Every company makes mistakes. Firearms manufacturers are no stranger to this truth because shooters are arguably among the most vocal hobbyists when it comes to pointing out what they perceive to be mistakes made by the companies that feed their habit. And one of the biggest perceived “mistakes” in the firearms industry in recent memory was the addition of the internal lock on all Smith & Wesson revolvers.
Is the Smith & Wesson Internal Lock a Deal Breaker?
The much-maligned revolver lock appears to be fairly harmless on the surface. Lock-equipped revolvers feature a small key-hole just above the cylinder release latch. By using a key that’s included with the purchase of every new revolver, owners can lock the action of the revolver, supposedly making it “safe” from use by children or other unauthorized persons. The vast majority of S&W revolver owners completely ignore this lock. Many won’t ever know the lock exists unless it’s pointed out to them. That is, of course, unless the lock experiences a malfunction that prevents the revolver from working properly. But more on that later.
Smith & Wesson isn’t the only major gun company to add an internal locking device to their products. They’re not even the only gun company with internal locks known to occasionally fail. Nevertheless, S&W seems to get a lot more criticism for it than any of the other companies. That may have a lot to do with the circumstances under which the revolver lock was introduced.
The Origin of the S&W Lock
The 1990s was an especially difficult decade for firearms makers. The Federal “assault weapons” ban in 1994 was a demoralizing hit to the whole industry, and the political outlook was generally bleak. On top of that, civilian firearms ownership was stagnant and hunting was on the decline. The lifelines keeping many of these companies alive were sales to military and law enforcement. S&W had come out on top as the favorite maker of police-issued revolvers in the 20th century, and enjoyed a strong reputation with decision-makers among the nation’s peace officers as a result. As the switch to semi-auto pistols became inevitable during the 1980s, S&W had plenty of 9mm and .45 ACP offerings for departments to choose from, and the reputation of their revolvers often made S&W pistols a shoe-in against the competition.
Then, along came Glock. The Austrian plastic fantastic hit the scene and crushed S&W’s market share in the law enforcement world. It didn’t help that the perception was S&W’s quality was also slipping at the time, making it almost impossible for them to regain the ground lost to their new competitor. Adding all of that to their political woes threatened to bring an end to the 150-year-old company.
S&W was against the wall and the Clinton White House offered a deal that looked like a way out. But S&W would have to “compromise”, and that involved, among some other ridiculous demands, pledging to include an internal lock in all of their new guns. The agreement was inked in March 2000, and and that’s how the internal revolver lock was born. Though today’s political situation is much different than it was 14 years ago, the S&W revolver locks remain. Similar locking devices have shown up on a few S&W semi-auto pistols and long guns, but almost every new revolver from the company includes the infamous internal lock.
I Heard it On The Internet, So…
To many gun owners, adopting the lock to avoid political trouble was perceived as S&W quite literally selling the soul of the company to the devil. A massive boycott made the situation even worse for S&W, and it took a change of ownership to eventually turn things around.
But in the middle of all of this mess, some civilians were still buying new S&W revolvers, and they found reasons to hate the internal lock that had nothing to do with politics. First, the general consensus is that it was hideous. The big gaping hole right on the side of the frame is not especially subtle. And if that wasn’t enough, there’s the “L” with an arrow printed next to it indicating which direction to turn the lock. For a company whose revolvers are often thought of as quite attractive, this was like tattooing the face of the prom queen.
Of course, that’s just subjective. The revolver is made to shoot, not look at. But that’s why the poo really hit the fan. It wasn’t long before “unconfirmed internet rumors” began to surface about spontaneous malfunctions of the lock. Revolvers owners who had never even taken the key out of the box were having the locks spontaneously engage during routine range sessions. This being the early 2000s, the first online claims were not taken seriously. S&W ignored it, die-hard S&W fanboys ignored it, and even respected figures in the industry chalked it up to rumor-mongering from an already agitated customer-base.
As time wore on, however, it became clear that the rumors were not just rumors. The first clue was that many of the malfunction reports had a key trait in common. They almost all involved the lightweight aluminum alloy or “scandium” framed revolvers firing heavy recoiling ammo. Apparently loading up a 25 oz. snub nose with full house .44 magnums is not just a good way to sprain your wrist, it’s also an effective method of sending serious vibrations through the frame of the gun; enough to cause the little internal lock to shimmy its way into a position its owner did not intend.
Oftentimes, these revolvers weren’t just locking themselves in the sense that the internal lock was activated, they were locked in every sense of the word. No decocking the hammer. No opening the cylinder. The action completely frozen, sometimes even with the hammer cocked and live rounds in the chamber. These broken revolvers sometimes had to be unlocked by a gunsmith, or sent back to S&W.
