Removing the lock on a 642!

[dahermit]

Just as there are many reasons why the number of failures of the I.L. system may be over-documented there are as many reasons that it may under-documented. Such as the owner's of such guns just do not bother to post about it, do not use the INTERNET, remove the lock without comment, sell the gun, etc., and there is no system for reporting/documenting I.L. malfunctions and keeping count of the failures.

[RsqVet]

Webely ---

First off I have to say that personally, I believe there have been more than 2 documented cases of the ILS autolock phenomenon. Is it rampant? No I will grant you that but I do not discount the number of cases you do based on the assumption that people can not adequately diagnose their gun's failure or have an ax to grind. To be frank the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, however your blanket discounting of other reports makes it seem that you sir are the one with the ax to grind.

Second any real estimate of the frequency of autolock would have to be based on actual use of the gun, not production numbers. How many guns have the lock disabled? How many end up loaded and tossed in a night stand with no rounds fired. As I said prior no one knows, not you, not I and I admit that the number is small. You make sweeping generalizations and assumptions and generate a small number, if I wanted to I could make my own sweeping generalizations and assumptions and come up with a number that is small as well but perhaps several orders of magnatude larger than yours. It's called playing with statisicis and it's not going to generate meaningful numbers. I admit the number is small to truly know how small requires information neither of us have.

Third my point about medicine and aerospace engineering is not about a specific device, my point is about how we make choices in these fields with things that need to not fail or else there are grave consequences. In this arena if we can eliminate something that happens some small percentage of the time or make that percentage even smaller this is considered a very real benefit. I, and many others feel the same about our guns, if we can eliminate this small number form our guns why would we not? And eliminating it does not require some expensive metallurgy or exotic engineering, just eliminate something that is not needed or used. Or as others have pointed out design it so failure is less likely, or so that it fails - safe.

[Webleymkv]

In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that the numbers in my previous post were off due to some problems with decimal points. That post has been edited with correct calculations.

Originally posted by dahermit

Just as there are many reasons why the number of failures of the I.L. system may be over-documented there are as many reasons that it may under-documented. Such as the owner's of such guns just do not bother to post about it, do not use the INTERNET, remove the lock without comment, sell the gun, etc., and there is no system for reporting/documenting I.L. malfunctions and keeping count of the failures.

That still does not change the fact that we'd have to have extremely high incidences of "auto lock" in order to bring the total failure rate up to a meaningful percentage. Even at a rate of 1,000 "auto locks" per year, we still wouldn't even have a 1% failure rate. Also, other issues such as the problems with lightweight magnums in K-Frames were relatively well-known before the advent of the internet and I don't see why "auto locks" would be any more prone to under-reporting than cracked forcing cones. Given that we live in the information age, I find it difficult to believe that we would be unable to find more than two documented cases out of 10,000 revolvers over a ten year period even if the issue were under-reported.

Originally posted by RsqVet

Webely ---

First off I have to say that personally, I believe there have been more than 2 documented cases of the ILS autolock phenomenon. Is it rampant? No I will grant you that but I do not discount the number of cases you do based on the assumption that people can not adequately diagnose their gun's failure or have an ax to grind. To be frank the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, however your blanket discounting of other reports makes it seem that you sir are the one with the ax to grind.

If there are more than two documented cases, why don't you share them with us? The two that I mentioned earlier are the only ones that I've been able to find in 5+ years of researching the subject, so if you've found something I haven't I'd be very interested to see it. Even so, I acknowledged that the two documented cases were probably not the only two cases in which it had happened, hence the reason I also ran numbers on intentionally high hypothetical estimates. If we assume a 0.01% failure rate with a documentation rate of only 10%, we should still have at least 15 documented cases over a 10 year period. I certainly haven't been able to find 15 documented cases, have you? Math is math and I fail to see how running the numbers can be construed as having an axe to grind.

