Would you carry a 642 WITH the lock? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Would you carry a 642 WITH the lock?


wrx04
10-26-2010, 20:10
I just picked up my first 642 after trading in my p22. It's a nice little gun, but the only problem is it has the ILS. Even though the chance of the lock ever becoming a problem is small, something about it bugs me. Do any of you carry one with the lock?

Whaledriver
10-26-2010, 20:39
I have for a couple of years. Every time I go shooting, I draw it from my pocket holster and fire five shots.....it always go bang. Personally it does not bother me. There are plenty of internet stories saying otherwise. Until it fails me I will continue to use it.

JK-linux
10-26-2010, 20:48
I carry one nearly every day. I eventually removed the ILS "just to be sure". It probably wasn't necessary, but I can always reinstall it in a few minutes.

wrx04
10-26-2010, 21:46
I carry one nearly every day. I eventually removed the ILS "just to be sure". It probably wasn't necessary, but I can always reinstall it in a few minutes.

I thought about doing that, but i'm scared to "tinker" with a weapon that was designed to have the lock in it. I almost feel it would be less reliable with it removed.(?)

I am contemplating taking the monetary loss and trading for a gun without the lock. I hate to lose money on a perfectly good gun though, just to get the same exact thing in return.

JK-linux
10-26-2010, 21:51
Guess that's your call. Mine works fine with and without the ILS. Good luck.

wrx04
10-26-2010, 21:53
Guess that's your call. Mine works fine with and without the ILS. Good luck.

Did you remove the lock yourself?

ArtCrafter
10-27-2010, 08:01
Would you carry a 642 WITH the lock?

Only if there was no alternative.

There are many alternatives.


Did you remove the lock yourself?

Not sure about JK-linux here on GT, but 4eversnubby on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVPYgohVCNM) did.

If done correctly, removing the ILS components should not adversely affect reliability; in principle, it should actually improve it. (No lock/parts to fail.)

Still, the more direct route would seem to be one of the aforementioned alternatives. (e.g., Buy a "no lock" 642; there are at least 11 of them on GunBroker.com (http://www.gunbroker.com/) right now...)

YMMV/HTH :wavey:

silversport
10-27-2010, 08:17
I have for a couple of years. Every time I go shooting, I draw it from my pocket holster and fire five shots.....it always go bang. Personally it does not bother me. There are plenty of internet stories saying otherwise. Until it fails me I will continue to use it.

This...plenty of "stories" on the errornet...
Bill

Dogguy
10-27-2010, 10:09
I have two 642 Smiths. One has the lock, one doesn't. Both have been treated to action jobs by a reputable gunsmith and both are as smooth as butter. I currently carry the one without the lock due to a propensity on my part to be overly cautious (possibly even paranoid). That is likely due to the speculation and the very few credible stories on the internet. Virtually ANYTHING can happen and usually has or will. I've got a few horror stories of my own I could tell about guns I've used but I know what happened in each case was atypical. It is unlikely those incidents will ever happen again. When I consider that, I really can't justify not carrying a 642 with IL just because of the lock.

Chup
10-27-2010, 15:32
Yes, I would and have carried with the lock. ANYTHING mechanical can break. I bought a new J-Frame and after 30 pulls on the trigger it broke. This had nothing to do with the lock the cylinder just quit turning. this is why I would never carry just One Gun.

wrx04
10-27-2010, 19:40
Yes, I would and have carried with the lock. ANYTHING mechanical can break. I bought a new J-Frame and after 30 pulls on the trigger it broke. This had nothing to do with the lock the cylinder just quit turning. this is why I would never carry just One Gun.

Interesting. I guess you just have to play the odds. I dont think i could ever carry two guns.....one gun is a big enough PIA for me. The odds of you ever needing one are slim, and the odds of it failing when you need it are almost ZERO. That being said, the stakes are about as high as they get, your gun fails....your dead.

tortoise
10-28-2010, 19:04
12345

oldtexan
10-29-2010, 07:07
I carry one or two 642-2 (with the lock) as backup(s) to a G34 or G19. I'd prefer 642-1 without the lock, but I'm not convinced it's a big enough risk to justify the expense of buying and breaking in a pair of 642-1.