Eventually, the problem was either witnessed or experienced by well-known “real world” industry professionals, proving that guys like “44GatLuvr” and “FMJ_Sniper” on your favorite gun forum aren’t always full of it. Even with this evidence, S&W still has not officially acknowledged that there is any inherent design flaw with the locks. Rumors continue to fly that S&W plans to “phase out” the locks sometime soon. S&W has even released versions of some J-Frame models that are internal-lock free. But repeatedly, S&W has denied rumors that the lock is being dropped in future revolvers, and as of today, the newest S&W revolver offerings do include the device.
Before You Polish Your Pitchfork
Despite all the damning evidence, the Smith & Wesson internal lock problem is likely not as bad as it appears. In truth, we only have anecdotal evidence that some S&W locks have malfunctioned. We have no real data that would indicate the prevalence of such problems. You can also find anecdotal evidence of exploding Glocks, slides flying off Berettas, and self-firing Remington 700s. Taken individually, none of these reports necessarily indicate any specific trend or “epidemic”. Guns are machines and all machines fail eventually. Some design weaknesses can make certain failures more likely, but it’s really tricky to determine just how likely.
Based on the sporadic reports that can be found online, we can infer a few things about the Smith & Wesson internal revolver locks:
- As mentioned above, they tend to involve light frames and large calibers. There are fewer claims of lock problems with steel-framed revolvers, and very few reported problems with low-pressure cartridges like .38 special and .22 LR.
- Since .38 Spl/.357 Mag revolvers are sold in much greater numbers than the lightweight, big bore revolvers, and the number of reported failures is much smaller, it is likely that the percentage of the popular self-defense revolvers with faulty locks is very small.
- The reported problems often involve revolvers that have had custom work performed on them, or were pre-owned. It’s also a safe assumption that many broken lock claims have come from S&W owners who tinkered with their revolvers but chose to leave that fact out of their “report”.
- S&W internal revolver locks are easy to disable. With simple tools and a little searching online, the lock can be removed (though the unsightly keyhole will remain). There may be liability problems with this for a self-defense revolver but should be fine for a recreational/hunting/competition gun. Also, the fact that S&W now makes some double action only revolvers without the lock might help mitigate the legal risk of disabling a lock yourself (but our lawyer says you shouldn’t take that as legal advice).
- Many of the so-called “internal lock failures” can actually be attributed to user error or some other problem not lock related. Of course, a broken gun is a broken gun, but not all supposed lock failures are genuinely what their owners initially assume they are.
If none of that sounds very reassuring, and you’re still concerned about trusting your life to a lock-equipped S&W revolver, then you have a few options:
- Try to track down one of the few current production S&W models that do not include the lock. The 640 Pro, 642 CT, and M&P340 CT are among the best compact defensive revolvers on the market, and both are available lock-free.
- Buy an older “pre-lock” S&W revolver. Some of the most innovative S&W revolver designs were only first released after the lock was introduced, but many of the iconic classic S&W revolvers were produced in droves for years prior to that sans-lock.
- Buy a Ruger revolver. They are great, and none of them have an internal lock.
- Switch to a semi-auto. What kind of dinosaur carries a revolver these days, anyway? (just kidding!)
Resources
S&W Revolver Lock Failure, Michael Bane. One of the most notable instances of a well-known industry professional “outing” the S&W lock problem. He later admits that having custom work done on the revolver does bring into question the origin of the malfunction.
Internal Gun Locks, Massad Ayoob. Another noted author and firearms instructor weighs in on the lock issue. Mas is not a fan, but admits he has carried a lock-equipped revolver, though only after extensive test-firing. He also includes some good thoughts regarding the wisdom of removing the lock on a self-defense revolver.
The S&W Lock Issue Just Won’t Go Away, Grant Cunningham. Grant is one of the most sought-after revolver-smiths in the country, and has a reputation as a solid shooting instructor as well. He doesn’t recommend his clients carry a lock-equipped gun, but won’t remove them from customer’s guns for liability reasons.
S&W on Wikipedia. The Wiki article has some good info about the corporate happenings of S&W around the time the lock was adopted. The article also mentions that as of 2009, S&W plans to phase out the lock, referencing a Mas Ayoob article from a 2009 issue of American Handgunner. However, the article in question does not exist in any issue of that, or any other publication. In fact, in the 2009 Ayoob blog post we just referenced above, he says just the opposite; that S&W has no plans to remove the lock despite objections from some folks high up in company the food chain. The Wiki reference appears to be a complete hoax.
What’s Your Lock Story?
Have you witnessed or experienced a malfunction related to a S&W revolver lock? Or maybe you carry a lock-equipped gun and have just decided not to worry about the lock. Either way, let us know in the comments below.
The lock is dumb. I don't need any unnecessary extra parts on my gun.