Second any real estimate of the frequency of autolock would have to be based on actual use of the gun, not production numbers. How many guns have the lock disabled? How many end up loaded and tossed in a night stand with no rounds fired. As I said prior no one knows, not you, not I and I admit that the number is small. You make sweeping generalizations and assumptions and generate a small number, if I wanted to I could make my own sweeping generalizations and assumptions and come up with a number that is small as well but perhaps several orders of magnatude larger than yours. It's called playing with statisicis and it's not going to generate meaningful numbers. I admit the number is small to truly know how small requires information neither of us have.

What you're missing is that because of the very high number of revolvers we're talking about, uncontrolled variables such as disabled locks or unused guns still have relatively small effects on the final outcome. For the sake of argument, if we assume that 25% of all the revolvers S&W produced from 2001 to 2010 had zero chance of "auto lock" due to uncontrolled variables such as those you mentioned, that leaves us with a total count of 1,165,686 revolvers. If we assume the same rate of 1,000 "auto locks" per year, we still only have a total failure rate of 0.858%. Taking it a step further, if we assume that half of all the revolvers produced by S&W from 2001 to 2010 had zero chance of "auto lock" due to uncontrolled variables and thus reduce our total to 777,124 revolvers, a 1,000 gun per year "auto lock" rate would only get us a total failure rate of 1.29%. These are, of course, intentionally high hypothetical numbers. As you yourself admitted, "auto lock" is a rare phenomenon and I don't think that many people would consider 1,000 cases per year to be rare.

Third my point about medicine and aerospace engineering is not about a specific device, my point is about how we make choices in these fields with things that need to not fail or else there are grave consequences. In this arena if we can eliminate something that happens some small percentage of the time or make that percentage even smaller this is considered a very real benefit. I, and many others feel the same about our guns, if we can eliminate this small number form our guns why would we not? And eliminating it does not require some expensive metallurgy or exotic engineering, just eliminate something that is not needed or used. Or as others have pointed out design it so failure is less likely, or so that it fails - safe.

My point was that I think your estimates for the failure rates of medical equipment and aircraft are too low. Also, even if your estimates were accurate, the amount of attention and redundant procedures for medical equipment and aircraft is much higher than it is for firearms regardless of the presence of a lock. My example of ventilators was meant to illustrate what a poor comparison firearms are to medical equipment. If you have a specific example of medical equipment that has a failure rate as low as you suggest and is maintained to the same degree as most people do firearms, I'd be interested to hear about it.

[dahermit]

That still does not change the fact that we'd have to have extremely high incidences of "auto lock" in order to bring the total failure rate up to a meaningful percentage. Even at a rate of 1,000 "auto locks" per year, we still wouldn't even have a 1% failure rate. Also, other issues such as the problems with lightweight magnums in K-Frames were relatively well-known before the advent of the internet and I don't see why "auto locks" would be any more prone to under-reporting than cracked forcing cones. Given that we live in the information age, I find it difficult to believe that we would be unable to find more than two documented cases out of 10,000 revolvers over a ten year period even if the issue were under-reported.

This begs the question: How many failures of the I.L. system has occured to those S&W revolvers that do not have one?

[coyota1]

In a defense situation, failure due to faulty locks is the last thing I would worry about.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by dahermit

Quote:
That still does not change the fact that we'd have to have extremely high incidences of "auto lock" in order to bring the total failure rate up to a meaningful percentage. Even at a rate of 1,000 "auto locks" per year, we still wouldn't even have a 1% failure rate. Also, other issues such as the problems with lightweight magnums in K-Frames were relatively well-known before the advent of the internet and I don't see why "auto locks" would be any more prone to under-reporting than cracked forcing cones. Given that we live in the information age, I find it difficult to believe that we would be unable to find more than two documented cases out of 10,000 revolvers over a ten year period even if the issue were under-reported.

This begs the question: How many failures of the I.L. system has occured to those S&W revolvers that do not have one?

This is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum. By the same line of logic, we should ditch all our S&W's for Rugers because Rugers have ejector rods that cannot back out. The point is not that it is impossible for the ILS to malfunction, but rather that the chances of it doing so are extremely remote.

[RsqVet]

Web Man,

It’s funny in a way that I among others can admit that lock failures are rare and it does not really bother us if one carries and ILS gun yet many yourself included feel the need to argue to opposite here to the extreme.