My understanding is that almost all of the unintended activations of the lock have happened either with extremely light guns with heavily recoiling ammo (eg 329 with heavy .44 magnum loads, etc) or, according to comments by Dr. Gary K. Roberts on another forum, when the gun is dropped onto a hard surface. I load +P .38 in the 642 so I'm not very concerned about the recoil locking up the gun. If I'm in a "fouled up tangle" with a criminal and drop the gun, my plan is to draw another.

In the last two years or so, I've put about 350 rds through each 642-2 without any problem with the lock. I did, however have a misfire issue with one of them with certain types of factory ammo (Ten-X and Sellier & Bellot) and had to have the firing pin replaced under warranty.

One reason I carry more than one gun is because of the possibility of a malfunction. Anything made by man is fallible.

Gray_Rider
10-29-2010, 14:45
I asked the same question of Evan Marshall on his site, as I have a 642 with lock that has a trigger that is butter smooth out of the box. He said something about expecting Martians before expecting a lock problem. I too carry a 2nd and occasionally a 3rd gun for that and other reasons. I had a new Charter Arms 2000 that broke after about ten rounds, a Mac 11 that gummed up on hardball (out of box) and an AMT DAO Backup that choked on hardball (out of box). A return trip to the mfg. for the pistol and revolver and a dremmel tool for the Mac 11 (burr in chamber) solved the problems as long as I had the guns. Carry a backup if you EVER expect trouble that will involve a firearm to solve! You have been advised!

Gray Rider
Deo Vindice!

"I have heard. You are the gray rider. You would not make peace with the bluecoats!
You may go in peace!"

Chief Ten Bears to the outlaw Josey Wales

fastbolt
10-30-2010, 11:27
My collection of J-frames includes one with the ILS, a M&P 340. I use it for most of my range training & practice nowadays. It's never exhibited a problem with the ILS (internal lock) when I've used standard pressure and +P .38 loads or Magnum loads.

I've handled, shot and inspected (as an armorer) a number of other J-frames, some of which are equipped with the ILS and are carried by fellow LE as secondary or off-duty weapons, as well as having observed a number of other owners of ILS-equipped J-frames shooting for practice or qualification, and none of them have experienced problems to date.

In the revolver armorer class I attended I asked the instructor about any reported problems from LE users with the ILS (since the J-frames are becoming very popular again for secondary & off-duty weapons among LE). He said he'd never heard one of his LE armorer students report a problem, and nobody in that particular class had anything negative to report ... aside from the older folks in my age group being prone to preferring the older, traditional revolvers. ;) The part of the class devoted to servicing the ILS was very brief and limited to replacing the torque lock spring in the locking arm if it was ever required.

I will offer that if someone opens up their ILS-equipped revolver and starts to fiddle with things, like removing the hammer and bolt, then it's possible for the bottom leg of the locking arm's torque lock spring to slip free of its recess in the frame, which could cause problems.

Personally, if given the choice between a model equipped with the ILS and one without, I'd choose the one without the ILS (less parts and less to maintain from an armorer's perspective), but I don't worry about my M&P 340's ILS engaging unexpectedly, either. ;)

While I own a couple of 642-1's without the ILS, I've come to carry the M&P 340 much more often than my 642's. I like the night sight and it's lighter in my pocket holster.

Juts my thoughts.

FWIW, S&W has started to offer some of their internal hammer J-frames without the ILS. The M40/42 has the grip safety instead of the ILS, too. ;)

G33
10-30-2010, 11:35
fastbolt always has great posts.
:wavey::supergrin:

GammaDriver
10-30-2010, 15:11
I carry mine more than any other weapon I own.

the perfesser
10-30-2010, 17:51
I have a 442-2 with the lock. Would prefer one without, but bought mine new a few years ago when there was no option, and for $371+tax. So I really can't complain. When I carry -- and that's infrequently -- that's what I have in my pocket.

F350
10-30-2010, 19:09
The only problems I have heard of are with the 357 chambering and then when using light bullets with heavy powder charges.

When working at an indoor range I did see one. A guy came on with one locked up, he had cocked the hammer to fire single action and could not get the hammer to fall, he brought it in all taped up to prevent firing.

I took it on the range and cut the tape off and tried to fire it, nothing. used a key from one of our guns and unlocked and tried to fire, nothing, turned the key to lock, then unlock and the hammer dropped:wow: Fortunately the internal safeties worked and it didn't fire, while pointed down range I did not have the best grip on it to handle the recoil from the Rem 125 gr 357 semi-jacked HPs it was loaded with.

