvers (plural as in more that the possible implications of a single, hypothetical case)?

[AZAK]

You're talking around the question.

No, I am not; you just do not like my answer.

Do you believe that the internal lock represents a significant detriment (as in a large number of failures) to the overall (as in regarding the entire line of revolvers) quality and/or reliablity of S&W revolvers (plural as in more that the possible implications of a single, hypothetical case)?

If you ask the folks who have had the failures, they would probably say, "Yes".

If you ask the folks who have not had any failures, they would probably say, "No".

If you want my answer I have all along said that I believe that I am against them on principle; as they can only be viewed as a zero or a negative attribute which can only possibly fail.
Or as I put it in post #101:
When considering only the Smith and Wesson internal lock on revolvers it is a poor solution to a problem that does not exist, and itself does create an additional problem which did not exist before its arrival.

With getting closer to 1,500 views of this thread, at this point, and not one person has stepped forward and opposed what Playboypenguin said so eloquently in post #43:
They would never sell a single locking version. no one "wants" the lock...except for people who do not own guns or want anyone else to own them.
Here is a statistic for you.
The actual ratio at this moment would be 1,459:0 or 1,459:1,459 or 1:1; all depending on how you want to look at it.

If you want a "better" answer, you are just going to have to do your own research, or find someone else who has.

Or as Michael Bane (having an actual IL failure that you acknowledge and agree with) put it in post #83:
You pays your money and you takes your chances...

I pays my money on pre-lock S&W when it comes to S&W revolvers. What you do is your business, and best of luck and wishes to you...

[AZAK]

And as a side note:
SWHC is down .04 today. Closing at 2.57 or a 1.53% decrease.
And compared to their high in the last two years is down to about 11% of what it was then: an 89% loss in less than a year and a half.

While RGR is down .01 today. Closing at 6.59 or a .15% decrease.
And compared to their high in the last two years is down to about 30% of what it was then: a 70% loss in approximately the same time span. (And this includes the two new recalls that Ruger had during this time period.)

More stats to play with.

[AZAK]

And as a side side note:
When AAPL (Apple computer) announced their highest earnings quarter ever last fall, on that very same day... their stock value dropped.

Go figure.

[akr]

What you do is your business, and best of luck and wishes to you...

Wheew!!! Wow!! That's a load off of my mind since I happen to have ILs on my guns!! I'm glad to hear one of you say that it is "our business". That made my day!! WHOOPEE!!!!

[AZAK]

I'm glad to hear one of you say that it is "our business". That made my day!! WHOOPEE!!!!

My pleasure. Enjoy! I have just been defending "my business".

[Webleymkv]

No, I am not; you just do not like my answer.


Yes, you are. I asked you a question about the overall quality/reliability of S&W revolvers in general, and instead of giving a direct answer, you posited about a single, hypothetical case.

Quote:
Do you believe that the internal lock represents a significant detriment (as in a large number of failures) to the overall (as in regarding the entire line of revolvers) quality and/or reliablity of S&W revolvers (plural as in more that the possible implications of a single, hypothetical case)?

If you ask the folks who have had the failures, they would probably say, "Yes".

If you ask the folks who have not had any failures, they would probably say, "No".


But I asked you, and you still haven't given me a straight answer.

If you want my answer I have all along said that I believe that I am against them on principle; as they can only be viewed as a zero or a negative attribute which can only possibly fail.
Or as I put it in post #101:

Quote:
When considering only the Smith and Wesson internal lock on revolvers it is a poor solution to a problem that does not exist, and itself does create an additional problem which did not exist before its arrival.

With getting closer to 1,500 views of this thread, at this point, and not one person has stepped forward and opposed what Playboypenguin said so eloquently in post #43:


We've been through all this several times, and it's beside the point. You're still talking in circles around the issue.

Quote:
They would never sell a single locking version. no one "wants" the lock...except for people who do not own guns or want anyone else to own them.

Here is a statistic for you.
The actual ratio at this moment would be 1,459:0 or 1,459:1,459 or 1:1; all depending on how you want to look at it.

If you want a "better" answer, you are just going to have to do your own research, or find someone else who has.


That's nice and all, but I did not ask for statistics about who wants or does not want the lock. I asked for concrete numbers regarding actual lock failures and neither you nor anyone else has been able to provide them. More talking around the issue.

Or as Michael Bane (having an actual IL failure that you acknowledge and agree with) put it in post #83:

Quote:
You pays your money and you takes your chances...


Again, that's beside the point. Michael Bane posted his personal experience with a single incident. That alone is not substantial enough to draw sweeping conclusions about S&W's overall quality/reliability.

And as a side note:
SWHC is down .04 today. Closing at 2.57 or a 1.53% decrease.
And compared to their high in the last two years is down to about 11% of what it was then: an 89% loss in less than a year and a half.

While RGR is down .01 today. Closing at 6.59 or a .15% decrease.
And compared to their high in the last two years is down to about 30% of what it was then: a 70% loss in approximately the same time span. (And this includes the two new recalls that Ruger had during this time period.)

More stats to play with.


That's nice and all, but it really has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Stock market trends don't really prove or disprove anything about the quality of a company's product as there are too many variables that play into stock performance. Still talking around the issue. How's it go? "When you can't dazzle them with diamonds..."

And as a side side note:
When AAPL (Apple computer) announced their highest earnings quarter ever last fall, on that very same day... their stock value dropped.

Go figure.

:confused: What in the world does Apple computers have to do with S&W revolvers?

I have just been defending "my business".


If you refuse to buy IL S&W's because of looks or politics, that's fine and we'd really have nothing to argue about since it becomes a matter of pure personal preference. However, if it's because you think that S&W revolvers, in general, are of lower quality and/or less reliable than they were before the lock was instituted, that I question as no one has presented any evidence that it is true. Honestly, I don't know as you won't give a straight answer to my questions.

[AZAK]

But I asked you, and you still haven't given me a straight answer.

I have given you the best answer that I can under the circumstances. And suggested that if you want a "better" answer that you do the work yourself. Or make an assertion, proposition or start a new thread concerning your specific question.

You have repeatedly pushed, what is known in argumentation as "loaded questions" (including but not limited to) more specifically "complex loaded questions", questions demanding a direct answer from me. If I were to directly engage your "loaded questions" in the manner that they are directing, my argument can only lose credibility, while the loaded question makes it very difficult/if not impossible to answer, I have answered your questions; however, you have not agreed with the format and contents of my answers.