The lock is dumb. I don’t need any unnecessary extra parts on my gun.
It's an ugly feature on an other wise beautiful gun. It alone however is not enough to stop me from buying one, micro stamping on the other hand is another story….
I own lots of older revolvers and refuse to buy the new ones because of the lock and the quality. The old revolvers had great quality which has disappeared with the new cheap revolvers S&W now produces
I have never and will never buy a post-lock S&W of any type. These soured me on the company completely other than their older offerings. Sad, because I always liked their revolvers back in the 90's.
Sorry to burst your bubble but some of the M&P pistols DO have the internal lock! Mine does not but the place in the frame is there, just filled in with something. However, the L with the arrow is there!
The other thing that needs to be pointed out is that when the "deal" was reached, S&W was not owned in the U.S.A. It was owned by a British company who didn't want to make guns and would almost rather have shut the company down. If I am correct, the new owners were in fact the people who developed the lock and that is why most of the newer guns had the lock. In any event, the company is owned in the U.S.A. again and has really spent a fair amount of time and money to bring up the quality and to try and push forward!
I'd prefer not to have the lock but after putting hundreds of rounds through my Model 360, Model 60, and two 686Ps, I've never had a problem.
I have a M&P340CT with the internal lock. I haven't had any problems with it. Something I would like to know about the revolver locks engaging after firing. How old or new were the revolvers? When was it made? As with most new things. It takes a few years to get it right. Just asking.
Why?
If you have a bear right on you, last thing you want is the revolver locking shut. My 460 hasn't locked shut at the range, hope it wont when yogi the bear decides to have me for a picinic
I don't like it…..My 686 is older and doesn't have it so I don't have to worry about it until my next revolver purchase and then I'll see where the locks stand at the time.
what is micro stamping?
It’s an ugly feature on an other wise beautiful gun. It alone however is not enough to stop me from buying one, micro stamping on the other hand is another story….
what is micro stamping?
Ronald Harris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_microstamping
I own lots of older revolvers and refuse to buy the new ones because of the lock and the quality. The old revolvers had great quality which has disappeared with the new cheap revolvers S&W now produces
I have never and will never buy a post-lock S&W of any type. These soured me on the company completely other than their older offerings. Sad, because I always liked their revolvers back in the 90’s.
Sorry to burst your bubble but some of the M&P pistols DO have the internal lock! Mine does not but the place in the frame is there, just filled in with something. However, the L with the arrow is there!
I’ve seen that hole in the M&P frame too, but I’ve never seen an M&P that actually had the lock installed. I don’t think most people would object to there being a provision for the lock for those customers who want it. The sticking point with the revolvers is that the lock is not optional.
The other thing that needs to be pointed out is that when the “deal” was reached, S&W was not owned in the U.S.A. It was owned by a British company who didn’t want to make guns and would almost rather have shut the company down. If I am correct, the new owners were in fact the people who developed the lock and that is why most of the newer guns had the lock. In any event, the company is owned in the U.S.A. again and has really spent a fair amount of time and money to bring up the quality and to try and push forward!
That’s right, John… Saf-T-Hammer developed the lock and then eventually bought S&W from their British owner (for about 10% of what he had bought the company for a decade earlier). Even though they may have come up with the lock originally, I’m not sure why they’d keep the lock around if it has been proven to be bad for business.
LG Chris , the lock is good for business, but not because it’s attractive (definitely not) or reliable (when does more small moving parts make a machine MORE reliable?). It’s profitable for the parent company because they get to sell their locks in huge numbers and make their balance sheets look good for investors. Saf-T-Hammer got such a deal because no other corporation would touch S&W. The grass-roots boycott resulted in 40% lower sales for S&W. It was so bad, Clinton filed an antitrust lawsuit in S&W’s behalf against distributors (If S&W went under, it would reflect badly on Clinton, “make a deal with us and you’ll go bankrupt.”). What corporation wants to buy a company in which the customers, not the owners or shareholders, can influence policy decisions?
I’d prefer not to have the lock but after putting hundreds of rounds through my Model 360, Model 60, and two 686Ps, I’ve never had a problem.
I have a M&P340CT with the internal lock. I haven’t had any problems with it. Something I would like to know about the revolver locks engaging after firing. How old or new were the revolvers? When was it made? As with most new things. It takes a few years to get it right. Just asking.
That’s a good question, Samuel. As far as I know, the lock design has not changed since they first came out. It’s possible that S&W made a change along the way that would reduce the probability of lock failure, but they wouldn’t have necessarily been public about it.
Something they're shoving down everyone's throats in California makes your gun stamp the shell casing with a number
Why?
I'll stick to my Rossi revolvers.
As good as a Smith, and no lock.
