New 642 - What do I do about the lock?

[Big Dog Dad]

I've been carrying a 640 in my front pants pocket for a really long time. My only complaint is its weight. I'm going to get a 642 soon and I have not heard too many good things about the lock on the left side. Is there a work around for this that everybody has agreed is the best way to go. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

-=BDD=-

[cslinger]

Buy one without the lock. Smith is making new production ones without it. Do a gun broker search.

[Webleymkv]

Ignore it. Contrary to what some would have you believe, problems due to the lock are extremely rare and on the unlikely occurrence that you have an issue, S&W's warranty and customer service are excellent. If it really bothers you that much, there are videos on Youtube which demonstrate how to remove it, but that will void the revolver's warranty.

[orionengnr]

About ten minutes worth of work to remove the internal pieces and leave the outside looking unmolested....

I bought an M25-13 about a year ago. The previous owner had done exactly this, and included the removed parts in a bag.

This is the first ILS S&W I have owned in about four years (after an acquaintance's 360 locked itself, I sold all six I owned and swore I'd never buy another).

This is a more effective solution than "buy one without the lock" (possible, but not neccesarily easy, especially with 642s) and a more realistic solution than "ignore it" (easy, but not a solution).

And if you ever need to send it back to S&W, ten minutes work to re-install it...no worries about warrantee.

BTW, I have never heard that it will invalidate the warrantee--I have read that if you send it in with ILS parts removed, they will return it with new ILS parts. Strictly a "lawyer" thing. If you send it in with Wolff springs and a lightened trigger, they will very likely send it back with new factory springs, etc.

BTW, this is not unique to S&W.

[Kreyzhorse]

Ignore it. Contrary to what some would have you believe, problems due to the lock are extremely rare

I agree and I own a 637 with the lock. Ignore it and you won't have any problems with it. If it really bothers you, hunt down one without the lock but otherwise I'd buy the lock version and not worry about it.

[Cool_Hand]

once you remove the lock bullseye smith over at the smith and wesson forum sells plugs to fill in the hole

http://smith-wessonforum.com/accesso...lock-plug.html

[xrmattaz]

The "flag" portion of the locking mechanism is easily removed. The remainder of the lock can be left intact, as the flag has nothing to do with keeping the lockwork in place, there is a spring in there doing that job.

No hole left in the frame, and no way for the revolver to lock up. The flag is just as easily replaced, should the revolver need to be returned for work, etc.

[jglsprings]

If you have to "disable" the lock look here....

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

As you can see, everything except the flag remains in place.

[drrpg01]

There's no evidence of a significant problem with the S&W lock. A few stories circulated around on the internet does not really constitute much in the way of evidence. If it's so bothersome to you that you can't get past it, by a model without a lock.

[skoro]

I've shot a thousand rounds or more through my 642 over the past few years. Lots of +P, too (ouch). No worries. I don't think any lock problems have surfaced with the 642. From what I recall, there were lock troubles with ultralight magnum revolvers firing heavy loads.

I'd leave it alone. That's what I've done.

[Technosavant]

I'd leave it alone.

I'm not aware of any issues regarding the ILS on the 637/638/642 guns. The issues are not only very rare, but also seem to be confined to the ultra light guns (the 340, 329) firing full house magnums.

My 642 has never had an inadvertent lock engagement.

[tolesy]

Get the one with the lock and ignore it. I haven't had any issues with mine nor have any of my friends who shoot one with a lock.

I rather have the warranty + lock then the alternative. Like others have said, if it bothers you then search for one without a lock.

[batmann]

FWIW, S&W is selling 442-642's without the lock.

[ChiefMuzz]

"once you remove the lock bullseye smith over at the smith and wesson forum sells plugs to fill in the hole"

Gummy bears work just fine for plugging lock holes. At least they did for me when I was younger.

[tazz7002]

according to sw..thats a rumor about lock failing...keep the lock..

[Tom Servo]

according to sw..thats a rumor about lock failing.

It has happened, but to my knowledge, the only cases involved airweights and heavy Magnum loads.

I've never seen one fail on one of the .38 J-Frames, or on the steel-framed large frames. I've got a 620 I haven't been kind to, and I've never had a problem.

As much as I dislike the aesthetics, I'm not too concerned with it.

[Stainz]

My 3+ years of carrying a pocketed 642-2 have been, like the other IL-equipped S&Ws here - and that's most of my S&Ws - totally uneventful. The firearms work! The 642 has had 2,200+ - mostly +P 158gr LHPSWCs - shot through it. In the nine years of making IL-equipped revolvers, S&W has lost no lawsuits over it. In fact, the C.S. guy I talked with last week said he didn't know of a single lawsuit over it. If it was as unreliable as folks think, seems they'd been driven out of business long ago.

Now, if you think it is really ugly... that's different. Of course, the 642 won't win many beauty contests anyway. It sure is efficient in it's function. YMMV.

Stainz

[kilroy2721]

I just ground down the flag so that even if the lock did engage the flag would not stop the hammer from traveling.

I only use it as a backup anyway.

[shooter1911]

[Sgt. Rock]

My advise, buy one without the lock. You dont want one with the locking feature shaved off if you go to court. Anyway, I work at a gun shop and we get brand new 642's and 442's without the lock on a regular basis. Smith and wesson makes them now without the lock. Your local gun shop can order them from smith.

[jglsprings]

The "flag" portion of the locking mechanism is easily removed. The remainder of the lock can be left intact, as the flag has nothing to do with keeping the lockwork in place, there is a spring in there doing that job.

No hole left in the frame, and no way for the revolver to lock up. The flag is just as easily replaced, should the revolver need to be returned for work, etc.

That's it. Just put the extra parts in a bag and you can put it back or give them to whom ever you sell the revolver to. Look at the youtube video. You don't have to grind a thing. If you want to spend $25.00 get a plug from the guy on the S&W forum.

[BikerRN]

There's no evidence of a significant problem with the S&W lock. A few stories circulated around on the internet does not really constitute much in the way of evidence.

Horse Puckey!

Being one of those that have had a S&W with a "Hillary Hole" lock up on him, you can do what I did and switch to a different gun. Instead of the S&W go with a Ruger LCR, or buy a S&W without a "Hillary Hole".

I'm not a fan of removing or altering any safety device on a firearm that is used for defensive purposes. Until S&W is willing to produce all revolvers without the "Hillary Hole" I will not buy a New S&W for defensive usage. I don't care if my Hunting Revolvers have a "Hillary Hole" or not.

There's lots of evidence out there that the lock has failed. Some people are just too blind to see.

Biker

[Triggernosis]

You dont want one with the locking feature shaved off if you go to court.

That's BS. The only people I've heard make that statement are folks on the internet. Massad Ayoob, if I recall correctly, said it wasn't a worry.

[Tom Servo]

Smith and wesson makes them now without the lock.

Actually, no. They found a few pre-lock frames in the warehouse and assembled them for sale, but they have no plans to make current-production guns without the locks.

[BikerRN]

Quote:
You dont want one with the locking feature shaved off if you go to court.

That's BS. The only people I've heard make that statement are folks on the internet. Massad Ayoob, if I recall correctly, said it wasn't a worry.

Why don't you ask Mas. He is a member of this forum. IIRC correctly he stated that he does not advocate the removal of any safety device from a firearm. If you want a gun without the lock, buy one without the lock, but "Never remove a safety device from a firearm."

I may be wrong, but that's what I recall from my LFI 1 class and what he said. You will notice that I quoted him if you look. Like I said, I may be wrong and it is highly conceivable that I misheard him, but I doubt it.

Biker