The gun was new, first trip to the range and this was the second cylinder of the Remingtons which was the load he planed to carry. He said he had fired 50 38 spls first then went with the 357s.

Again, I have not heard of problems with the 38s just the 357s with heavy loads, my wife caries a 642 and I have fears of problems with it.

wrx04
10-30-2010, 21:32
My collection of J-frames includes one with the ILS, a M&P 340. I use it for most of my range training & practice nowadays. It's never exhibited a problem with the ILS (internal lock) when I've used standard pressure and +P .38 loads or Magnum loads.

I've handled, shot and inspected (as an armorer) a number of other J-frames, some of which are equipped with the ILS and are carried by fellow LE as secondary or off-duty weapons, as well as having observed a number of other owners of ILS-equipped J-frames shooting for practice or qualification, and none of them have experienced problems to date.

In the revolver armorer class I attended I asked the instructor about any reported problems from LE users with the ILS (since the J-frames are becoming very popular again for secondary & off-duty weapons among LE). He said he'd never heard one of his LE armorer students report a problem, and nobody in that particular class had anything negative to report ... aside from the older folks in my age group being prone to preferring the older, traditional revolvers. ;) The part of the class devoted to servicing the ILS was very brief and limited to replacing the torque lock spring in the locking arm if it was ever required.

I will offer that if someone opens up their ILS-equipped revolver and starts to fiddle with things, like removing the hammer and bolt, then it's possible for the bottom leg of the locking arm's torque lock spring to slip free of its recess in the frame, which could cause problems.

Personally, if given the choice between a model equipped with the ILS and one without, I'd choose the one without the ILS (less parts and less to maintain from an armorer's perspective), but I don't worry about my M&P 340's ILS engaging unexpectedly, either. ;)

While I own a couple of 642-1's without the ILS, I've come to carry the M&P 340 much more often than my 642's. I like the night sight and it's lighter in my pocket holster.

Juts my thoughts.

FWIW, S&W has started to offer some of their internal hammer J-frames without the ILS. The M40/42 has the grip safety instead of the ILS, too. ;)

Thank you for the detailed post. Means a lot coming from a s&w amorer.:thumbsup:

silversport
10-31-2010, 07:04
fastbolt knows his stuff and likes to share...I have learned much from his writings...

FWIW I have a 642-2 with the lock...would have preferred it did not have it but the price was right when I bought it and I have since had mine worked on but the lock was left untouched...no issues but mostly 125GR standard velocity Nyclads with some reloads and 135GR +P Speer Gold Dot (before the short barreled ammo was available)...no problems with mine...carries nearly a easily as my Seecamp LWS32...

Bill

fastbolt
10-31-2010, 11:07
FWIW, over the years since the introduction of the ILS in the S&W revolvers I've had the opportunity to discuss it with some of their folks, including a couple of the repair technicians and some of the CS/QC folks who work directly with LE/Gov agency customers.

From what I've heard, while they experienced a few scattered issues with the early X-frame guns and the ILS (due to the tremendous recoil, it seems), they resolved those issues. I've also heard that guns that have been returned for "lock problems" turned out to be either caused by other problems, involved guns which might have been tampered with by the owners, or might even have been the result of an occasional production/assembly issue. (This last potential factor seems to have been taken quite seriously by the company from the way it was discussed.) They seemed candid enough and weren't defensive in the least about the subject.

It just didn't seem that it was something for which they received a lot of complaints and warranty returns.

There are many more things which can "lock up" a revolver than a potentially malfunctioning ILS.

When I've ordered some spare/repair parts I've noticed the ILS torque lock spring has been revised. Not uncommon, though. A lot of S&W parts and components are always being revised. Sometimes it's a change in the part itself, a refinement or improvement, sometimes a change in a vendor, and sometimes simply a change in the part number or some minor change not connected to the performance of the part.

As I stated earlier, I know a number of guys who are carrying various J-frames, both Airlite Magnums and Airweight .38's, and they've not experienced any problems related to the ILS in their guns. While any piece of mechanical equipment can experience a problem, the potential for ILS-involved problems has gone pretty far down on the personal list of things I worry about. ;)

There was one guy who bought a used 642-2 to carry as a backup weapon & for off-duty when he didn't want to wear a belt holstered weapon. He was experiencing no problems with the 642 on the range as he received it. I did inspect it at one point and felt the locking arm spring seemed a little lighter in tension than I'd found in new guns (or during the armorer class). I replaced the locking arm & spring with newer parts and noticed the spring tension was heavier. The gun still ran normally afterward, and I liked the heavier tension on the locking arm spring. I know another guy who carries a 442-2 for backup & off-duty and shoots it a lot. He's a longtime shooter, for recreation and competition venues, and has subjected that 442 to heavier use than many J-frame owners would probably consider doing. No problems with his ILS-equipped gun to date. I could go on ...

