in625shooter
Master
- Mar 21, 2008
- 2,136
- 48
Pre-lock S&W revolvers have a risk of lock failure equal to zero.
Post-lock S&W revolvers have some, non-zero additional risk of lock failure.
Such failure has been well documented, although rare.
Ergo, S&W revolvers with locks are not "just as dependable" as those without. They are "almost" as dependable.
Even if a mechanical lock failure is unlikely, the mere presence of the lock creates an additional mode of failure that's unacceptable to in a defensive firearm.
cosermann, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I cut my teeth on revolvers and was issued one in the Military for several years as well as carried them for duty as a LEO for years and use them to this day. All S&W (have experience with rugers but that's not the point) While the new S&W's with the lock do have more parts thus that in it's self runs the risk of more to break I have seen my fair share of old S&W's get tied up from time to time. However it is nowhere near epidemic. As is with the new S&W's with the locks. The stories of them breaking remind me of the highly exaggerate Military M9 slides separating back in the 1980's. To hear those M9 stories told at the time if you believed it it happened everywhere when in fact only 6 documented cases existed. I was a USAF CATM troop at the time and remember when the Military was made aware of it the USAF anyway had to document round count and send the slide off at the 1000 round mark. That lasted for 6 months then.
The whole "S&W locks are causing malfunction is highly exaggerated. Yes a couple have had issues but what firearm doesn't have a few samples that do from time to time. Now the Scandium models as pointed out by someone else here was more prone to it because of the lighter weight but still not an epidemic.