S&W internal locks

[Alpha Sierra]

Removing any kind of "safety" device can lead to all kinds of legal problems, whether the removal had anything to do with the incident or not, as can any modification to a gun.

This is bullshit.

The lock is a storage lock, not a fire control safety. It HAS to be disengaged to USE the gun and HAS to be disengaged long before you need the pistol. There is zero liability attached to shooting someone who needed shooting with a pistol so modified.

You can trot out all the horror stories you like. It makes no difference. Ayoob is a sensationalist in that regard and I ignore that aspect of his teachings.

Besides all that, my state bars the award of civil damages to someone shot in the commision of a crime. So who gives a shit what the gun has or has not had done to it?

I regularly carry S&W revovlers with the lock disabled and lose not one second of sleep over it.

[PT Doc]

Someone from the S&W forum posted a step by step on youtube for disabling the lock. It's really easy and takes about ten minutes. I don't have the link handy.

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

Not sure if this is the same one, but this one is very detailed and worked like a charm.

[sjohnny]

That's the same one! Thanks for finding it, I'll bookmark it this time. I don't plan on buying any more lockable Smiths (only one of mine is blemished in that way) but you never know.

[jmoore]

A MOST excellent video, BTW!

1) First - I'm about as far from a gunsmith as you can get - so keep that in mind:)

2) The "castration" shown in the video is, I believe, a partial version - designed to leave part of the IL mechanism in place and resulting in no visible change in appearance from the outside. You can remove all of the IL guts at the cost of having a rather noticeable hole where the lock once lived. Some are concerned that this would leave one more access route for schmutz to enter the action. (Yeh - I know. What about access around the trigger and hammer?:)

3) Question #1. Although I haven't been there for many months, some of the folks on the S&W list have commented on the fact that, if left inside, the remaining parts of the IL could displace and create a locked/jammed condition. Does anyone have any updated information/input on this possibility? (FWIW - some have stated that there is "no way" for the remaining guts to work loose. Others have agreed in concept, but maintain that it still happened to them. Again - I don't understand revolver guts enough to comment either way.)

4) Question #2. I know that no gunsmith will advertise that they will remove the lock, for obvious reasons. However, is anyone aware of a source for a decent "plug" for the IL hole - needed to improve the cosmetics and/or block additional schmutz if you remove all of the IL guts? This would be similar to the replacement screw that is offered for those who take the safety out of their Marlin rifles.

TIA

[c1ogden]

This is bullshit.

The lock is a storage lock, not a fire control safety. It HAS to be disengaged to USE the gun and HAS to be disengaged long before you need the pistol. There is zero liability attached to shooting someone who needed shooting with a pistol so modified.

You can trot out all the horror stories you like. It makes no difference. Ayoob is a sensationalist in that regard and I ignore that aspect of his teachings.

Besides all that, my state bars the award of civil damages to someone shot in the commision of a crime. So who gives a shit what the gun has or has not had done to it?

I regularly carry S&W revovlers with the lock disabled and lose not one second of sleep over it.

You may think its BS my friend, and you are entitled to your opinion, but it is still a substantial risk that many people would rather not take. These arguments are brought up quite regularly, especially in areas where the politicians are especially anti-gun. These arguments can usually be shot down in court by a good defense attorney but as Ayoob points out, it is easier to not have to face them at all. As you can see, since I have put all of my Hi-Powers into proper working order, I am personally willing to take that chance but many others are not. As to the liability attached, you are correct that it would be zero in a fair court with a competent jury but we all know that such a situation can be very rare in some places.

[Outrider]

The legal problems that can arise from removing a safety device have to do with the type of harm the device was designed to guard against. In the case of the internal locking mechanism, its purpose is to allow the gun's owner to secure the gun even if he/she does not own a gun safe to prevent an unauthorized person from using the gun.

A kid finding a gun with a disabled safety device and shooting another kid is going to be a problem for the gun's owner. The lock was designed to guard against this kind of situation.

The gun owner shooting a home intruder with a legally possessed firearm that has a disabled safety device is not going to be much of an issue. The lock was not designed to guard against this kind of situation.

The reason that Ayoob and others harp on the disabled safety device as an issue are for shoots that are not completely clear-cut good shoots. It's like the problem of engraving pithy little anti-social messages on a gun. It becomes evidence of the gun owner's mindset. -The argument goes that it is evidence that the gun owner was looking to be dangerous instead of looking to be safe.

Whatever one thinks of it, the idea is to survive the encounter and survive the aftermath (i.e. an investigation into the shooting).

[M4Fundi]

I personally have had a 629 Mountain Gun's internal lock lock/jam up the gun and have to be sent to S&W atleast 3 times! The last time it happened I had to send the gun back loaded because the cylinder would not open. S&W handled it all VERY BADLY and I will never buy another S&W revolver with an internal lock.

Really breaks my heart

[DocGKR]

I've witnessed J-frames with the internal lock malfunction and FAIL to fire during LE training--they had to be disassembled and repaired by an armorer before they would again function correctly; as a result, I will NEVER choose to own a firearm with an internal lock.

[ST911]

The problem is real, despite what armorers, gunwriters, and S&W employees say.

Guns that are used for serious purposes, such as preserving life, should have no such devices. None of mine do.

[Alpha Sierra]

Not sure why all the hate towards S&W revolvers. Yes, the locks look ugly. Yes, they malfunction. Yes, it is dead easy to remove its functionality. And yes, it is dead easy to render the lock fully functional again.

Just gotta know how to open up a S&W revolver and be mindful of the lock arm return spring, both to remove it and reinstall it correctly and not lose it.

Two of my several S&W revolvers have them. Both have been de-activated. I carry both of them in complete confindence that not only the pistol will work every time I want it to, but also that it's lockable storage status is a non-issue on the street.

In fact, it should be arguable that defeating the lock is a PRUDENT thing to do.