On the other hand, for the folks who are adamant in not owning a revolver with any sort of lock built into it, there are options out there, even within the S&W product line. Suit yourself. I certainly don't make it my business to try and convince someone that they need to think about things the same way I might. It's their money and their choice.

Personally, I've considered adding a 6th J-frame to my retirement collection, this time maybe a new M40 (no ILS, but a grip safety), and maybe in nickel. I miss an excellent M36 nickel 3" Heavy Barrel I foolishly let slip through my hands many years ago.

AZ_Quailhunter
11-04-2010, 19:31
I have a few snubbies with the lock, and a whole bunch more without it....they all have worked just fine without fail. Let's see.....11 snubbies in the collection now...it's all good stuff!

AA#5
11-04-2010, 19:44
I have for a couple of years. Every time I go shooting, I draw it from my pocket holster and fire five shots.....it always go bang. Personally it does not bother me. There are plenty of internet stories saying otherwise. Until it fails me I will continue to use it.

After it fails once, you may not be able to continue using it.

XNDR17C
11-05-2010, 14:00
When you think about the vast number of ILS equipped revolvers that are out there, I'd have a tendency to believe that the percentage of those guns that have had ILS problems is probably very small. And likely much smaller than other guns with their problems.
Has anyone heard or seen any stories about an S&W owner being hurt or killed in a self defense situation because the ILS seized up their gun?
My 642 has been and continues to be flawless and if it was'nt for firearm forums and the internet stories floating around, I would never have known there was any sort of problem.


The thing I don't like is that the lock ruins it's good looks.
It's like a boil on the face of a beautiful woman.

1 old 0311
11-05-2010, 14:25
I carry a 638 with a lock daily, and shoot 50 rounds through it weekly. Never had a problem, nor a worry.

KentuckyPatriot
11-05-2010, 17:56
I carry one or two j-frames daily, each have ILS, each gets taken to the range often and shot hard. Never a problem with either. If I carry the second j-frame it is not because I don't trust one or the other, it is because it is faster to pull out a second revolver and start shooting vs recharging and getting back into action.

magic
11-05-2010, 19:02
Carrying my MP340 right now. I completely forgot about the lock until I saw this thread. I had intended to remove the lock when I first got it after reading some stories......on the internet. Like I said, I forgot about it and carry it all the time. I shoot it every time I go out and never had a problem!

Steve 48
11-08-2010, 10:45
Mine works well for me although I would prefer the lock not be there.

Dalton Wayne
11-08-2010, 10:49
I have a no lock 442 that I carry every day, just couldn't bring myself to get a gun with a built in lock,
Regards
DW

JTB1967
11-13-2010, 20:01
I've never bothered removing the locks because they don't bother me, but they're easy to remove if you don't like them. I sure wouldn't pay a premium for a non lock gun.

rkrk
11-17-2010, 20:49
I just picked up a 442 with a lock. I was inclined to buy one without a lock but after some discussion with trusted sources and the $319 (before rebate from Smith) price I went home with a gun with the ILS. The only time I think about it is when I read threads like this one.

rk

JTB1967
11-17-2010, 20:56
I just picked up a 442 with a lock. I was inclined to buy one without a lock but after some discussion with trusted sources and the $319 (before rebate from Smith) price I went home with a gun with the ILS. The only time I think about it is when I read threads like this one.

rk

$319 BEFORE the rebate? That dealer got a smoking deal some place. That's below the current wholesale price for them.

rkrk
11-17-2010, 21:01
$319 BEFORE the rebate? That dealer got a smoking deal some place. That's below the current wholesale price for them.

The price really simplified the decision making process for me

rk

JTB1967
11-17-2010, 21:19
You should buy five or ten for that price. You can make money on them later.

GammaDriver
11-18-2010, 04:29
Likewise, I got a great deal on a new 642.

When I see used 642's going for $325, I always wonder just how badly the seller got scammed on the original deal.

