Revolver Questions

[in625shooter]

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.

 

[actaeon277]

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.

And, if it only happened once, that is still more than zero.

A non-locked gun may fail, but not from the lock.

 

[in625shooter]

And, if it only happened once, that is still more than zero.

A non-locked gun may fail, but not from the lock.

A little moot point. All I am saying is there is way too much emphasis on the lock. With or without a lock firearms (every make and manufacture) have and will continue to malfunction, break, not work at times. What works well for you I could have had an issue with however, that doesn't mean my issue was an epidemic.

 

[cosermann]

. . . All I am saying is there is way too much emphasis on the lock. . .

This may be. It's a matter of opinion whether it's emphasized too much or not.

Some people are just more risk adverse and less tolerant than others of unnecessary, politically-motivated, feel-good, non-features that negatively affect a serious defensive handgun's probably to go bang.

 

[sbcman]

Lot of LCR love here. Indeed they have a nice trigger out of the box, but that trigger comes at a cost- weak return springs. I had one when they first came out and it snapped on me within 200 rounds. I haven't heard of any others doing this, but it put me off of Ruger.

Which worked out great because I became an S&W fanboy

IMHO, the sweetest j-frame around is an M&P340. If your going to lug something on your ankle or even pocket, you don't want it weighing much at all and the M&P340 fits that bill with the option of 357 or 38, with a nice nightsite front sight and usuable rear channel sight. Mine has a lock but I've seen some without. They don't bother me at all and mine has stood up to a nice pounding of full house 357 rounds. If you can't swing a 340, the 442/642 will do nicely also

 

[nater30/30]

I had a 637-2 internal safety kick in one time shooting +p's. Never took the gun serious again and sold it shortly after I got a G26.

 

[James20]

Go with one without an internal lock. And look into ruger lcr. Or if you're not looking to spend much look into charter arms. They're good just not smith quality and a heavier but still smooth trigger. With practice it can be mastered.