That is the very nature of a loaded question, and that is why anyone engaged in a debate, who recognizes this, will not engage with that tactic.

By your own argument you continue to ask "the question" and continue to berate and bemoan the fact that no one has answered it, while at the same time admitting that you have not entered any facts or assertions or propositions.

The only point that I have consistently found in your case is that, you don't know.

I have made assertions and proposition.

I will stand by my statement that:
When considering only the Smith and Wesson internal lock on revolvers it is a poor solution to a problem that does not exist, and itself does create an additional problem which did not exist before its arrival.

Both of which your very own arguments have supported multiple times.I have offered to let them stand on their own merits.

Let's look at the nature of your argument:

I never said one way or the other because I don't know.

That's why I did not claim that the failure rate definately has not gone up but rather that no one has presented evidence that it has.

because I did not present any information as fact.

That is not what I asked for.


How so? I did not make a claim with that statement.

This is not an assertation of fact.

I never presented them as a proven fact

As to your one "assertation":

And I will stand by my assertation:
No one has yet provided any verifiable evidence that the lock has had any significant impact on the overall quality and/or reliability of S&W revolvers as opposed to that immediately preceding their introduction.


You fall back into the same responsibility shift:
I wouldn't expect them to be exactly the same, but I'm interested to see if there's a significant difference (i.e. 5% or greater). Regardless, we won't know until you provide us the numbers.

I could do this all day long, and have for days. Your argument has become less than pointless in my opinion; unless you take responsibility for your "assertations".

If you can put that into an actual propositional statement, instead of claiming "victory"/bemoaning because no one has provided you with the facts to support your own "assertation", then you just may have an argument worthy of consideration. As it sits, you have an interesting question, but we all have questions.

[Playboypenguin]

It would not fall to people who do not mind the lock to prove that they are trustworthy. It would fall to those that claim they are not to prove their assertions. Since that has not even come close to being proven, despite years in action and vast numbers of revolvers sold, the default opinion would be that the locks are safe and reliable. Trying to reverse the argument is not a valid tactic.

[AZAK]

I have proven statistically and mathematically/logically that the locks are either a zero or a negative variable in this equation; and others have agreed and supported.
Please do not confuse my assertion with the different topic of over all quality. I have only dealt with the one variable, which is either a zero or a negative.

If anyone else wants to make a different assertion or proposition, as they say, "It is a a free country."

[akr]

Yeah, AZAK, but you know how people are. They have a "mob mentality".

[Playboypenguin]

I have proven statistically and mathematically/logically that the locks are either a zero or a negative variable in this equation; and others have agreed and supported.
Haha...no, you haven't. You cannot mathematically prove a negative such as this. Your only hope would be to prove that it IS a factor in reliability. Lack of evidence to that fact would reinforce the belief that it is not a factor but does not "prove" anything. You are deluding yourself with a misunderstanding of how things work. You are also being pretty naive if you think you even have half of the information necessary to reach such a conclusion in the first place.

A lack of supporting evidence does not make a killer an innocent man, it just makes his guilt unproven. He still committed the crime. he just cannot be punished. That is how things work. You do not prove innocence, the other side has to prove guilt. The same reasons for that process apply here.

As it stands, there is no substantial weight of evidence to prove the locks are a factor in performance or reliability. Therefore, by default, their performance is not a factor until proven otherwise. They are not proven safe, they simply have survived the burden of proof for now. Most likely because they function fine, but it could be simple circumstance also.

[Webleymkv]

Whether you are willing to come out and say it or not, the tone of your posts suggest that the IL represents a significant detriment to S&W quality/reliability. This is the whole notion that I've taken issue with. In most areas where debate takes place, a phenomenon is not considered to be true until evidence can be supported to prove it (ex. innocent until proven guilty, scientific theory v. scientific law). My only assertation is that those who claim that the IL malfunctions at a high enough rate to represent a significant impact on S&W's quality/reliability have not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim. Asking me to prove this assertation is, in effect, stating that their unsupported claims are true until I can prove them to be false. In the art of debate, this tactic is known as an "appeal to ignorance" and is commonly recognized as a fallacy. With regards to your accusations of me asking "loaded questions," a loaded question is one that's only possible answers would be self-incriminating. Answering my question with "no" would imply that you dislike the lock out of personal preference for reasons such as asthetics or politics. This answer would negate our reason to debate further because there are no "right" or "wrong" opinions. If the IL does represent a significant detriment to S&W's quality/reliability and if it can be adaquately documented, then answering "yes" would not be self-incriminating. However, your refusal to answer my question seems to suggest that you cannot answer "yes" and provide sufficient documentation.

[AZAK]

Haha...no, you haven't. You cannot mathematically prove a negative such as this.

O + L = R

O = any/all other variables
L = Internal lock
R = reliability

If even one documented and accepted lock failure occurs, and more have been acknowledged and accepted as the premise that the locks can and do fail, then L is a negative number. (And not one claim of the IL improving itself, quite the opposite, with out the lock the lock can not fail; therefore impossible for L to be a positive number.)

You yourself help to support and reinforce this concept with your now infamous quote.

You are free to argue for your limitations, and do not be surprised when you achieve them.

If on the other hand you, or anyone else wishes to make a proposition, instead of just playing slight of hand with responsibility, please feel free to do so and defend at your own risk.

[Gaxicus]

Dont mean to interrupt, but I havent had a failure of the ILS on any of my S&W revolvers. Lots of use but no problems.

Not sure I like how S&W handled themselves politically but they still make my favorite revolver.

My newest does have a recall notice on it though......LOL

[AZAK]

My only assertation

The word is assertion. And I would be more than happy to consider any propositions that you may wish to enter. Otherwise it is but opinion and questions.

[Webleymkv]

The word is assertion. And I would be more than happy to consider any propositions that you may wish to enter. Otherwise it is but opinion and questions.

So do you refute that there are very few documented cases of lock failure? In my own research on the topic, I've only been able to find one (it was a piece in American Handgunner by Massad Ayoob). There are exactly two undocumented cases that I consider to be from reliable sources (Michael Bane and Socrates to be exact). The rest, without documentation, is nothing more than anonymous internet anecdotes. Three verified cases out of thousands of IL equipped S&W revolvers does not make a convincing argument. The statement that sufficient documentation is not there is the only "proposition" that I have made. You then state that I bear the burden of proof regarding this "proposition." That is analagous to insisting that someone prove that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist: the proof lies in the fact that no one seems to be able to find it and document it.