I don't know if S&W is bending the rules for the poorer economy - selling them to dealers at low prices - or what's going on. But enough of the Airweights are to be had, new, at great prices that it doesn't make sense to buy a 642 used for above $300. Especially since the word on the street is that, while they CAN handle +P's, the frame starts tweaking from the shock, and to never buy a 642 with more than XX number of +P's through it.

I'm fine with all of that - it's a great carry pistol, and I'm fine with it not being a target pistol or a +P monster.

Berto
11-18-2010, 18:24
Likewise, I got a great deal on a new 642.

When I see used 642's going for $325, I always wonder just how badly the seller got scammed on the original deal.

I don't know if S&W is bending the rules for the poorer economy - selling them to dealers at low prices - or what's going on. But enough of the Airweights are to be had, new, at great prices that it doesn't make sense to buy a 642 used for above $300. Especially since the word on the street is that, while they CAN handle +P's, the frame starts tweaking from the shock, and to never buy a 642 with more than XX number of +P's through it.

I'm fine with all of that - it's a great carry pistol, and I'm fine with it not being a target pistol or a +P monster.

:dunno:

I'd love to know what XX is, since the guns have been tested to over 20K with +p ammo.
I DID read a review where the new Ruger LCR picked up .003 of frame window dimensions after 5K of +p...but I haven't heard such a thing with the Airweight Smiths.

1 old 0311
11-19-2010, 12:23
:dunno:

I'd love to know what XX is, since the guns have been tested to over 20K with +p ammo.



Well some guy works with a guy who overheard two guys talking at a gun shop and he said he read on the Ruger Forum.................:whistling:

XNDR17C
11-19-2010, 18:21
Well some guy works with a guy who overheard two guys talking at a gun shop and he said he read on the Ruger Forum.................:whistling:

Was that his wife's sister's cousin's roomate who wrote on the forum about his brother's friend's uncle's experience with that second hand revolver with 175,000 rounds through it?

With all this scary lock talk, I think I'm gonna dump my 642 and buy a P-3AT.

Glock26z
11-19-2010, 18:34
I carry a Ruger SP101 so I do not have to worry about a gun that might lockup when you need it in self defense. I carry Ruger revolvers because they are dependable and less expensive than S&W products.

XNDR17C
11-19-2010, 19:03
I carry Ruger revolvers because they are dependable and less expensive than S&W products.

And larger and much heavier. Although excellent firearms, Ruger does'nt make a revolver that matches the small size and light weight of an S&W Airweight.

Super Trucker
11-19-2010, 19:28
............

1 old 0311
11-19-2010, 19:38
And larger and much heavier. Although excellent firearms, Ruger does'nt make a revolver that matches the small size and light weight of an S&W Airweight.


Well that PLUS the J frames just look so damn good. Like a 57 Vette, or a 63 XKE. P-E-R-F-E-C-T:cool:

the perfesser
11-20-2010, 21:58
The perfesser and his 442-2, with lock, channeling Dr. Seuss:

"I would carry it with the lock.
I would store it in a gun sock.
I would carry it in my car.
I would carry it very far.
I would carry it 'cause it's nice
And I got it -- with the lock -- at a low, low price.
My snubbie with the lock is magic: Ala-kazam!
I like my J-frame, Sam-I-Am!"

fastbolt
11-26-2010, 19:59
I carry a Ruger SP101 so I do not have to worry about a gun that might lockup when you need it in self defense. I carry Ruger revolvers because they are dependable and less expensive than S&W products.

While I've been a Ruger owner and enthusiast for almost 40 years, I've also had to have a fair number of Ruger revolvers and pistols repaired and problems corrected.

As a matter of fact, I have a nice SP101DAO that kept having the cylinder seize after firing only one or two cylinder loads of Magnum ammunition. Since I wasn't a revolver armorer back then I had the revolver armorer on our training unit check it out for me. He pointed out a simple issue with the pawl (what S&W calls the hand) and showed me how to correct it, which I did, resolving the problem. That one didn't have to go back to Ruger.

I have a Redhawk that had to go back and have the hammer, trigger and cylinder replaced ... a slide had to be replaced on a new P90 (and some parts replaced over time and hard use) ... misc issues with Blackhawks, a Super Blackhawk and a couple of .22 pistols ... some issues with a couple of Security-Sixes and others I can't remember off the top of my head.

Ruger makes very good firearms, but they're still just machines and QC issues can slip past during manufacturing and production.