If you have a bear right on you, last thing you want is the revolver locking shut. My 460 hasn’t locked shut at the range, hope it wont when yogi the bear decides to have me for a picinic
Nathan, if I were spending a lot time in a place where bear attacks were a legitimate and realistic threat, I’d most definitely look into removing the lock, or find a gunsmith to do it for me.
Ronald Harris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_microstamping
I remember reading an article talking about the .357 cartridge, and how it had been toned down from it's original 1500fps. If this is true, and the .357 is no longer as powerful as it once was this could also account for the locking mechanism having fewer issues than the larger .44 mags. I do own a revolver with an internal locking mechanism made by Rossi. I've never had any issues with the internal lock; however, that particular weapon has been back to the manufacturer twice since I bought it, both times immediately after being taken out of the box and fired at the range. The second time around Rossi sent me a brand new revolver which has at least survived one trip to the range something it's predecessor couldn't do.
Something they’re shoving down everyone’s throats in California makes your gun stamp the shell casing with a number
That's right, John… Saf-T-Hammer developed the lock and then eventually bought S&W from their British owner (for about 10% of what he had bought the company for a decade earlier). Even though they may have come up with the lock originally, I'm not sure why they'd keep the lock around if it has been proven to be bad for business.
I've seen that hole in the M&P frame too, but I've never seen an M&P that actually had the lock installed. I don't think most people would object to there being a provision for the lock for those customers who want it. The sticking point with the revolvers is that the lock is not optional.
Nathan, if I were spending a lot time in a place where bear attacks were a legitimate and realistic threat, I'd most definitely look into removing the lock, or find a gunsmith to do it for me.
That's a good question, Samuel. As far as I know, the lock design has not changed since they first came out. It's possible that S&W made a change along the way that would reduce the probability of lock failure, but they wouldn't have necessarily been public about it.
I’ll stick to my Rossi revolvers.
As good as a Smith, and no lock.
The thing is, I have seen 3 S&W guns with locks fail. All J frames. All almost brand new. The gun most likely to be used in a self defence situation. I will not own a gun with these locks for that reason.
I remember reading an article talking about the .357 cartridge, and how it had been toned down from it’s original 1500fps. If this is true, and the .357 is no longer as powerful as it once was this could also account for the locking mechanism having fewer issues than the larger .44 mags. I do own a revolver with an internal locking mechanism made by Rossi. I’ve never had any issues with the internal lock however, that particular weapon has been back to the manufacturer twice since I bought it, both times immediately after being taken out of the box and fired at the range. The second time around Rossi sent me a brand new revolver which has at least survived one trip to the range something it’s predecessor couldn’t do.
I've had a mod 360pd for years with no problems. This is the first time I'm hearing about this.
I will say that I thought "option 4" was kind of rude. Some of us like to carry revolvers because (well 99.99% of the time) there is no chance of a jammed round or a FTE, at worst you pull the trigger again if the first round is a dud LOL. I love semi-auto pistols but when it comes down to it my carry piece is usually a revolver. I just don't trust the mechanism of a spring loaded magazine and ejecting carts with my life.
The thing is, I have seen 3 S&W guns with locks fail. All J frames. All almost brand new. The gun most likely to be used in a self defence situation. I will not own a gun with these locks for that reason.
That’s a lot of failures, Sean. What caliber were the j-frames? Were all the failures for sure related to the lock?
I’ve had a mod 360pd for years with no problems. This is the first time I’m hearing about this.
That's a lot of failures, Sean. What caliber were the j-frames? Were all the failures for sure related to the lock?
I will say that I thought “option 4” was kind of rude. Some of us like to carry revolvers because (well 99.99% of the time) there is no chance of a jammed round or a FTE, at worst you pull the trigger again if the first round is a dud LOL. I love semi-auto pistols but when it comes down to it my carry piece is usually a revolver. I just don’t trust the mechanism of a spring loaded magazine and ejecting carts with my life.
No offense intended, Adam. It was a joke. I occasionally carry a revolver myself.
Regarding the failure rate of revolvers, they may be more reliable on average, but malfunctions do occur (even in revolvers with no internal lock). Here are a couple of interesting posts on that topic:
http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/e4753006203cbed7f819165f57a40f1f-1037.html
http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/12/26/new-series-revolvers-dont-jam-except-for-when-they-do/
No offense intended, Adam. It was a joke. I occasionally carry a revolver myself.
Regarding the failure rate of revolvers, they may be more reliable on average, but malfunctions do occur (even in revolvers with no internal lock). Here are a couple of interesting posts on that topic:
http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/e4753006203cbed7f819165f57a40f1f-1037.html
http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/12/26/new-series-revolvers-dont-jam-except-for-when-they-do/
LG Chris mountain lions are more common in my part( north Cali) of the country than bears actually
LG Chris mountain lions are more common in my part( north Cali) of the country than bears actually
My wifes primary carry is a 442 which locked itself between range sessions. I cleaned it and KNOW that I didn't engage the lock as I dry fire on a casing after I clean it. She carries it in a holster so there is no way that it was compromised.