First off in response to your point about S+W ejector rods unscrewing, I can tell you that personally, I would agree with you, in an absolute sense the ruger design is a "better" design as it can not back out and lock up the gun. In addition I do not know many engineers who would disagree with me. In absolute terms one should always design a devise to fail in the most benign way possible, in that sense the smith ejector rod as designed / manufactured is some manner of a poor idea.

Furthermore many of us apply thread locker when we service our guns to prevent this very failure mode. Does everyone? Do all gunsmiths agree that it is prudent to do so? No, it's a bit of a debate, like the ILS but I can tell you I would rather have to heat and cuss at an ejector rod when taking the gun down than have the gun lock up on us.

A similar situation exists with 1911 plunger tubes. You can have anything from original GI, to GI with a lip milled in the frame to add support, to a housing that is brazed or bonded to the frame as well as staked to bolt on, to a plunger tube cast / milled integral to the frame. All of these solutions seek to reduce or eliminate what is by most accounts anywhere from and uncommon to a very rare problem. Why I ask you is seeking to eliminate ILS failures which are admittedly rare not a good idea?

Second I am not reviewing and arguing auto lock cases with you, you seem interested in minimizing the number of failures for your own reasons, I will leave it at that.

Third what you are failing to grasp and insist on waving you hands around regarding your friend's experience with ventilators is I am not talking about a specific piece of equipment, I am speaking of HOW choices are made. In medicine we do not look at a given procedure and say if we can make it some small percent safer, even if it is expensive, we do not ignore that, we embrace it. It is one of the reasons medicine cost what it does and why people fear managed care. Do we want insurance companies or government commissions looking and saying 0.001% risk is fine, never mind if we could knock it down to 0.00001. I mean if you are the company managing it or the gov and are looking to save dollars that probably sounds great, but IF, YOU, or your brother, mother or sister is one of the ones that comes down to the bad side of that equation it could really stink.

Web Unless you are simply hopelessly invested in the ILS and it's alleged merits I do not think you can argue with this logic, even if as you say to YOU that risk is insignificant.

In the case of the ILS it need not cost anything to eliminate this risk whatever it is, just remove the lock.

As to aviation ask yourself this, when was the last time you heard of a jet turbine in commercial service suffering a catastrophic, stuff flys apart failure? As you have said Jets are infinitely more complex than revolvers. Yet the last time I can find of a jet going grenade is 1996 on a Delta jet. That’s pretty dang reliable. For something much more complex. They do not get that way ignoring the small chances of failure, they get there eliminating them at any chance they can. No one in aerospace engineering would design a lock that renders something critical inoperable in the event of a failure.

[Webleymkv]

It’s funny in a way that I among others can admit that lock failures are rare and it does not really bother us if one carries and ILS gun yet many yourself included feel the need to argue to opposite here to the extreme.

What's funny is that I, very early in this thread, said that I don't take issue with those who dislike the lock for reasons of personal preference. I only take issue with those who claim that the lock is a significant compromise in reliability because that simply isn't true. It was you that chose to take issue with the notion that the lock does not represent a statistically significant reliability compromise and when I showed you, mathematically, that my statement was true, you now choose to tell me that I'm argumentative. Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black to me.

First off in response to your point about S+W ejector rods unscrewing, I can tell you that personally, I would agree with you, in an absolute sense the ruger design is a "better" design as it can not back out and lock up the gun. In addition I do not know many engineers who would disagree with me. In absolute terms one should always design a devise to fail in the most benign way possible, in that sense the smith ejector rod as designed / manufactured is some manner of a poor idea.

You're missing my point. The point is that many, if not most, of the people who decry the lock as "one more thing to go wrong" are perfectly willing to take the risk of the ejector rod backing out on pre-lock revolvers even though there are other designs available which negate that risk as well. If even an extremely remote chance of failure, such as the ILS represents, is reason for these people not to carry a particular revolver, then why are they not carrying revolvers of arguably simpler and less trouble-prone design?