Also, dictionary.com states the following:
Main Entry: assertation
Part of Speech: n
Definition: an assertion, statement of opinion
Example: We were bewildered at his assertation that the economy is thriving.

[akr]

Big Foot lives everywhere. Everyone's seen him. He lives in Oklahoma, Georgia, Michigan. He's either got sore feet or he hitch-hikes....reminds me of them thar lock problems.

[AZAK]

I am tired of your opinion and speculation. I don't care who you believe or don't, that is not the issue.

You stated:
The statement that sufficient documentation is not there is the only "proposition" that I have made

You have failed to introduce what I would consider a proposition, if you claim that your "proposition" is indeed that, then the same argument that you are attempting to use against me can be used against you. You are determining in your opinion just what constitutes "sufficient" and "documentation". I am tired of this slight of hand.

Again, the few people that you personally agree with concerning "actual" IL failures, who also happen to be pillars in the gun world, are just that: people whose opinions you agree with. You are determining the criteria for who and what to believe. And again it is still opinion. (And their opinion further supports my claim.)

Look at the math/logic and tell me that the Internal Lock itself can in any way be viewed as a positive attribute when considering S&W revolver reliability; especially in light of all of the previous posts on this thread, yours included.

If you disagree with my bolded assertion in post #101, or my math, please show how they are incorrect.

You stated:
That is analagous to insisting that someone prove that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist

Well, you have not only acknowledged that the IL failure exists, you have provided all of us with four examples.

Idleness and pride tax with a heavier hand than kings and parliaments. If we can get rid of the former, we may easily bear the latter.
Benjamin Franklin

[Webleymkv]

You stated:

Quote:
The statement that sufficient documentation is not there is the only "proposition" that I have made

You have failed to introduce what I would consider a proposition, if you claim that your "proposition" is indeed that, then the same argument that you are attempting to use against me can be used against you. You are determining in your opinion just what constitutes "sufficient" and "documentation". I am tired of this slight of hand.


What is the proposition that I bear a burden of proof regarding then? You speak of slight of hand, yet you refuse to back up your own claims, refuse to answer direct questions, and fall back on exactly three credible case out of thousands of revolvers (a small fraction of a percentage) as proof that the IL represents a significant detriment to the reliability of an entire product line. You are dodging the issue because you cannot prove your position.

Again, the few people that you personally agree with concerning "actual" IL failures, who also happen to be pillars in the gun world, are just that: people whose opinions you agree with. You are determining the criteria for who and what to believe. And again it is still opinion. (And their opinion further supports my claim.)


A lock-failure is not an opinion, it either happens or it does not. While I consider these three people to be credible sources, three cases out of thousands of revolvers is not significant. There are many other "pillars of the gun world" such as Charles E Petty, John Taffin, Mike Venturo, and Clint Smith that have either publicly defended the lock or at least continue to buy and endorse revolvers equipped with it.

Look at the math/logic and tell me that the Internal Lock itself can in any way be viewed as a positive attribute when considering S&W revolver reliability; especially in light of all of the previous posts on this thread, yours included.


You're dodging again (this time by trying to change the subject of the debate). Whether or not the lock is a benefit is not what I'm debating. I'm debating the notion that so few documented cases represent legitimate evidence of a detriment to S&W's quality/reliability. No one seems to be able to prove that a statistically significant number of IL equipped revolvers fail.

[Playboypenguin]

Webleymkv,

You should just save your breath...or at least wear on your typing fingers. He is showing through his comments that he is either unable or unwilling to understand the logic behind the "burden of proof" concept. Nor does he understand simple mathematic principle. :)

[Quincunx]

I don't think I've seen this issue addressed before, but here goes. Suppose the People's Front of Maryland (or some similar group) came to power and decided that henceforth only handguns with locks could exist in that state (new or not). Could the locks be retrofitted into existing S&W revolvers? If so, to me that would be another good reason to dislike the locks. My S&W's are pre-lock, and I don't personally care for the lock, but at the same time I wouldn't want to deny it to someone who truly wanted it. However, if some politicians wanted to forcibly equip my firearms with it, I'd become extremely agitated.

[Webleymkv]

Just for clarification, when I use the phrase "statistically significant," I mean the percentage of lock equipped revolvers that fail.

[AZAK]

He is showing through his comments that he is either unable or unwilling to understand the logic behind the "burden of proof" concept. Nor does he understand simple mathematic principle.

I take offense to that comment, personal offense. You have yet to provide any such substantiation that my math is incorrect. And I have yet to see a proposition introduced, well maybe something about Nessie that kind of did not quite go the way it was intended.

PBP - I am disappointed and dismayed that you have gone to personal attacks.

Make a proposition, if you care, and stop libeling others.

[Webleymkv]

I don't think I've seen this issue addressed before, but here goes. Suppose the People's Front of Maryland (or some similar group) came to power and decided that henceforth only handguns with locks could exist in that state (new or not). Could the locks be retrofitted into existing S&W revolvers? If so, to me that would be another good reason to dislike the locks. My S&W's are pre-lock, and I don't personally care for the lock, but at the same time I wouldn't want to deny it to someone who truly wanted it. However, if some politicians wanted to forcibly equip my firearms with it, I'd become extremely agitated.

While a lock could possibly be installed on a pre-lock gun, the cost to do so would likely be so high that it would simply be easier and less expensive to just buy a revolver with the lock already equipped. This isn't something I'd worry too much about as most if not all gun laws of that nature have some sort of grandfather clause built in so that it does not affect guns owned before the law's inaction.

[AZAK]

You stated:
Whether or not the lock is a benefit is not what I'm debating.
O.K. that is pretty much the proposition that I introduced in post #101; and have been discussing as my topic for pretty much all of my involvement in this thread.

So, if you are not discussing the lock, we have no conflicts.
Have a nice day!!!

[Playboypenguin]

I take offense to that comment, personal offense. You have yet to provide any such substantiation that my math is incorrect. And I have yet to see a proposition introduced, well maybe something about Nessie that kind of did not quite go the way it was intended.

PBP - I am disappointed and dismayed that you have gone to personal attacks.

It is not an attack, it is merely a statement of fact. You are both philosophically and statistically in error in the way you are approaching the topic. You are refusing to see that even after it is being pointed out to you. If you decided to take such statements personally and be offended I have no control over that fact.

[akr]

PBP - I am disappointed and dismayed that you have gone to personal attacks.