My wifes primary carry is a 442 which locked itself between range sessions. I cleaned it and KNOW that I didn’t engage the lock as I dry fire on a casing after I clean it. She carries it in a holster so there is no way that it was compromised.
LG Chris , the lock is good for business, but not because it's attractive (definitely not) or reliable (when does more small moving parts make a machine MORE reliable?). It's profitable for the parent company because they get to sell their locks in huge numbers and make their balance sheets look good for investors. Saf-T-Hammer got such a deal because no other corporation would touch S&W. The grass-roots boycott resulted in 40% lower sales for S&W. It was so bad, Clinton filed an antitrust lawsuit in S&W's behalf against distributors (If S&W went under, it would reflect badly on Clinton, "make a deal with us and you'll go bankrupt."). What corporation wants to buy a company in which the customers, not the owners or shareholders, can influence policy decisions?
Just got a 460. Picked it up at my dealers, brought it home, and discovered that the mechanism is frozen. The keyhole is partially obscured by the cylinder release. Brand new gun…
Just got a 460. Picked it up at my dealers, brought it home, and discovered that the mechanism is frozen. The keyhole is partially obscured by the cylinder release. Brand new gun…
My 329PD locked up at the range with some full power ammo. It will be lock free soon enough.
My 329PD locked up at the range with some full power ammo. It will be lock free soon enough.
I purchased a brand new S&W Model 686 revolver. I took it to the range and fired 6 shots of 38 Special. I then loaded the cylinder with 6 rounds of .357 Magnum bullets. After the 2nd round the trigger locked up on me. I couldn't pull the hammer back unless I swung out the cylinder. It's now back with S&W for repairs.
I purchased a brand new S&W Model 686 revolver. I took it to the range and fired 6 shots of 38 Special. I then loaded the cylinder with 6 rounds of .357 Magnum bullets. After the 2nd round the trigger locked up on me. I couldn’t pull the hammer back unless I swung out the cylinder. It’s now back with S&W for repairs.
just took my S&W .38 spl.+p hammerless airweight to the range. after 10 rounds it became locked. now searching ebay for a key to unlock.
just took my S&W .38 spl.+p hammerless airweight to the range. after 10 rounds it became locked. now searching ebay for a key to unlock.
Will not buy a S&W with the lock ever, all mine are pre-lock and yes a new 642, S&W needs to go back to its roots.
JM2CW
My daughter's Jframe 38 is not firing after putting just 5 rounds through the gun. When she reloaded, the trigger is not "hard to pull" she says, yet the gun will not fire. I am six hours away. Anyone have any ideas?
My daughter’s Jframe 38 is not firing after putting just 5 rounds through the gun. When she reloaded, the trigger is not “hard to pull” she says, yet the gun will not fire. I am six hours away. Anyone have any ideas?
No. I hope everything worked out for her. I realize that your comment is 4 months old.
That lock is the most idiotic invention by S&W. It’s also one reason I only own/purchase pre-lock Smith’s. There are plenty of them out there and the build quality is so much better (no lock, pinned barrel, recessed cylinder, ribbed back straps). For those who may be interested there is a user on the forum, smith-wessonforum.com who sells what is called “the plug”. He machines them himself on a lathe and it’s basically a plug to go in that hole once it’s removed. It’s a simple process. He offers them in stainless and blued. Doesn’t look bad either. If I owned a locked revolver I’d want to put one of those in. Forget the liability stuff. The lock is for keeping it from firing and out of children’s hands, not for self defense purposes. Do you really think that a jury and lawyers are going to send you to prison because you had someone break into your house who was armed, you took them down, and they found out the little lock on your revolver was removed? Oh please that’s about as ridiculous as them putting it on the revolver in the first place. You can ask the lawyers this simple question in your defense, “Has anyone who has owned a S&W revolver with a lock actually ever used it? If so, please prove it.” I have asked this question on forums, in gun shops, at gun shows for the past 10 years and have yet to find one person who says they use it. Prove me wrong and I’ll send you a free key for that stupid lock, lol (since you’re probably the ONLY one out there who uses it.)
I own a 1970 S&W Model 28, and a couple of Rugers. Aside from the internal locks being stupid, I don’t like the ruined aesthetics of it. While S&W is a nice factory revolver, Ruger’s new Match Champion makes the 686 a less nice option. Plus the Rugers are stronger and have no internal lock.