Second I am not reviewing and arguing auto lock cases with you, you seem interested in minimizing the number of failures for your own reasons, I will leave it at that.

How am I minimizing the number of failures? I honestly gave you the only two documented cases that I'm aware of and invited you to enlighten me with others if you knew of them. Not only that, I intentionally ran calculations with ridiculously high estimates of failure. As I said before, math is math and even with the extremely high failure estimates I used, the failure rate still comes out extremely low. If you're referring to my distrust of anonymous internet posts, what would you have me do with them? I'm sorry, but I simply cannot bring myself to take unreliable data at face value. It only seems rational to me that if a set of data is known to be unreliable, one should seek out other data upon which to draw conclusions. Finally, your insinuations about me having an axe to grind and massaging data for my own reasons is becoming rather irritating. If you wish to accuse me of something, I wish you'd simply do it and quit beating around the bush.

Third what you are failing to grasp and insist on waving you hands around regarding your friend's experience with ventilators is I am not talking about a specific piece of equipment, I am speaking of HOW choices are made. In medicine we do not look at a given procedure and say if we can make it some small percent safer, even if it is expensive, we do not ignore that, we embrace it. It is one of the reasons medicine cost what it does and why people fear managed care. Do we want insurance companies or government commissions looking and saying 0.001% risk is fine, never mind if we could knock it down to 0.00001. I mean if you are the company managing it or the gov and are looking to save dollars that probably sounds great, but IF, YOU, or your brother, mother or sister is one of the ones that comes down to the bad side of that equation it could really stink.

What you are failing to grasp is that a comparison between medical equipment/aircraft and firearms is an extremely poor one. First of all, I think that your reliability estimates for medical equipment and aircraft is inaccurate. Secondly, medical equipment and aircraft failure rates are as low as they are not only because great care is taken in their design, but because they are more scrupulously and frequently maintained than firearms are. In order to maintain a firearm as scrupulously and frequently as most aircraft and medical equipment, you would have to have your gun inspected by a qualified gunsmith and preemptively have any part which shows signs of wear replaced each and every time you fire it. Firearms, by and large, are not maintained to this degree because, due to the fact that they are much simpler than medical equipment and aircraft, they don't need to be.

Web Unless you are simply hopelessly invested in the ILS and it's alleged merits I do not think you can argue with this logic, even if as you say to YOU that risk is insignificant.

In the case of the ILS it need not cost anything to eliminate this risk whatever it is, just remove the lock.

The problem is, there is cost associated with removing the lock. If the lock were discontinued or made completely optional by S&W, their costs to produce revolvers would increase and thus the retail price of their guns would also go up. The lack of the lock would make their products unsaleable in MD and thus, in order to maintain their profits, they'd have to charge the rest of us more. Likewise, dropping the lock could potentially expose S&W to greater legal liability than they already have. Lawyers and lawsuits are expensive and those costs would almost certainly be passed on to the consumer

If the lock is removed aftermarket, there are still costs involved. Many people are not mechanically-inclined enough to remove the lock themselves so they must have it done by a gunsmith. Gunsmiths don't work for free so there is a monetary cost. Even if the lock is removed by the owner, removing a safety device from a firearm opens its owner up to increased legal risk. I consider that risk to be a cost because if one plays those odds and loses, the price that must be paid is extremely high.

That being said, if you want to remove the locks from your guns, go right ahead. I am not the one that must take on those risks so it matters not to me. This does, however, bring us right back to the original question of this thread: why do people who dislike the lock choose to buy guns without it rather than simply removing or disabling it?

[dahermit]

This does, however, bring us right back to the original question of this thread: why do people who dislike the lock choose to buy guns without it rather than simply removing or disabling it?

I will agonize over this until the day I die. I must know, and will keep posting about it until I get the people who can not tolerate the lock to admit that it is just a matter of aesthetics. But, I am not obsessed about it. Not me. No. Admit it damn you, admit it!

[MLeake]

dahermit, aside from aesthetics, and symbolism, the other issue which has nothing to do with potential mechanical failure is one of potential bias issues with a prosecutor or jury.