After having attended quite a few more than a Baker's Dozen of armorer classes for various firearms over the years, I've not yet come across a brand/make/model that didn't sometimes require some correction or repair at one time or another for an occasional example. They're still just machines.

Berto
11-28-2010, 18:02
My first SP101 had the same problem with seizing.
Second one has been fine.

faawrenchbndr
11-28-2010, 18:21
I would suggest you either remove the lock nub from the bell crank or carry a no-lock.

XNDR17C
12-05-2010, 21:10
I would suggest you either remove the lock nub from the bell crank or carry a no-lock.

Why? Please list your reasons for us and your qualifications and experiences that assisted you in creating your reasons.

TriggerHappy007
12-06-2010, 20:37
Done!

Tilley
12-08-2010, 00:49
Carrying my MP340 right now. I completely forgot about the lock until I saw this thread. I had intended to remove the lock when I first got it after reading some stories......on the internet. Like I said, I forgot about it and carry it all the time. I shoot it every time I go out and never had a problem!

Gangsta!!!

Deaf Smith
01-01-2011, 20:22
If Fastbolt says the internal lock is no problem, then to me that means it's no problem.

And yes I have an airweight Centennial .38 with the lock and I use for CCW along with my Glock 26.

Never hand any problems with the Centennial but then I never use the lock!

Deaf

Iceman cHucK
01-01-2011, 20:45
I had three with locks and removed them all, no problems.

One way to look at the issue. If the gun locks up during a critical shootout it could be a "once in your lifetime" event and would be the last thing in this world for you to think about!!!

Tilley
01-01-2011, 21:56
If Fastbolt says the internal lock is no problem, then to me that means it's no problem.

I had bought a brand new 360PD titanium snubbie. The lettering was "double-stamped" and looked like it was out of focus. I only own nylon bore brushes and used Breakfree to clean it, yet the protective coating came off the cylinder face and started to pockmark the cylinder face. I sent it back to S&W and the sent me back either a new weapon, or did a really-really good job redoing it.

After about 100 rounds of .38 WWB range ammo, the gun locked up. I have NEVER touched the lock prior to that. This time I took the gun to a local gunsmith who took the gun apart. The little spring that holds the flag came loose. If I rapid fired or if the gun was held upside down, gravity would bring the flag out, locking up the gun.

I had the gunsmith remove the flag and spring and he charged me $50.00. I didn't mind the little slot on the side of the hammer knowing the lock (flag) was gone. I eventually sold the gun because the recoil was way too much for me to shoot accurately with. The same gunsmith charged me another $50.00 to put the flag back in.

I now have a 342M&P .38 special and love it. I found a very good video online about how to remove the lock
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVPYgohVCNM)
and removed the flag myself, but I did not like the small round hole next to the lock where the flag pivots internally with. I bought a dremel and completely ground off the nub (I did a great job too). This is the nub:

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/LockingLug.jpg

Since I really like this gun, I have no intentions of ever selling it, I am happy and confident this weapon will never lock up on me.
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/0224100128a.jpg
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/0224100130a.jpg

fastbolt
01-02-2011, 02:06
This time I took the gun to a local gunsmith who took the gun apart. The little spring that holds the flag came loose. If I rapid fired or if the gun was held upside down, gravity would bring the flag out, locking up the gun.

I had the gunsmith remove the flag and spring and he charged me $50.00.

The bottom leg of the torque lock spring (the small spring installed in the locking arm, or "flag") sits in a small recess in the upper area of the machined space in which the bolt rests and moves. This, and the small stud which fits in the left side of the frame, is how the locking arm is secured to the frame.

The spring holds the locking arm down under recoil, and pulls it downward when the locking arm is in the unlocked position. If the spring's leg isn't properly located in the small recess, the locking arm isn't held in position as intended. (You can't see the spring's leg and its recess in the posted image because the bolt is installed and blocks its view.)

During the armorer class I noticed that if the side plate is removed, and then the hammer and bolt are removed, and then the frame is tipped onto its right side, the weight of the locking arm can dislodge it from the frame, including the spring's bottom leg from its recess, and allow the locking arm to fall free of the frame. Naturally, the locking arm must be installed properly, which includes positioning the spring in its intended recess so it anchors the locking arm.

It's not my business to try and talk someone into, or out of, "liking" the ILS in new model S&W revolvers. I know folks for whom I have a lot of respect who have opinions on both sides of the "debate" about the ILS in the revolvers.

