S&W revolvers locking themselves

alpharius

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2022
Messages
1,073
Location
Wake County
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Has anyone actually seen the S&W "safety" locks on thier revolvers lock themselves? I've heard of the concern that over time they could, possibly, maybe, slip into a locked position. I never intend to use the lock to secure the gun (stupid idea to begin with), so I threw the key into the bin of forgotten things and...well...forgot about it. Has anyone ever seen this happen or know someone that's seen it?
 
I have not seen it myself, but the "self-locking S&W" is not merely internet rumor.

While there have been credible reports of malfunctions with both exposed hammer and hammerless designs, a variety of calibers, and frames made from all the various materials (steel, aluminum, Scandium), a fairly consistent pattern has emerged in the majority of confirmed lock failures. In general, the guns most susceptible to self-engagements have been exposed hammer guns, with frames made of lightweight materials (particularly Scandium), firing large caliber rounds (.44 Magnum, in particular) or high pressure, smaller caliber rounds (such as .357 Magnum or .38 Special +P+).

In practice, the locking piece (that doubles as a “LOCKED” flag on the exposed hammer guns) is under very minor spring tension, from a small coil spring at its base. Under the severe forces of recoil in lightweight, heavily-charged guns, inertia has allowed the locking piece to “float up” into a raised position and bind on the hammer, locking it in place. Sometimes this malfunction can be cleared in the field, but other times the jam has been severe enough that it required disassembly of the revolver and/or the attention of a trained gunsmith.

Because the locking piece is bigger on the exposed hammer guns, to incorporate the visible flag, there seems to be a greater tendency for these guns to jam up than on the hammerless models, where the locking piece is smaller and has less inertia to overcome the coil spring tension.


I personally would not carry a S&W with the lock, even if it were a steel j frame firing regular pressure 38's, which would appear to be among the least likely to self-lock. Why add an unnecessary potential failure point to a carry gun?

As far as doing the lock delete, I think there's a pretty clear legal argument to be made, if necessary, that it's not irresponsible. After all, Smith currently produces no-lock revolvers, as do Ruger, Colt, Kimber, Taurus, etc. If the internal lock were agreed-upon by the industry as an important safety feature, why would so many currently-manufactured revolvers not have them? But to avoid the worry altogether, one can always sell the evil locking revolver and get a better one.
 
I've seen a lock rust, and make the gun inoperable. It was S&W 642 at a local shop that I'm friends with, they bought it used from a customer, and it worked fine when they bought it. But after sitting in the case for awhile, it suddenly stopped working. The owner of the shop knows me, and knows that I work on guns, especially S&W revolvers, so he asked if I could take a look. The inside of the gun was full of rust, a lot of parts inside these revolvers are carbon steel, so rusting in the pocket revolvers is fairly common, when someone doesn't take care of them. I was able to fix the gun, remove the rust, oil it, and remove the lock. You don't need a kit to remove the lock, you can just remove the mechanism that locks the gun, you don't have to remove the switch from the side to remove the locking piece, so no hole will be left open in the gun.
 
I'll also add that I don't think S&W actually expect anyone to use the gun lock-out feature on their revolvers. The key they send with them is made from garbage steel, and so is the switch in the gun, but the rest of the steel they use seems to be much higher quality.
 
Something like that, I think it was 1999-2000, somewhere in there. S&W caved in to pressure from some BS, and Hillary Clinton was also involved. So bad stuff all around.
 
Something like that, I think it was 1999-2000, somewhere in there. S&W caved in to pressure from some BS, and Hillary Clinton was also involved. So bad stuff all around.


They didn't cave, they were owned by the company that patented the locking mechanism. Saf-T-Hammer, I believe

When you invent a product that it turns out nobody wants, do you go back to the drawing board and invent something else?
No, you lobby the government to mandate that everyone use your product!
 
I had my 642 lock up at the range while shooting. Of course the key was at home. Once I got it unlocked and unloaded. I took the lock out. There didn't seem to be anything noticeable that would have caused it to lock up under recoil. I have had a few other SW with locks and it has only happened that once. But once was enough
 
There is. Wondering if it is worth it. I'm also hesitant to modify my carry gun for legal reasons.

Removing the internal lock would not be illegal to do and even if it were, concerning a carry weapon, reliability > “legal”.
 
After this feedback I decided to remove the locking "feature".

I watched a bunch of videos on the topic and many people were simply removing the part that actually binds up the hammer from the gun. I didn't want to do that because it leaves a hole in the frame (not the lock hole itself) and a sizeable gap beside the hammer which I thought would allow ingress of outside material (it's a S&W 638). I suppose the delete kit takes care of that hole??? No matter. Anyways I decided it was time for some exploratory surgery. The red arrow and circle indicate what I discovered. That little nubbin is what actually holds the hammer back when the gun is locked.

20221210_205908~2.jpg

I decided that nubbin had to go.

20221210_221047_HDR.jpg

Annnnd it's gone.

20221210_221403.jpg

The gun is back together, with that part put right back where it was, nubbinless. The gun works great and engaging the lock does nothing. Pretty easy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom