S&W 642 - Anybody Disable The Lock ?

[EddieZoom]

Once upon a time I carried a pre-lock S&W snubby. I stupidly sold it when small semi's came into vogue. I eventually replaced it with a 642 (with lock). The lock has *never* caused me an iota of problems. I've never used it and generally forget that it's there....*except* every now and then (like now) I get the feeling that's it was a terrible design idea and that I should disable it.

If youtube is to be believed, the process is straight forward and well within my home gun-smithing abilities.

Anyone do this to your S&W revolver ? Still carry it ? Any legal concerns should you ever need to use it for self defense ?

 

[drgrant]

S&W makes batches of lock free 642s once in a blue moon... they've been douchebags about it, though.

There are no legal issues with removing the worthless lock. I think one guy sells a dust plate to fill in the hole, etc.

-Mike

 

[icyclefar]

There was a guy on the S&W forum that was making plugs for most styles in a variety of finishes.

 

[whacko]

I have one 642 with lock. Never used it never even inserted the key (which resides in my safe in the original box the gun came in). Is there any documented proof that any of these locks have failed and jammed a gun anyway?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I have one 642 with lock. Never used it never even inserted the key (which resides in my safe in the original box the gun came in). Is there any documented proof that any of these locks have failed and jammed a gun anyway?

I have no idea, but I do know there is no documented that engaging the lock meets the MGL secure storage requirement.

 

[EddieZoom]

Is there any documented proof that any of these locks have failed?

Like bigfoot sightings, I hear about one every once and awhile. Documented proof...not so sure. Some seem to suggest this is an issue limited to lightweight 357's.

Can any NES's out there shed any more light on this ? Fact or urban legend ?

 

[Cuz]

I vaguely recall Supermoto saying one failed on him a while ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EddieA]

Easy, even I can do it.
Just didn't like the idea.

 

[45collector]

I have no idea, but I do know there is no documented that engaging the lock meets the MGL secure storage requirement.

This. The lock is useless when it comes to MA gun laws.

I can't think of any scenario where I would ever use an internal lock on a firearm.

 

[icyclefar]

I vaguely recall Supermoto saying one failed on him a while ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had a lock issue of sorts.

On a new 686 that I had purchased, after about 5 trips to the range, the gun locked up solid. Fiddled with it on my bench that evening and discovered that the lock had engaged. It took several turns to bring it to the FULL unlock position, and I had no problems after that.

I suspect that it was sitting just on the line between engaged and open, and vibrated into the locked position.

I'd categorize that one as user error, it never occurred to me to verify that the lock was completely disengaged.

 

[Atlas]

I have one 642 with lock. Never used it never even inserted the key (which resides in my safe in the original box the gun came in). Is there any documented proof that any of these locks have failed and jammed a gun anyway?

Mine failed on a 642. Went to the range, swapped my cartridges to target ammo and the trigger was solid. I never even inserted that stupid key once. The gun was a few years old and had at least a few hundred rounds thru it before it failed for no reason that I could come up with. Get rid of that lock, it's easy to do and while it may be very rare, it can fail.