Huh? What? :eek:

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
He is showing through his comments that he is either unable or unwilling to understand the logic behind the "burden of proof" concept. Nor does he understand simple mathematic principle.

I take offense to that comment, personal offense. You have yet to provide any such substantiation that my math is incorrect. And I have yet to see a proposition introduced, well maybe something about Nessie that kind of did not quite go the way it was intended.

PBP - I am disappointed and dismayed that you have gone to personal attacks.


I don't think PBP is questioning your calculations, but rather your application of math. As I've explained at length, you continue to talk around or dodge the issue by modifying my questions in order to give an answer that supports your position rather than simply giving a straight answer. You refuse to even clearly state your position on the impact, if any, on the overall quality/reliability of S&W products. In the spirit of setting a good example, this is my position:

Based on the fact that the vast majority of people who report internal lock failure on S&W revolvers are either unable or unwilling to provide documentation of said incidents, I conclude that internal lock failure is an extremely rare occurence. Furthermore, given the very small number of credible reports of lock failure when contrasted with the number of internal lock equipped revolvers produced, I do not believe that the internal lock creates a large enough reliability concern to be significant.

I have now clearly stated my position and the reasons for it. Also, I have provided you with the results of my research on this subject in previous posts. If you disagree with this position, I invite you to state your own and provide us with the sources that brought you to your conclusions.

[Playboypenguin]

I don't think PBP is questioning your calculations, but rather your application of math
Precisely...anyone can place numbers on a page and make them add up. It is understanding what those numbers really mean that is the tricky part. In cases such as this, you cannot prove that the IL is not a factor because you do not have absolute numbers. You could easily prove that they are a factor by providing case studies of guns that are identical in every other way and undergo the same stresses if the ones with locks have a substantially higher failure rate and if those failures are involving the lock itself (even then other factors would need to be considered which may have effected the locks). Those numbers are not available or do not exist so nothing is proven or disproven about the IL's. Therefore the default position would be one of they have not shown to be a substantial risk.

The math being used by AZAK has way too many variables that are not being represented in his equation.

AZAK, present your formula in it's basic form and then maybe it will help if we simply address the equation and point out to you where you are missing components.

[dgludwig]

Liability considerations cannot be a major reason for putting the locks in the guns, especially because, a few years ago Congress passed a law effectively immunizing firearms manufacturers from product liability suits.

How I wish this were so. But, as Legal Newsline reported: " The state's high court (the Indiana Supreme Court), in giving the case (a decade-old lawsuit against gun manufacturers by the city of Gary) a green light, rejected claims by gun makers that federal law shields them from liability for irresponsible sales practices that may put guns in the hands of criminals...A state Court of Appeals held in October 2007 that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed by Congress in 2005, does not protect gun manufaturers from liability for sales practices that knowingly violate the state's laws. The 3-0 appeals court ruling found that gun makers have no immunity in the case because the gun makers violated laws on the sale and marketing of firearms."

There's just no accounting for judicial activism; activist judges who routinely circumvent the will of the people by rendering their own leftist interpretations of the law. The infamous lock is the result of fear of adverse litigation and for that reason alone, don't expect it to go away any time soon.

[Webleymkv]

To put things in perspective, S&W manufactured over 172,000 revolvers in 2005 alone. The three credible lock failures that I've found would constitute roughly 0.00058% of the S&W's total revolver production for 2005 alone.

http://www.shootingindustry.com/Pages/SpecRep4.html#revolver

[BillCA]

I'm going to chime in here and hopefully keep this thread from being a closed-argument between about 3 or four people about who said what.

The real question is, for a company mass producing hundreds of thousands of different items per year, what is an acceptable rate of functional defects? For the firearms industry, what is the acceptable rate?

It's long been known in quality circles that where it may cost you $20/item to hit a 94% satisfaction rate, it will cost you $25/item to hit 95%, $50/item to hit 97% and $200/item to hit 99%. But almost no amount of money will get you to a 100% (functional) satisfaction level.

In other words, as you go beyond a certain reliabilty percentage, it costs you much more to get one more percentage point. When the cost becomes prohibitive to your market position, it is not worth the expense of 2% or 3% more reliability.

So, in manufacturing, we can expect as much as 5-6% of products to show some functional defect that slips past QA. Firearms are not very complex systems and they generally work more reliably than more complex systems like an HDTV. But what failure rate is most likely acceptable in the gun industry? To each of us, zero is the answer, but since few of us will buy 100 or 1000 guns, if the answer is 3% only three of every 100 buyers will ever see a problem of any kind.

S&W produced 310,202 handguns in 2005. Roughly 172,000 of those were revolvers.

Here's the quantity of failures at different rates.
All handguns ..... Revolvers
5% - 15,510 ...... 8,600
4% - 12,408 ...... 6,880
3% - 9,306 ........ 5,160
2% - 6,204 ........ 3,440
1% - 3,102 ........ 1,720
This would be functional failures of all types, not just locks.

There was someone on S&W forum who had tried to document lock failures and had accumulated 512 reports, mostly on lightweight Scanidum framed guns. But those reports were scattered over at least 3 years. Quality of his process was a bit spotty, but over a 3 year period that amounts to 171 per year.

Even if we double that number, that's still only 0.11% of the total production or 0.19% of revolver production. You'd have to quadruple that number (2048) to get over 1% of revolvers to have a lock failure.

Or to look at it from S&W's perspective, that's 99.98% perfect.

Of course, I am making some assumptions. For instance, we don't know exactly how many revolvers need service for a "lock problem". Nor do we know which types of revolvers are most prone to the problem. Like most companies, their failure information is proprietary and closely guarded.

For those of you who argue that anything less than 100% is not acceptable, let me say this. You are generally talking about a statistical universe of one (1) - your gun. You have a 95% or better chance your gun will be 100%. In terms of only the lock, that's close to 99.98% (between 99% to 99.98%). If you argue that only 100% should be reliable out of the factory, please go away and learn about mass manufacturing processes.

For those who argue that it's "something extra to go wrong", I'll agree. Any time you add function to a product you run the risk of adding something that can break or be out of tolerance. But that argument does not necessarily mean that the "extra" parts will fail more often than any other part. No doubt someone's great grandfather said the extra parts in a Colt Double Action revolver made it more likely to fail as an excuse to stick with his SAA revolver. Yet the DA revolver is much more reliable in use than many semi-auto pistols, but people depend on their bottom feeders every day.