I own a 460 XVR PC 8 3/8″ and the recoil with the massively loaded rounds is sometimes unbareabe and have never had an issue with the lock. The fact that I have never utilized the lock devise and utilize my gun safe for in-home safety may play a role in this fact but I don’t feel that is the case. S&W revolvers are just as great today as they always were in my eyes. Just my opinion of course.
sdc…
Smith and wesson revolvers are great, but are not as good as they used to be. Like my smith says “It may be a small chance it will lock your revolver up, but it has happened and will happen again. Revolvers reliability while loaded for an infinite amount of time is what makes it the perfect nightstand gun in a world of plastic pistols. The lock takes that away.” I’m just glad I have my 686-3, many guns come and go, that one never will. Hell, if I only owned it, I would never have met my smith. Their is a reason the smith’s made for professionals don’t have the lock.
My perspective is this. With all the controversy, who wants to carry a firearm that likely will not fail you in a defense scenario, but may. I read where 1 out 100,000 chance of this happening. Who volunteers to be the “1” it happens to. I love S&W’s. But, with that said I’ll buy a pre-lock version every time for self defense. If I buy just for fun, I’d take a chance on the IT version.
I can not begin to tell you how many people I know, including myself, that will not buy a smith & wesson because of that ugly looking lock. But the real reason is that back when Clinton was President and playing around with one of his versions of gun control, he was appeased by the S&W people. They decided to put that stupid lock on then. That is why people call them “Clinton Locks.”
Buy the oldies. They are made better anyway.
I won’t ever buy a S&W revolver with a lock NIB. I will buy them on the secondary market for a large discount, but that’s it. Never, ever, ever new.
Either S&W ditches the lock, or they won’t ever see a dime of my money. Period.
It’s ugly. It’s useless. It’s an insult. Period. I don’t care if it’s 100% reliable, I still won’t buy one. Ever.
I was shooting a friend’s stock S&W Model 637, loaded with standard Federal .38 Spl 130gr FMJ rounds. The revolver locked up on the third round of a cylinder full, with the internal lock self-activating to lock up the cylinder and hammer. Fortunately for that range session, I had one of the S&W lock keys on my keyring with my car keys, so I was able to unlock the internal lock and we finished that range session okay. However, when I returned home, I took out the lock mechanism on every one of my S&W revolvers that had them, and I have refused to purchase a new revolver with an internal lock since that time. Note that the 637 is a stainless steel gun, and I was shooting standard factory “poofer” loads. One of my personal scandium models that I carry in the woods with me is a 329PD. I’m glad I disabled the internal lock as I would be in deep doo-doo if that gun locked on me when I was faced with a bear or cougar. S&W needs to get rid of those locks if they want any more of my business. For that matter, so does Taurus. Ruger’s lock is truly inauspicious, and requires work to get to it in the first place. I can’t imagine it locking up, and on mine, they haven’t…yet.
I just bought an AirWeight 38 Special +P Model 638CT in June 2015. I have two 9mm pistols, but I wanted the reliability of a revolver for self/home protection. I liked the lock, in concept, because I have grandchildren who visit, and I wanted to be able to easily lock the gun action. Shortly after purchasing, I was practicing loading/unloading the gun quickly, without firing it, and suddenly, after closing the cylinder, the gun locked up! I unlocked it, and continued to load/unload the gun, and all of a sudden it happened again. I had never heard about the lock problem with this model. I now wish I did not have the lock, and I am looking for a way to fix the problem without voiding out the warranty. I plan to contact S&W to see if they can fix it under warranty.
Absolutely send it back to S&W ASAP. I wouldn’t carry it until its fixed. If the lock will engage from practicing reloads, it will probably engage from being fired.
For those who, as N.T. Sheahan states above, ‘like the concept’ of the internal lock (IL) for safety purposes, I would suggest instead using a gun trigger lock. A trigger lock will disengage a locked trigger as fast, or faster, than a S&W IL, and the trigger lock, once removed, will NOT continue to pose a risk of reliability to the gun whereas the S&W IL does affect reliability on every gun S&W makes (barring 2-3 models). For those who have bought Smith’s unawares of the Hillary Hole (IL) but are worried about removing it because of liability, I think that having a trigger lock with the gun – on the gun – will defeat any liability issues/arguments from an ambulance chasing attorney or promotion hungry Prosecutor.
But better than a trigger lock I would recommend a small 12″x8″ steel 1-2 gun nightstand combination lock box that opens instantly with the press of a 5-key combination. This way you may keep your gun locked but loaded & don’t have to worry about losing or dropping a key under the bed in the dark; while the remainder of the time still keeping your gun safe from, and out of the hands of, inquisitive kids/grand-kids, etc. And as your kids get older and responsible, learning the use & safe handling of firearms, you can share your combo with them so they too are able to protect themselves if home alone.