How many threads have there been about not removing a magazine disconnect or other safety device from a carry weapon?

The point has been made by quite a few that this could be used by an overzealous prosecutor to paint a defendant as reckless. After all, he removed a safety device!

The odds of this happening are probably about as low as the odds of an individual lock failure. But, for many, it is an added concern.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by dahermit

Quote:
This does, however, bring us right back to the original question of this thread: why do people who dislike the lock choose to buy guns without it rather than simply removing or disabling it?

I will agonize over this until the day I die. I must know, and will keep posting about it until I get the people who can not tolerate the lock to admit that it is just a matter of aesthetics. But, I am not obsessed about it. Not me. No. Admit it damn you, admit it!

I'm not agonizing over anything. As I said clear back in post #6, many people simply cannot abide the look or idea of the lock. Removing it would certainly cure/prevent any reliability issues, real or imagined, that it represents, but many refuse to consider a revolver that's ever been cursed witht he infernal device. So, do you refuse to buy an ILS gun because you think it represents a reliability issue or is it because, as you asserted in post #9, because you can't abide the sight of a hole in the frame?

[dahermit]

So, do you refuse to buy an ILS gun because you think it represents a reliability issue or is it because, as you asserted in post #9, because you can't abide the sight of a hole in the frame?

It represents a reliablily issue in that, "...what can go wrong will go wrong..." Nevertheless, my real "other" reason was outed in post #9.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

I only take issue with those who claim that the lock is a significant compromise in reliability because that simply isn't true.

My reasoning on it is quite simple.

I am convinced that some lock-equipped guns have malfunctioned because of the lock.

I am positive that no guns without the lock have malfunctioned because of the lock.

That alone would be reason enough for me.

[Malamute]

I agree with Sarges reasoning. Statistics mean little when it's you that it happens to. I'm sure those that have had the locks engage improperly feel better knowing it isn't statistically significant.


Regarding the Ruger/Smith extractor rod question, I don't see it as a step up in reliability to go to a Ruger because of that single issue. Rugers have transfer bars. Transfer bars occasionally break. I've personally had more tranfer bars break (3) than Smith extractor rods back out (2) and cause trouble in the 35 or so years I've fooled with them both. I torque extractor rods, and have never had one come loose after being torqued.

[Webleymkv]

Regarding the Ruger/Smith extractor rod question, I don't see it as a step up in reliability to go to a Ruger because of that single issue. Rugers have transfer bars. Transfer bars occasionally break. I've personally had more tranfer bars break (3) than Smith extractor rods back out (2) and cause trouble in the 35 or so years I've fooled with them both. I torque extractor rods, and have never had one come loose after being torqued.

A S&W hammer block can break just as easily as a Ruger transfer bar, so both designs are roughly equal in that regard.

[dahermit]

A S&W hammer block can break just as easily as a Ruger transfer bar, so both designs are roughly equal in that regard.

God forgive me, I am going to throw gasoline on the fire.
I have read more incidents of Ruger transfer bars breaking than S&W hammer blocks breaking. As a matter of fact, when I routinely peruse the gun smithing forums, I have seen several instances of Ruger transfer-bar failures but I do not remember any instances of S&W hammer blocks failing. So, that would seem to indicate that both designs are not, "...equal in that regard..." Unless you want to blame it on the part and not the design, that is.

[Malamute]

A S&W hammer block can break just as easily as a Ruger transfer bar, so both designs are roughly equal in that regard.

That's news to me. I'm interested where you got that bit of information.

I've haven't had, or heard of a Smith hammer block breaking. It isn't a part thats even stressed, unless the gun is dropped on the hammer. Transfer bars are stressed every time the gun is fired or dry fired.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by dahermit

Quote:
A S&W hammer block can break just as easily as a Ruger transfer bar, so both designs are roughly equal in that regard.

God forgive me, I am going to throw gasoline on the fire.
I have read more incidents of Ruger transfer bars breaking than S&W hammer blocks breaking. As a matter of fact, when I routinely peruse the gun smithing forums, I have seen several instances of Ruger transfer-bar failures but I do not remember any instances of S&W hammer blocks failing. So, that would seem to indicate that both designs are not, "...equal in that regard..." Unless you want to blame it on the part and not the design, that is.