Not many people who are avid shooters like the lock. Either it represents the S&W (British) capitulation to the Clinton agreement or it is simply unnecessary and unsightly. For a small segment of the market there is a legitimate concern about safety (the first time/single-gun owner with children) even though other security methods are available. Like others, I suspect that if the lock was "optional" few guns would be sold with it.

[AZAK]

You stated:
In the spirit of setting a good example, this is my position:

Based on the fact that the vast majority of people who report internal lock failure on S&W revolvers are either unable or unwilling to provide documentation of said incidents, I conclude that internal lock failure is an extremely rare occurence. Furthermore, given the very small number of credible reports of lock failure when contrasted with the number of internal lock equipped revolvers produced, I do not believe that the internal lock creates a large enough reliability concern to be significant.

You also added:
I invite you to state your own

Let me help you clarify:
Based on all available data concerning the failure rate of the Internal Locks in Smith and Wesson Internal Lock revolvers, the estimated failure rate is statistically insignificant.

So, Webleymkv - do you agree with my clarification?

However, if you re-read all of my posts in this thread, the above statement is 100% consistent with everything that I have previously presented and this does nothing to alter my statement from post #101:
When considering only the Smith and Wesson internal lock on revolvers it is a poor solution to a problem that does not exist, and itself does create an additional problem which did not exist before its arrival.

What say you?

[AZAK]

In light of what you stated earlier in this thread:
They know their case is weak at best so they get all defensive and start bullying at the first sign of anyone wanting a straight story.post #43

I invite you to revisit some of your other posts in this thread:
You should just save your breath...or at least wear on your typing fingers. He is showing through his comments that he is either unable or unwilling to understand the logic behind the "burden of proof" concept. Nor does he understand simple mathematic principle. post #134

Everything you have posted in conjecture and posturing. Asking for credible evidence and pointing out the lack thereof is not unfair. Trying to circumvent the discussion with bluster and innuendo is weak.post #37

I do have issue with the bullying tactics of people who try to further their illegitimate agenda. It all comes down to put up or shut up.post #37


Mec,

You must have never sent a S&W back for repairs. They come back with a very detailed list of every thing done to them and not done to them.

You think a blog is a credible source?post #70

Haha...no, you haven't. You cannot mathematically prove a negative such as this. Your only hope would be to prove that it IS a factor in reliability. Lack of evidence to that fact would reinforce the belief that it is not a factor but does not "prove" anything. You are deluding yourself with a misunderstanding of how things work. You are also being pretty naive if you think you even have half of the information necessary to reach such a conclusion in the first place.post #125

I invite you, and any one else, to re-read these posts in context and observe for yourself/themselves what you/they see.

As only a few of these were directed at me and/or my argument personally, to which I replied:
I take offense to that comment, personal offense. You have yet to provide any such substantiation that my math is incorrect.post #137

To which you replied in post #140:
It is not an attack, it is merely a statement of fact. You are both philosophically and statistically in error in the way you are approaching the topic. You are refusing to see that even after it is being pointed out to you. If you decided to take such statements personally and be offended I have no control over that fact.
(All of the above emphasis by AZAK)

PBP - If you continue to uphold that it is, "merely a statement of fact" I invite you to contact the head of any Math Department at a major accredited college or university and ask them to evaluate this proof. Or a professional educator with years of advanced Physics/Engineering/logic experience.

Or feel free to consult a professional educator with years instructing advanced debate and also debate team coaching experience. Invite then to read this thread in its entirety. (They are likely among the most experienced in this arena.) Then ask them for their professional opinion.

I am confident that you will not find many, in this position, to say that this proof is ultimately false. And even if you do manage to somehow find one, or choose to forego the above mentioned options, your lack of personally providing this proof prior to, or at the same time as, making the above statements concerning me and/or my argument, says little positive about your argument's credibility in my opinion.

[Socrates]

Don't care about stats. Simple fact: my 360PD locked up dry firing, after maybe 3000 trigger pulls.

Nearly a 1000 bucks, for a POS that has no need for the lock.

[Wuchak]

...Just for clarification, when I use the phrase "statistically significant," I mean the percentage of lock equipped revolvers that fail...

One failure is statistically significant for a device like this. The purported value is that the owner can lock their gun but we have no proof they will use this anymore than regular trigger lock, nor that this is any more effective. So the number of additional accidents avoided by having the lock = zero. However if some needs the gun for self defense and the lock fails their chances of death are greatly increased. Not exactly a good trade-off. As soon as there was a single reported failure they should have dropped the idea.

It's a point of failure that didn't exist before and it's a very poorly designed mechanism. It should never have been designed to rotate on the same plane as the firearm recoils. If they had to include one they should have licensed Taurus' lock which works perpendicular to the recoil plane. As a bonus it also doesn't require an extra hole in the frame. They could also have modified the design of the one they used to require 2 discrete actions to lock it e.g. push in and turn, instead of just turn.

A S&W with a lock is a like a Playboy Bunny with clothes on. Neither looks as good and their ability to perform their most important function has been compromised.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by AZAK
You also added:

Quote:
I invite you to state your own

Let me help you clarify:
Based on all available data concerning the failure rate of the Internal Locks in Smith and Wesson Internal Lock revolvers, the estimated failure rate is statistically insignificant.

So, Webleymkv - do you agree with my clarification?


That is the point that I've been trying to make all along

However, if you re-read all of my posts in this thread, the above statement is 100% consistent with everything that I have previously presented and this does nothing to alter my statement from post #101:

Quote:
When considering only the Smith and Wesson internal lock on revolvers it is a poor solution to a problem that does not exist, and itself does create an additional problem which did not exist before its arrival.

What say you?


I say that your statements regarding the lock creating an additional problem, along with your statement that the lock failure rate is infinately higer are, whether intentionally or not, misleading to someone who has not been presented with all the facts. This is my whole point in this thread, if someone doesn't like the lock and doesn't want to buy a revolver equipped with it then that's fine as it matters very little to me. However, if you choose to post such information, it should be qualified with the fact that statistically, lock failure is a very, very rare occurence. Otherwise, posts of this nature are misleading as they suggest that IL equipped S&W revolvers are generally unreliable (whether that is the poster's intention or not) and thusly prevents someone unfamiliar with S&W products from making a well-informed decision. As I've stated before, the issue is a mole-hill that's been made into a mountain. My issue with your posts in this thread is that rather than simply qualify your statements to make it clear that your dislike for the lock comes primarily from personal preference (at which point we would have nothing to argue), you instead chose to talk around my questions and refused to clearly state your position. As your position has been clarified to the point that we now have a simple difference of personal preferences, we no longer have an issue to debate. Please have a nice day and enjoy your pre-lock revolvers (which are also fine firearms).