N.T. Sheahan Did you contact Smith on the lock problem. Will they void the warranty if we remove the lock? I have a few S&W’s with lock and I want them gone. Thank you!!
Yeah they void the warranty if you remove the lock, but it’s the only way to make it a reliable firearm in my opinion.
It is a total deal breaker for me. Every time I would look at this it would remind me of the billary’s. Anyone who would own one of these should sell it or send it back to S&W until they stop this insanity.
A “Clintonized” S&W is a deal breaker for me; period.
I have a S&W 38 special victory model’ when firing it will skip every other round’ leaving a tap make on the round but no discharge’ how can I fix this problem
Sounds like light primer strikes, usually the result of a weak mainspring and/or rebound spring. Either of these can be replaced fairly easily, but if you’re not comfortable doing it yourself, S&W customer service can do it, or your local gunsmith.
I will not buy one with the lock, plain and simple. I’m wanting a 642 right now but if the ones the gunshop has have the lock I won’t purchase.
No locks ever for me. It’s a total deal breaker. Thank God for used “Pre-IL” guns.
I bought a new Model 15-10 (K-frame .38/+p) with 6″ barrel in January 2012. My bad: I had not done my homework and was not aware of the IL. In August 2015, after a meticulous cleaning, I attended a self-defense training course. During that course the IL activated by itself TWICE: first after about 200 rounds American Eagle .38 135 grain and again after another 100 rounds of the same. I finished the course with a borrowed pre-lock K-frame. The Model 15 went back to Smith & Wesson for repair and was returned with the fix that the extractor had been cleaned. The Model 15 is no lightweight (37.6 oz) and my ammo was not high powered.
My use for the revolver is home defense. Whether routinely used or pristinely clean it just has to work. I no longer had confidence in the gun and wanted it officially out of circulation. Had there been an option to demolish, I’d have done so. Instead, I sold it after full written disclosure to an extremely experienced handgun owner. For $1.00 (one dollar).
Then I did my homework and bought a Ruger Match Champion.
I’m against the internal locks for the exact opposite reason as everyone else.
I’m actually worried that it’s LESS safe, not more. What if the internal lock were to fail? If I wanted to lock something, I would use a trigger lock.
I have had a S&W 500 for about 3 years now and was unaware what the little “key thing” that came with it, was until I began to clean it. Despite firing a lot of heavy loads, inadvertently hitting the cylinder release more than once and bloodying both hands during my learning curve, I have not experienced any issues with the internal lock. After reading this article, I guess the key will finally leave the box it came in and go into my range bag. Just in case. For what it’s worth, I had a brand new Ruger Security Six that on the first outing had the cylinder bind and wouldn’t rotate after maybe 3 rounds. Since I bought it at a range their gunsmith took two minutes and adjusted the cylinder gap. It has been perfect ever since. My early 70s Model 29 when new, had a similar problem, but only if I used too much oil on the front of cylinder. After a few hundred rounds that problem never resurfaced again. All mechanical devices experience failures and one your may need to save your life, must be tested rigorously before depending on it.
No Smiths for me until the hole goes away.
I own a M&P 40 that has an internal lock. I never even realized it had the lock on it until recently. Problem is that if it did accidentally click on I have no key to unlock it. There was no key with the gun when I bought it. I just didn’t know about the lock until reviewing the owners manual more closely. Can anyone tell me where I might obtain one of these keys?
Smith & Wesson sent me one, free of charge.
Wouldn’t buy an S&W revolver with the internal lock even if my life depended on it. Fortunately, it doesn’t. Plenty of older, used, pre-lock S&W revolvers still available. In fact, I just bought another one last month. It is sweet!
It’s one of the biggest business/marketing mistakes S&W ever made. Now they are stuck with it due to political correctness and product liability concerns. Crazy but true. Very sad.
I just bought a 629 PC – the lock blew up and killed me. Before I ever shot it. While it was still in the case. It did SO!
I say take out the I.L…………it is much safer to remove I.L. then to have it lock up on you with the hammer back with live loads in the cylinder.Even puts the gunsmith in harms way to repair a situation like that.Any S&W revolver with an I.L. has the potential for a lock up,to render this from ever happening 100% it’s best to remove it.This is one man’s opinion.