Originally posted by Malamute

Quote:
A S&W hammer block can break just as easily as a Ruger transfer bar, so both designs are roughly equal in that regard.

That's news to me. I'm interested where you got that bit of information.

I've haven't had, or heard of a Smith hammer block breaking. It isn't a part thats even stressed, unless the gun is dropped on the hammer. Transfer bars are stressed every time the gun is fired or dry fired.

Here's a report complete with pictures:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=413431

And Grant Cunningham mentions the issue here:

"Save for the aforementioned Colt firing pin issue, parts failures in revolvers are very rare. Other than things like hammer spurs being broken from impact or cylinders being blown apart by faulty handloads, broken parts are few and far between. The only major exception that occurs to me is the hammer block safety in very recent Smith & Wesson "J" frame revolvers (those with external hammers only - the shrouded hammer Centennial series does not have that part.) This part is relatively thin and S&W decided to make it with the MIM (metal injection molding) process."

http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_...c8b9-1043.html

I've not personally seen nor heard that many reports of hammer blocks or transfer bars failing, so I really don't think that either case is particularly common, but they're not impossible.

[2damnold4this]

It would seem to me that we would have a lot more accurate data for subjects like aircraft parts where we use logs that track failures/hours used than we would for parts failures on revolvers where we rely on people to report incidents.

Any rare event is more likely to be over reported than under reported. An event that happens ten times out of 5000 gives us a chance to have 4990 false positives reported and only ten chances for a false negative to be reported.

[dahermit]

Here's a report complete with pictures:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=413431

Not statistically significant.

[JN01]

I'm just curious what a "documented" occurrence of lock failure is. One certified by the International Internal Lock Commission? Those that S&W admit to? Only those that happen in the presence of a famous gun writer?

Do people lie on the internet? Of course, but some accounts are probably true as well.

I think current S&W revolvers are overpriced and I'm not likely to buy one, but if I did, I would probably remove the lock and plug the hole, for aesthetics and to eliminate a possible source of failure, no matter how statistically insignificant.

Ejector rods, hammer blocks, and transfer bars are necessary to operate the gun. Internal locks are not.

[fastbolt]

Why are you guys still arguing this???

If you don't like the ILS in the S&W revolvers, don't buy the guns made with them after 2000. If you like the Centennial style guns, S&W offers some of those models made without the ILS, so you can still buy those.

In the meantime, I just had someone bring in a NIB S&W M617 in which the hand spring had somehow gotten loose and stopped the hand from indexing the cylinder. The long spring leg got caught up between the moving parts and was cut off. (Oddly enough, nothing seemed to be wrong with the ILS in that gun. )

Never saw that happen before, and probably won't again, either.

As an armorer, the ILS is the least of my worries when it comes to maintaining/servicing S&W revolvers.

Everybody else among the internet gun forums can argue about it as long as they care to do so.

Buy what you like, and don't buy what you don't like. Simple enough.

[tahitian.tedgrace]

Never thought it would take three pages of back and fourth to answer my simple question! I do appreaciate all who contributed and tried to tell me I should not just remove the lock etc. HOWEVER I now see the two sides clearly. Thanks to all. Ted

[9mm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVPYgohVCNM

watch this video, explains all! close up detail of lock removal.

[TheTinMan]

The idea that an internal lock makes it OK to leave a loaded gun where a child could get it is simply irresponsible.

The idea that locking a gun with an internal lock makes it OK to leave it unsecured in your car or a hotel room is equally irresponsible.

If you own a firearm, it is your personal responsibility to ensure that it is either under your control or secured at all times. The ILS fails to meet my standards for "secured".

The basic concept that it is a bad idea to add a mechanism which could possibly cause my gun to jam when I need it most seems perfectly rational to me. Even if it is a one-in-a-million chance. That is a lottery I do not care to participate in.

I am mystified by Webleymkv's motivation here.