Originally posted by Socrates
Don't care about stats. Simple fact: my 360PD locked up dry firing, after maybe 3000 trigger pulls.

Nearly a 1000 bucks, for a POS that has no need for the lock.


While I don't doubt your honesty in this matter (point of fact you are one of the three credible lock failures I mentioned earlier), I would suggest that perhaps you were just unlucky enough to get one of the fraction of a percentage of S&W revolvers that happens to be a lemon (I'm even more inclined to think this because, as I recall, the lock failure was not the only issue you had with your revolver). I'm a bit rusty as to the details of your experience with your 360, did you return it to S&W for repair or take it to a private gunsmith (I know that you've since removed the lock)?

Originally posted by Wuchak
One failure is statistically significant for a device like this.

However if some needs the gun for self defense and the lock fails their chances of death are greatly increased. Not exactly a good trade-off. As soon as there was a single reported failure they should have dropped the idea.


Please carefully read BillCa's comments in post #146, specifically these two passages:

For those of you who argue that anything less than 100% is not acceptable, let me say this. You are generally talking about a statistical universe of one (1) - your gun. You have a 95% or better chance your gun will be 100%. In terms of only the lock, that's close to 99.98% (between 99% to 99.98%). If you argue that only 100% should be reliable out of the factory, please go away and learn about mass manufacturing processes.


For those who argue that it's "something extra to go wrong", I'll agree. Any time you add function to a product you run the risk of adding something that can break or be out of tolerance. But that argument does not necessarily mean that the "extra" parts will fail more often than any other part. No doubt someone's great grandfather said the extra parts in a Colt Double Action revolver made it more likely to fail as an excuse to stick with his SAA revolver. Yet the DA revolver is much more reliable in use than many semi-auto pistols, but people depend on their bottom feeders every day.

The chances of having a lock failure at all are extremely small, combine that with the fact that the chances of actually having to fire a firearm in self-defense are also quite slim, and we see that the chances of having a lock failure during a self-defense situation are so incredibly small that they are insignificant. The tone of your post suggests that lock failure, particularly in a self-defense situation, is much more likely than it actually is.

[akr]

The chances of having a lock failure at all are extremely small, combine that with the fact that the chances of actually having to fire a firearm in self-defense are also quite slim, and we see that the chances of having a lock failure during a self-defense situation are so incredibly small that they are insignificant.

+ 1,000,000!!! :cool:

[akr]

A S&W with a lock is a like a Playboy Bunny with clothes on. Neither looks as good and their ability to perform their most import function has been compromised.

The Playboy Bunny with clothes on looks alot classier, and I would say that her most important function would be using her personality rather than using her private part.

[Wuchak]

The Playboy Bunny with clothes on looks alot classier, and I would say that her most important function would be using her personality rather than using her private part.

As a woman yes, as a Bunny no. The entire job of a Bunny is to be beautiful naked. Doesn't matter if they have a doctorate degree or are dumb a box of rocks, or if they are sweet or the biggest you know what to come along. It also helps get the Bunny job if they are good at pretending 80 year old guys turn them on.

[AZAK]

For a device which should not be there in the first place, see post #101 bolded section, and which "no one 'wants' " it, I agree with your statement:
The chances of having a lock failure at all are extremely small, combine that with the fact that the chances of actually having to fire a firearm in self-defense are also quite slim, and we see that the chances of having a lock failure during a self-defense situation are so incredibly small that they are insignificant., while at the same time completely agreeing with Socrates:
Don't care about stats. Simple fact: my 360PD locked up dry firing, after maybe 3000 trigger pulls.

Nearly a 1000 bucks, for a POS that has no need for the lock.
As long as we acknowledge that it would indeed be a bad day/hence significant at the time to be that one in a million/"statistically insignificant" or whatever number, to have your IL "auto-lock" when attempting to use it in self-defense. (Which would never happen if it were not there in the first place.)

Maybe one lesson that can be taken from all of this is a reinforcement of first shot placement accuracy!

[Playboypenguin]

Wow AZAK,

Your last response to me sure was a very long winded way of saying absolutely nothing and making no point what-so-ever. I am starting to think Webleymkv is right. All you do is dance around the topic and try to confuse the issue with endless blather.

I asked you to present your formula for "proving" your conclusion. I will ask you to do so again. It only takes one small sentence.

[akr]

It also helps if they are good at pretending 80 year old guys turn them on.

Where can I find one? :D Now, let's get back on topic. ;)

[AZAK]

Wow AZAK,

Your last response to me sure was a very long winded way of saying absolutely nothing and making no point what-so-ever. I am starting to think Webleymkv is right. All you do is dance around the topic and try to confuse the issue with endless blather.

Maybe you should ask him?

I asked you to present your formula for "proving" your conclusion. I will ask you to do so again. It only takes one small sentence.

Small sentence: post #127.

[Playboypenguin]

Maybe you should ask him?
No, he is not involved in this thread and claiming that proof was given for this hypothesis. I am asking you. After all, you are the one that made this statement.
I have proven statistically and mathematically/logically that the locks are either a zero or a negative variable in this equation

[Webleymkv]

I don't understand why the two of you continue to debate. It would seem as though we've all reached the consensus that lock failure is rare enough that it does not represent a significant impact to the overall reliability of S&W revolvers. Thusly, AZAK has chosen to refrain from purchasing post-lock revolvers based on his own personal preferences, while Playboypenguin is not bothered by it and continues to buy new S&W products. Since, at this point, both positions boil down to a matter of personal opinion, it is pointless to continue to debate as it is impossible for one of you to prove the other to be "wrong." AZAK's calculations are mathematically correct, however the variables that he chose to plug into his formula made the result unrelated to the discussion at hand at the time. Regardless, that whole issue has already been addressed by myself and others.

[Playboypenguin]

I don't understand why the two of you continue to debate. It would seem as though we've all reached the consensus that lock failure is rare enough that it does not represent a significant impact to the overall reliability of S&W revolvers.
When I made that statement he chose to chime in that he had "proven" the point already and that I was confusing people. I am simply asking him to support his own statement. If he is so certain in his figures that he can shout down others, he can surely post his equation. If he had stayed in the realm of opinion that would be one thing, but he is using misleading math instead to try and create false certainty.

