Florida Shooters Network

I see that a lot of people will only buy S&W revolvers without the lock. As a long time avid S&W revolver collector and shooter most of mine are without locks but I have few J frame revolvers with lock. I have a 442 and 60 with lock which I have shot many rounds in past 12+ years most of which were my reloads in the +P range. The 60 is a 357mag and I have shot several (5+) boxes of Federal and Remington full power loads plus a lot of 38 Specials. Despite the usage I have never had a lock failure on mine AND I have never seen a lock failure at matches and range. I have a friend who told me he had a lock induced failure who I believe but it’s the only single failure I’m aware of.
Has anyone here personally had a lock failure or lock induced malfunction on a S&W revolver? Or witnessed one personally?
I’m just trying to gage how common or uncommon the lock failure really is.

I’m curious about this topic.
Also, isn’t there a way to remove the lock itself to make this a non-issue?

Michael Bane detailed his on his blog years ago. Generally it is from very heavy loads in very light guns. I think Bane's was in a 329PD.

dammitgriff wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 4:37 pm I’m curious about this topic.
Also, isn’t there a way to remove the lock itself to make this a non-issue?

Yes, details all over the internets. How to address the resulting hole is the issue.

There are a number of brands, including some kits advertised on smith-wessonforum.com

I have mostly non lock, but my latest, a model 69 has one. The prior owner installed an "Original Precision" (originalprecision.com), which is fine, and decent hole fill.

REDinFL wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:55 pm There are a number of brands, including some kits advertised on smith-wessonforum.com

I have mostly non lock, but my latest, a model 69 has one. The prior owner installed an "Original Precision" (originalprecision.com), which is fine, and decent hole fill.

Seems fine, although it is still galling to pay $40-45 per gun to fix a factory flaw.

tector wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:20 pm Michael Bane detailed his on his blog years ago. Generally it is from very heavy loads in very light guns. I think Bane's was in a 329PD.

http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2007/08 ... ilure.html

It is true the lock is annoying, and a concern. Maybe nothing will happen but, if there's something to block the succession of parts for firing, hey, that's my life at risk. There's a discussion on the smith-wesson forum about that, ranging from leftists in one iteration of owners to just a lot of lawyer involvement. Others say it was just management trying to save the company through some difficult years with government pressures. Where's the truth? Who knows. It's whatever one wants to believe. Other companies got through without the lock.

REDinFL wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:29 pm It is true the lock is annoying, and a concern. Maybe nothing will happen but, if there's something to block the succession of parts for firing, hey, that's my life at risk. There's a discussion on the smith-wesson forum about that, ranging from leftists in one iteration of owners to just a lot of lawyer involvement. Others say it was just management trying to save the company through some difficult years with government pressures. Where's the truth? Who knows. It's whatever one wants to believe. Other companies got through without the lock.

Other than Taurus, did anybody else join S&W? I mean I am over it as to the original decision, but why they still persist is another matter--they might as well still limit their semi-autos to 10 round mags, too.

That may be coming.