TexasCHLforum.com

Stephen A. Camp wrote:Hello. Yes, they can be disabled and even removed with a substitute plug to fill the hole in the frame.

I don't have the threads located, but they are in this site: http://smith-wessonforum.com/index.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please let's NOT use this post to start a liability debate or storage lock vs. no storage lock debate. There are plenty of those on many sites and most degrade into shouting matches similar to the "caliber wars".

In this section of this site, let's not do it.

Thanks in advance and best.

Thanks for the link, Stephen. And by no means am I interested in the debate. All I care about is reliability for this pistol.

Stephen, is it possible to render the locks inoperable without harming the pistol's action?

I have a 642 with lock. Since I'm not familiar with handling/shooting one without the lock, I don't know that it makes a bit of difference to me as far as how the pistol feels in the hand, or how well or badly it shoots. But I am concerned about the possibility of self-locking, since you brought it up (it hadn't occurred to me before that). One of the reasons I love the little pistol is for its reliability, and you have just shaken my confidence in that. My 642 is my go-to gun when carrying one of my other pistols doesn't work for me, and it would be a bad-hair-day to say the least if it ever decommissioned itself right when I needed it most. My wife has one too, which she carries much more frequently than she carries her Glock 19, and I hate the thought of what could happen to her too in such a scenario.