[Webleymkv]

Very well then, debate away.:)

[akr]

Now you owe PBP a favor. LOL

[AZAK]

You stated in post #161:
I am simply asking him to support his own statement.

Since it is obvious from your above request (considering chronology) that you have chosen to not read and/or follow what began in post #101 and was referenced again and again and again in posts #s 127, 148, and 158 I will attempt to make it very simple for you; this one last time (And please do feel free to re-read the above posts if it will help with clarity):

O + L = R

O = any/all other variables
L = Internal lock
R = reliability

The nature and observable purpose of its (the Internal Lock or IL) design and function (the stated purpose in the instruction manual Smith & Wesson Safety & Instruction Manual
Revolvers
- Modern Style - page 14) is given as:
This feature prevents hammer
and trigger motion when locked.
The same instruction manual (page 15) also contains additional "Warning" that the Internal Lock is capable of being "incorrectly locked":
WARNING: ALWAYS RECOVER FROM A SITUATION
WHERE THE REVOLVER HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY
LOCKED
thus, acknowledging the possibility of Internal Lock failure by the manufacturer; i.e. failing in working to its intended purpose. (Therefore the need of a warning.)

The manufacturer has made no/zero claim that the Internal Lock can/has/will improve the reliability of the revolver. And

no one, as in:
no one "wants" the lockpost #43 by Playboypenguin

or anyone else, has stepped forward claiming that the Internal Lock can/has/will improved the reliability of the Smith & Wesson revolver; or to take a small sampling of reputedly gun interested parties and enthusiasts with some "antis" occasionally sprinkled into the mix, 0 claims of the Internal Lock being a positive component in the Smith & Wesson revolver reliability out of 1,971 views at present.

Per its (the IL) stated purpose/definition was not charged to maintain, improve or enhance reliability.

There have been reported and acknowledged and accepted reports of Internal Lock failures on this forum.


L can not equal a positive number.
0 claims of the IL being a positive contributer to reliability.

L can not equal zero.
As some accepted failures exist the IL would be a detriment to reliability.

L can be a negative number.
Failures would determine L to be a negative effect on reliability.

Therefore:
L is limited to being a real number less than zero.

[Socrates]

While I don't doubt your honesty in this matter (point of fact you are one of the three credible lock failures I mentioned earlier), I would suggest that perhaps you were just unlucky enough to get one of the fraction of a percentage of S&W revolvers that happens to be a lemon (I'm even more inclined to think this because, as I recall, the lock failure was not the only issue you had with your revolver). I'm a bit rusty as to the details of your experience with your 360, did you return it to S&W for repair or take it to a private gunsmith (I know that you've since removed the lock)?

Webleymkv:

My gun a lemon? Don't know about that. I just think S&@
probably doesn't want you to know how many of their guns really do lockup, thanks to the auto-lock.

As for returning it to S&@: I asked for a full refund, and, if they had responded, I would happily have taken my money back. They did not, so I figure why bother sending it back to S&@ for some minimum wage, apprentice gunsmith to 'fix' the lock? I had it removed.
It creates a bit of a weird, side play in the trigger, and different takeup, but, the gun has been 100% reliable since.

So far, it has a place as a pocket gun. It's small enough and light enough to throw in sweatpants without being noticed, and, it does fire 148 grains at 1131 fps.

[Playboypenguin]

O + L = R

O = any/all other variables
L = Internal lock
R = reliability
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...are you kidding me???? That shows absolutely nothing. That is not a mathematic formula that shows anything. You are speculating. You are making numbers out of nothing. You are just saying it either can or cannot be a factor in quality. That answers no questions and does not yield a mathematically quantifiable result. It was good for a laugh though.

You are completely forgetting to take into account how many guns per 1000 failed BEFORE the locks were installed. You would have to take that number into account along with the number of guns that failed after to even follow your own trail of pseudo-math to a semi-logical conclusion.

[AZAK]

You stated:
You are completely forgetting to take into account how many guns per 1000 failed BEFORE the locks were installed. You would have to take that number into account along with the number of guns that failed after to even follow your own trail of pseudo-math to a semi-logical conclusion.

I was not discussing pre-lock revolvers as a variable, or as part of the equation at all. I was discussing the variable of the post-lock/"modern" S&W revolver's Internal Lock.
I also stated (when considering post-lock):
O = any/all other variables

You have also so eloquently stated:
They know their case is weak at best so they get all defensive and start bullying

And yet stated:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...are you kidding me???? That shows absolutely nothing. That is not a mathematic formula that shows anything. You are speculating. You are making numbers out of nothing. You are just saying it either can or cannot be a factor in quality. That answers no questions and does not yield a mathematically quantifiable result. It was good for a laugh though.
I will reiterate:
You are free to argue for your limitations, and do not be surprised when you achieve them.

[Playboypenguin]

You can't have a valid formula that yields any relative or usable data with a numerical unknown. You have to be able to deduce the value of "o" for the equation to be applicable in a situation such as this. You cannot do that in this case. With an unknown factor it is still just an "it is or it isn't" answer. You are also failing to recognize that it can indeed be a positive. If guns fail less now that the locks are installed, it can be argues that they have an overall positive effect on the guns function...even if just a secondary one. Such as, the relief cut in the aluminum somehow increased it's function. You are completely leaving that out of your formula. Your scope is way to narrow and limited.

[AZAK]

You state:
You have to be able to deduce the value of "o" for the equation to be applicable in a situation such as this.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - William Shakespeare

I leave my statements to stand alone on their own merit. And still invite you to have them evaluated by a professional: (post #148)
PBP - If you continue to uphold that it is, "merely a statement of fact" I invite you to contact the head of any Math Department at a major accredited college or university and ask them to evaluate this proof. Or a professional educator with years of advanced Physics/Engineering/logic experience.

Or feel free to consult a professional educator with years instructing advanced debate and also debate team coaching experience. Invite then to read this thread in its entirety. (They are likely among the most experienced in this arena.) Then ask them for their professional opinion.

I am confident that you will not find many, in this position, to say that this proof is ultimately false. And even if you do manage to somehow find one, or choose to forego the above mentioned options, your lack of personally providing this proof prior to, or at the same time as, making the above statements concerning me and/or my argument, says little positive about your argument's credibility in my opinion.
Have a nice day!