Fortunately, S&W has released some internal hammer (Centennial) models which are not equipped with the ILS, so those folks so inclined can have a few options when it comes to choosing a J-frame which doesn't have the lock.

I don't claim to be an expert when it comes to this subject (being just an armorer), nor am I under any illusion that any mechanical device/design is immune to failure for one reason or another.

It's just not something that keeps me awake at night, worrying about it.

ducati
01-08-2011, 12:49
I have not had a problem with my 642. I wish it would have been an option.

SuperSleuth
01-08-2011, 13:08
I would, but only if I couldn't get one without the internal lock.

markesquire
01-22-2011, 22:34
I carry a bodyguard with lock and lock it everynight in my truck. It does give me some peace of mind with kids around.

Mark

fowler
02-08-2011, 19:22
Have one without lock,but had one lock-up with lock . Ground stud off lock then gun worked no matter where the key was turned. Best way is to take out all the lock crap and tread_tap and loctite a allen head lock screw in the from the inside and leave the off side flush with the frame. Looks and works great. I just bought a no-lock when they were out.

NMPOPS
06-01-2011, 01:55
I have a 642 and a 638 both with the lock and have fired over a 1000 rounds thru each with absolutely no problem.

AZ_Quailhunter
06-05-2011, 20:07
yes....I carry a M36 with a lock....and own one without a lock. Both reliable as can be.

NMPOPS
06-06-2011, 05:26
I've carried one every day for over 5 years with the lock. 1000+ rounds, no problems. I also have a 638 w/ lock and almost as many rounds. When I retired I pretty much qit carrying square guns in favor of my two S&Ws with no worries whatsoever.

Mail Clerk
06-07-2011, 12:57
I just picked up my first 642 after trading in my p22. It's a nice little gun, but the only problem is it has the ILS. Even though the chance of the lock ever becoming a problem is small, something about it bugs me. Do any of you carry one with the lock?

I have one but never activate the lock. No kids in my house and with the lock activate it won't go boom when the assailant is about to stab you.

Mail Clerk

fowler
06-08-2011, 04:32
Grind the flag off. I had one early and it locked up shooting hot 125gr.hp,s. I picked up a 642-1 no lock about 5years ago and never looked back. Won,t buy a SW with a lock,no thankyou. A favorite with the late Steven Camp . A great 24/7 ccw weapon.

captcurly
06-08-2011, 13:38
I have for a couple of years. Every time I go shooting, I draw it from my pocket holster and fire five shots.....it always go bang. Personally it does not bother me. There are plenty of internet stories saying otherwise. Until it fails me I will continue to use it.

What you said, whaledriver. There is a lot of crap on the internet about a lot of things. We use to have urban legends now we have internet legends.

fowler
06-12-2011, 16:45
Twice a 642 -2 locked up once for me and another at the range. Shooting 125gr. plus-p. Maybe they will not lock up with standard mild factory ammo,but it did for me shooting Cor-bon and my pal shooting ww110+P+. No lock for me thankyou!!!! Cyl. locked up solid ,could not pull trigger.

fastbolt
06-14-2011, 22:19
Hey, the thread came back online ...

FWIW, the J-frame I decided to take with me during an out-of-state trip (just got back) under LEOSA was my M&P 340. The one with the ILS. Not either of my 642-1's, my 649-4 or my 37-2, none of which have ILS's.

Why? Because the front night sight & U-shaped rear notch on the M&P give me a noticeable edge in aimed fire when I take time to catch a sight. Handy.

I have another M&P 340 on order, coincidentally enough, this time the new model variation made without a ILS.

Why? Because they finally made one without the ILS and I liked my first one so well I was waiting for an excuse to buy a second one. ;) Why not one without the ILS?

I'll keep my original one for use in a backup role to the new one (once the new one proves itself functional) and to use as a "range beater", to see if I can ever wear it out. While I do occasionally use .357 Magnum loads for practice & quals, I mostly use a mix of various +P (at least 4 loads I can think of off the top of my head) and standard pressure loads (budget practice).

BTW, I've experienced ... and had other folks bring to me ... revolvers, including S&W J-frames (with & without the ILS) which have had the hammer, trigger or cylinder "lock up", seize, etc. There are other mechanical (and owner-induced) things that can happen with a revolver which can cause such a problem, even in models without a ILS.