I bought a brand new s&w 686 plus 2 1/2 inch 357 magnum. I loved the way the gun looked and felt. Went to shoot it found out right away the barrel and cylinder was not aligned correctly. Brought it back to my local gun dealer and they sent it back to s&w. Smith and Wesson “supposedly” fixed the issue.. Got it back shot great for the few rounds I put through it. I shot a few more to only have the lock, to lock on me while shooting it. Out of the 2 times I sent it back the gun hasn’t seen 50 rounds.. I was very upset sent the gun back to Smith & Wesson. Hoping they send me a brand-new one like I asked I will give the gun back to my dealer and buy from a different company without a lock. As much as I love the gun I lost all confidence in carrying and shooting the gun. It was the first Smith & Wesson I ever owned and the last one I will. It put a very bad taste in my mouth.
dude i feel your pain. i bought one of their j-frames (442) back in december. it was bought from an online retailer so i didn’t have the opportunity to inspect it prior to purchase. anyways come january when i went to finally use it and take it out of the box i was horrified at the piss poor quality.
– machine burs ON the frame
– trigger burn marks from their sloppy heat treat process
– gouges on the frame from their “testing”
– cylinder that doesn’t spin freely like my Rugers, despite being lubricated
sent it back. got it back 5 1/2 weeks later. they refinished the frame and replaced all other parts with exception to the trigger which they said is normal. they claim it is cosmetic. NO SHIT IT’S COSMETIC…IT’S A BURN MARK. not only that, now the cylinder barely spins at all and there is so much cylinder play that it’s contacting the bottom of the frame.
i have been a Ruger guy all of my life and decided to give S&W a shot since quite honestly i’m not a huge fan of the LCR’s. boy was this a mistake. this was my first S&W gun and will be my absolute last. i will have to suck it up and get a LCR and swap out the grip with something less chunky. no way in hell i am carrying this misfit piece of garbage 442 that was assembled haphazardly by someone who was a temp or some shit. the quality of this revolver is so just bad that i would never trust my life with it. sure, it may fire…but i would rather give my money and trust my life with a revolver where the manufacturer put their heart and soul into making perfect with both fit and finish.
the 442 is going back to S&W next week and i am demanding credit towards another gun since obviously their quality issues are horrendous. once i get the new gun, i am instantly selling it on Arms List and washing my hands of S&W forever. screw them
If I want it locked up, I put it in a safe.
Yes, the lock is a deal breaker for me. I will not buy a S&W – period. I can’t imagine how much business they’ve lost because of the lock and the circumstances that led to its existence, discussed elsewhere in this thread so I won’t repeat. I’ve bought a lot of guns since they came out with the lock – when was that, about 2001 I think – but not one S&W, not one.
I grew up in Scotland and moved to the States in 1999. As a dual national (British/American) I was excited to move to a country that allowed it’s citizens (not subjects) to defend themselves. I bought my first gun, a S&W 357 on the 686 frame, in 2000. I had been to some classes but I was still very green about firearms and even greener about the U.S. politics of the time. It is, therefore, only in retrospect that I now know I had bought a gun with a malfunctioning lock. As I subsequently learned of the infamous S&W/Clinton sell out I regrettably had to turn my back on this iconic American institution, as it had sadly turned it’s back on America.
I share this story with you because, in part, I would like to point out that a portion, perhaps a very significant portion, of the lock malfunctions that have occurred to date were not necessarily reported as such. With S&W being reluctant to acknowledge their part in their own monumental mistake, it’s not much of a stretch to think that the lock malfunctions that went undiagnosed by the customers were perhaps mysteriously undiagnosed by the Smith & Wesson company.
I still see revolvers as the hands down best choice for carry, home defense and many other applications which is why I would urge anyone looking for a great quality wheel gun to head straight for Ruger.
I can confirm that the S&W lock does engage on it’s own. I almost exclusively shoot the .357’s 6 inch revolvers and mostly older ones. Literally as soon as I bought a new one with the lock, it engaged in the store while dry firing. They insisted it must be a defective and got me another. Literally before I even left the store, my new purchase had seized up at the range. I was livid, but not at the store people. but I made them take it back and give me a full refund. That’s two Smith and Wesson 686’s getting totally stick up from their internal locks and not being fixable with the key. It required their gunsmith to handle both.
I also had a friend experience this with the same model and he ultimately ended up selling it. These internal locks are pure trash. I don’t know how a company with as good a reputation as them has survived while running their reliability through the mud. Don’t believe me? Ask to see one in a store and fiddle with the lock, shake it, dry fire it some. There’s actually a chance it will lock up just from that. Having experienced this just last December in 2015, I am absolutely done with them until they remove these stupid locks. 100% deal breaker. Guns must be reliable, end of story.
If I told you that a car had a .00001% chance of the brakes failing every time you drove it….would you drive it?
Adding to the failure possibilities of a gun is just bad business.
JMHO
Yes I know, there IS a .00001% chance of your brakes failing but it is NOT by design.
Today target shooting my 329pd locked up on its own with factory Grizzly 240 JHP ammo 1400FPS. Had to get out the key and work it loose. Will be removing the lock.Can’t have this on my critter defense gun. The bear would have got me for sure.