[Model-P]

From way back on page one:

I recently bought a used 642-2 also. I spoke with a rep in the Tech Dept @ Smith regarding this very issue and he said, "There has never been one instance of a IL failure on any "airweight" model, if there had been you can bet there would have been a recall".

The way I am reading this, I wouldn't question the S&W Tech's statement as being false. Here's why:

After having read through seven pages of this thread, one thing is painfully clear (at least to me). TERMS HAVE NOT BEEN CORRECTLY DEFINED.

What is "lock failure"? Wouldn't the logical definition be a failure of a lock to properly perform it's intended purpose?

What is the intended purpose of the IL? From what I understand, the purpose of the IL is to secure the revolver from being fired by unauthorized persons ("little hands", if you will) WHILE LOCKED.

If a revolver having the IL feature has never been unintentionally fired while in the locked position, then the S&W technician is probably being truthful in saying that no "lock failures" have ever occured. If there was ever an accidental discharge while the IL is engaged, then I agree a recall would most likely have been made. But this is not what this discussion has been about. It doesn't seem that the technician's statement has anything to do with this discussion, and was apparently provided here due to a misunderstanding of what he was saying.

What most here have been calling a "lock failure" is not a failure of the IL to perform as designed. "Lock malfunction" would be the better term.

**************************************************

Even quotes from the S&W manual are being taken out of context from what I can tell, just to try to prove the point of the poster. I do not believe the manual is saying what the poster thinks it is.

(All quotes are as provided by previous posters. I have not checked the S&W manual for myself to check if the wording provided is correct. I will make the assumption that the wording was transposed accurately by the others)

The nature and observable purpose of its (the Internal Lock or IL) design and function (the stated purpose in the instruction manual Smith & Wesson Safety & Instruction Manual
Revolvers
- Modern Style - page 14) is given as:

Quote:
This feature prevents hammer
and trigger motion when locked.

They are obviously referring to intentionally locking the revolver to secure it from unauthorized use as stated in the manual text also provided:


WARNING: NEVER RELY ON THE INTERNAL LOCK
MECHANISM AS THE SOLE METHOD TO SECURE
YOUR FIREARM FROM UNAUTHORIZED USE.

O.K?

The same instruction manual (page 15) also contains additional "Warning" that the Internal Lock is capable of being "incorrectly locked":

Quote:
WARNING: ALWAYS RECOVER FROM A SITUATION
WHERE THE REVOLVER HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY
LOCKED

thus, acknowledging the possibility of Internal Lock failure by the manufacturer; i.e. failing in working to its intended purpose. (Therefore the need of a warning.)

:confused: NO, I don't think so! Let's review the rest of the quote that was previously provided:


WARNING: ALWAYS RECOVER FROM A SITUATION
WHERE THE REVOLVER HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY
LOCKED WITH THE HAMMER COCKED BY FOLLOW-
ING THESE STEPS. THROUGHOUT THIS PROCEDURE, YOU
MUST TREAT THE REVOLVER AS IF IT WERE LOADED.

I don't take this to mean a spontaneous self-locking of the IL at all. It seems clear to me that this is in reference to someone who intentionally, though mistakenly locks the IL while the hammer is cocked. This is not "lock failure", "lock malfunction", or anything other than operator error.
("...MUST TREAT THE REVOLVER AS IF IT WERE LOADED." is further evidence that this is not talking about a malfunction while firing, since "AS IF" implies that the revolver may, in fact, be unloaded at the time)
************************************************



Quote:
WARNING: NEVER RELY ON THE INTERNAL LOCK
MECHANISM AS THE SOLE METHOD TO SECURE
YOUR FIREARM FROM UNAUTHORIZED USE.

Quote:
WARNING: ALWAYS RECOVER FROM A SITUATION
WHERE THE REVOLVER HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY
LOCKED WITH THE HAMMER COCKED BY FOLLOW-
ING THESE STEPS. THROUGHOUT THIS PROCEDURE, YOU
MUST TREAT THE REVOLVER AS IF IT WERE LOADED.

Quote:
WARNING: NEVER ASSUME THAT THE USE OF THIS
LOCK IS SUFFICIENT TO SAFELY SECURE YOUR
FIREARM.

pages 15-17 Smith & Wesson Safety & Instruction Manual Revolvers - Modern Style - Emphasis AZAK

What is the purpose of this internal lock?

Even S&W has three separate warnings in their manual concerning the fact that this lock is not fool proof and may be capable of being "incorrectly locked". Not one warning, not two warnings, but three warnings!

You are reading into the warnings what you want to see. These are not admissions of some design fault. They are warnings along the same line as "Always assume your weapon is loaded", and are there to caution the operator to include other additional measures to secure the revolver from unauthorized use (except for the second "Warning" which I believe is there for the purpose stated above).

**************************************************

I am not taking sides on the IL/no IL issue. But, terms do clearly need to be defined if a discussion is to remain logical and cohesive. The term "lock failure" has been abused so many times in this thread that I just had to step in.

[AZAK]

Following your train of thought/logic you state:
They are warnings along the same line as "Always assume your weapon is loaded"

And we all know how this works out... almost all of the time.

And if it were not there in the first place, it could not ever fail.

[Model-P]

And if it were not there in the first place, it could not ever fail.

You apparently are NOT following my train of thought. I will not get involved in an endless discussion, but let me clarify my train of thought this one time.

What is "it", and what is to "fail"?

I assume "it" refers to the "IL" (Internal Lock).

There are TWO locks on these revolvers.
1) The Internal Lock. Let's call it "IL".
2) The lockwork, including the hammer and trigger group. Let's call it "LW".

Has "it" (IL) ever "failed", i.e. fired while in the locked position? Probably not.

Has "it" (IL) ever CAUSED the "LW" to fail? Apparently so.

One has to choose his wording carefully. Cause is not the effect. The effect here is LW failure (failure of the hammer to fuction properly). The cause in this discussion is the IL. The IL is not failing. It is the LW that is failing because of the IL.

Dirt can cause LW to fail. That does not mean that the dirt "failed"!

I don't disagree that ILs have CAUSED the LW (lockwork) to fail on these guns on occasion. I am merely pointing out that care should be chosen in the wording, so as to avoid misunderstanding and needless discussion.
**************************************************

So, yes...........

"And if the IL were not there in the first place, it could not ever cause the lockwork to fail."

I agree.

[dgludwig]

I'm following Model-P's "train of thought" and I think he makes a lot of good sense. He's not claiming to answer the question at hand but is only imploring that the lines of communication all stay on the same plane.