[DH9]

Is it possible to remove the lock mechanism? Or is it not worth worrying about. I have not had any problems, just don't like the idea of a lock.

[JK-linux]

I yanked mine on a Centennial. It took all of 20 minutes and I have peace of mind back.

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

[DH9]

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

[Gray_Rider]

I asked Evan Marshall, (Yes. THE Evan Marshall on his website, Stopping Power) about the reliability of the lock and he said something to the effect of to expect a Martian invasion before the lock would mess up and cause trouble with the gun.

In the words of John Wayne's son Patrick in "Big Jake", "Damn it Mister! I believe you!"

I may remove my lock just the same, as even this old fumble fingered Secessh could manage it from the looks of the video. The trigger on my 642 is like butter straight from the factory. It is my #1 pocket gun. I got a great price on the gun, just about $450.00 with tax just before the prices on them went up about $150.00.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

"I can't take up my musket and fight 'em now no more. Now that is sartin, sure; And I don't want no pardon, for a Reb I was and am. I won't be reconstructed, and I don't care a damn!"

From "The Unreconstructed Rebel"
A poem found in the Bible of an old Confederate soldier
You are welcome!

[fastbolt]

I don't worry about it anymore.

Sure, given my druthers between 2 identical models, one with the internal locking system and one without, I'd pick the non-ILS model ... but then I have other methods to prevent unauthorized persons from using my firearms and have no personal need for the ILS. Other folks might well find the ILS a practical and desirable option, though, which is good for them.

I've handled, used and helped support a number of the modern S&W revolvers which have the ILS. I haven't had one which has demonstrated an ILS-related functioning problem, nor have I met anyone who reported it happening to them.

Having discussed it with some various folks at S&W over the years, and having been through a revolver armorer class and spoken with the instructor and other revolver armorers, I haven't come across any first or second reports of ILS problems in LE revolvers.

I'm obviously not saying a mechanical problem involving the ILS is impossible. The revolvers are still machines, after all. There are any number of other mechanical problems that could tie up a revolver I'd worry about before a problem with a properly installed ILS that hasn't been fiddled with by someone, though.

I could see how the bottom leg of the locking arm's torque lock spring could become unintentionally dislodged if someone removed the side plate and started to tinker with the inner workings without understanding how everything worked and was supposed to be installed. Maybe involving a moment's inattention during assembly or even an unexpected failure of a spring (but that could be said for something like 6 other springs in a S&W revolver, too .

I know folks who I respect who simply won't own a S&W revolver with an ILS, or any other defensive revolver with a lock of any design, made by anyone. That's their prerogative and I'm not generally disposed to try and change people's minds about issues which don't affect me.

If someone were to dislike the ILS, though, why not simply buy one of the small number of J-frames presently being offered without it? They've started cataloging some without the ILS. The popularity of the limited runs they made without the ILS in the last few years apparently caught their attention. I've thought the M40 or 42 looked interesting, myself (grip safety).

I'll continue to carry my M&P 340 unaltered, with the ILS intact, myself ... as well as my pair of 642-1's and a couple of other J's without the ILS.

[NMPOPS]

I have a 642 and a 638 both with locks. Don't use em and they don't affect anything but looks. Removing them won't help the looks any. I agree with Evan Marshall.

[Booker]

Well boys & girls, I had many problems with the ILS on my model 629 and 500. The locks would partially lock under the recoil of full powered loads.

I've removed all the locks from all of my S&W Revolvers.

[1 old 0311]

The only times I have read of this happening is with FULL house loads, in LIGHT weapons.

[XNDR17C]

Originally Posted by 1 old 0311

The only times I have read of this happening is with FULL house loads, in LIGHT weapons.

That's all I've read about too. I've never had a problem and several friends that have ILS in S&W revolvers never had problems. Too bad we really can't get the true percentage of revolvers that have had lock problems compared to the amount of ILS revolvers produced.
The only reason I hate the lock is that it spoils the looks of an excellent design.

[1 old 0311]

Originally Posted by XNDR17C

That's all I've read about too. I've never had a problem and several friends that have ILS in S&W revolvers never had problems. Too bad we really can't get the true percentage of revolvers that have had lock problems compared to the amount of ILS revolvers produced.
The only reason I hate the lock is that it spoils the looks of an excellent design.

I have heard that SOMEBODY makes/sells a plug for the 'Hillary hole' but I have never seen one.

[Glock940]

There is a guy on http://smith-wessonforum.com/ that sell a plug for the lock removal.

[XNDR17C]

Originally Posted by 1 old 0311

I have heard that SOMEBODY makes/sells a plug for the 'Hillary hole' but I have never seen one.

I've seen those plugs for sale, but even when you plug it up, it's
still a darn big hole with a plug in it, plus the little hole if it's a centennial.
It still ain't the way God intended it.

[Booker]

I been thinking about installing a grease zerk into the hole.

I figure I can take the gun into Jiffy Lube every 3000 rounds for a lube job!

[Dogguy]

Like fastbolt, I don't worry about it anymore.

I have two 642s, one with the lock and one without. Both have had professional trigger jobs that make them a joy to shoot. I also have a 442 with the lock and an original 640 Centennial in .38 Special made before the lock was even an idea in some bureaucrats simple mind. All these guns are dependable, none moreso than the others.

Sure, it's possible the lock could engage and jam up the gun. It's also possible that I could be driving and get hit by a driver more interested in texting his girlfriend than operating his vehicle. That possibility hasn't stopped me from driving yet.

I'm aware of the potential but it won't stop me from carrying a gun with the lock.

[1 old 0311]

Originally Posted by Dogguy

Like fastbolt, I don't worry about it anymore.

I have two 642s, one with the lock and one without. Both have had professional trigger jobs that make them a joy to shoot. I also have a 442 with the lock and an original 640 Centennial in .38 Special made before the lock was even an idea in some bureaucrats simple mind. All these guns are dependable, none moreso than the others.

Sure, it's possible the lock could engage and jam up the gun. It's also possible that I could be driving and get hit by a driver more interested in texting his girlfriend than operating his vehicle. That possibility hasn't stopped me from driving yet.

I'm aware of the potential but it won't stop me from carrying a gun with the lock.

One thing time on this site will teach you is that a LOT of people worry about ANYTHING. They are easy to spot: They wear belts AND suspenders. They wear Bell helmets when out for a walk. They get a vasectomy while continuing to use condoms AND have their girlfriends on the pill. They also go for a walk in the suburbs with three firearms AND a vest.

[Dogguy]

Originally Posted by 1 old 0311

One thing time on this site will teach you is that a LOT of people worry about ANYTHING. They are easy to spot: They wear belts AND suspenders. They wear Bell helmets when out for a walk. They get a vasectomy while continuing to use condoms AND have their girlfriends on the pill. They also go for a walk in the suburbs with three firearms AND a vest.

That just about says it all.