Limited Run of S&W No-Lock Revolvers: It appears that RSR has persuaded S&W to produce a limited run of M-642 and M-37 revolvers without integral key locks. It is reputed that these will use leftover frames from pre-lock production. The topic is being discussed on several forums – included links to three of them.

http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=378526
http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/sh ... n=0&page=0
http://www.stoppingpower.net/forum/topi ... C_ID=15559

Thanks for the info. Couldn't you have just PM'ed me and then in a month or so from now posted for everyone else?

I've seen enough fairly heated discussions on the lock issues on other forums to know this is a touchy subject for some, so let me be clear - this is an honest question asked out of ignorance to the issues:

Why do people care whether or not there are locks on their S&Ws? It looks like it as an ILS system similar to the Springfield ILS (that I haven't had any problems with) on my GI-45. I know there is the whole "it's more parts that could break" way of looking at it, and I understand & respect that logic. I just haven't heard of there being any actual problems.

Please, let me know if I should be concerned and why.

Thanks!

To me it is more a problem of SW caving to the anti's than anything else. I want SW to know I do not approve. They added an unneeded lock that can make their firearms less reliable to be PC. Not cool in my opinion.

Yeah, the lock certainly isn't needed, and I'd be happier in principle if it wasn't there - no question. But does the existence of the lock matter functionally for those of use that don't use it?

The design is flawed and has cause issue on occasion. As I understand it, if the spring in the lock fails the lock will be in the locked position. Not good if you are depending your life to the gun. Some cops will not carry the new ones because of this design flaw.

a few years ago, an elderly gentleman in San Francisco found a massive guy breaking through his door with a crowbar and a machete.

He retrieved from a shoebox under his bed a revolver that ha had purchased in 1946, last fired in 1968, and last cleaned in 1994. When he needed it to, this sixty-year-old gun, that hadn't been fired in 35 years, and hadn't received any maintenance in more than ten, worked perfectly.

I don't demand that level of reliability from everything I own. Not even every firearm I own. But I do expect that level of reliability from a self-defense gun.

If someone can point me to research that indicates that the lock is 99% reliable after 40 years without maintenance, I will consider relying on a gun that has one.

I understand the theory, but can anyone point to an ACTUAL time that the lock has ever failed?

I have both a pre-lock 640 which is the bedroom gun and a post-lock 642 which I carry. No problem with either one.

Nope. Dead men don't talk.

I just don't like the lock, don't know of any real failures, but I just don't like it, maybe it is the principle of it. Just like the Springfield ILS, I don't care for that either, but that is easily removed and ends up in my parts drawer.