TexasCHLforum.com

fun

It's a nice gun. Price seems fair since it is .357.
However, I refuse to buy any of the S&W guns with the lock.

I am looking for a 625-4 with 2.5" barrel (no lock) but they are hard to find at a reasonable price. Most who have them seem to think they are worth the price of a Python!

If you don't mind the lock (which can lock up the gun on it's own, especially with hi powered rounds) then you should be happy.

cap

The straightup SW 360 (not the M&P, not the 360PD, not the 360 Airlite) lists for about $650.00 and can be found for $590 to $600 NIB - so overall you did just fine.

Never had the internal lock come on in my 360PD and I have blasted Buffalo Bore outta it. I'm guessing the same rule about larger than 125 grain applies to your 360 as well.

nice one! I nearly bought that one as well. I was looking for a lightweight snubbie to add to the collection. But, I got a good deal on a trade for a Ruger LCR in 357 instead. Happy shooting.

Not too long ago in another thread about the new Ruger 1911 pistol, my observation as a left handed shooter was that I wasn't interested in it because it doesn't come out of the box with an ambidextrous safety. We southpaws represent about 15% of the handgun buying market. Another member blithely dismissed my concerns with a "just put an ambidextrous safety on it and don't worry about it." Well, that was a stupid comment. Why should I have to pay another $25 in parts and $50 in gunsmithing charges just to fix what should have been fixed at the factory to begin with?

So here's an equally stupid comment..... If you don't like the trigger lock on S&W revolvers, why don't you remove it and buy that plug that is made expressly for plugging that hole in the side plate?

kin

The Annoyed Man wrote:Not too long ago in another thread about the new Ruger 1911 pistol, my observation as a left handed shooter was that I wasn't interested in it because it doesn't come out of the box with an ambidextrous safety. We southpaws represent about 15% of the handgun buying market. Another member blithely dismissed my concerns with a "just put an ambidextrous safety on it and don't worry about it." Well, that was a stupid comment. Why should I have to pay another $25 in parts and $50 in gunsmithing charges just to fix what should have been fixed at the factory to begin with?

So here's an equally stupid comment..... If you don't like the trigger lock on S&W revolvers, why don't you remove it and buy that plug that is made expressly for plugging that hole in the side plate?

I don't have an issue with the lock, so I don't know this from experience. Take it with a grain of salt. I've read at least two articles and heard one podcast where the author tried to have a gunsmith remove the lock, but the gunsmith refused for liability reasons.

As far as the comment about Ruger's lack of an ambi safety, there are also right handers that don't want an ambi safety (like me) and left handers that will buy one evenwithout one, Also, at the Ruger's price point, the extra seventy-five dollars to have one put in aftermarket doesn't put it much, if any, more expensive than other competitors. I won't be buying one as I would rather spend the cash on improving the 1911 I have. If I was going to buy another 1911, it would be a more. High end/ custom one.

BTW, Massay Ayoob only found three documented cases of a S&W trigger lock mechanism failures. All three instances involved scandium framed pistols shooting very hot ammunition. One was a .38 Special shooting +P loads. One was a .357 shooting full house loads. One was a model 329 .44 magnum shooting full house .44 magnum loads. In the case of the first two pistols, the gun actually did seize up. In the case of the third, the lock indicator flag actually flew off of the gun, but the gun kept firing. The .38 and the .357 were owned by the same man and the failures occurred at the same shooting range in Manchester, New Hampshire. The third gun was owned by a guy in Rochester, Indiana. In his case, he was shooting what was at the time his duty revolver. Once he determined the cause, he went back to carrying and practicing with his Model 629 .44 magnum, and he experienced no further failures. Both men determined independently that the cause of the failure was the trigger lock mechanism shifting under the very heavy recoil of super hot loads in a very light light pistol. (SOURCE)

Ayoob has not been able to document any trigger lock failures on any of the standard steel framed guns. His conclusion at the end of the article?

Massad Ayoob wrote:This is not necessarily an indictment of Smith & Wesson, nor even of the integral lock system that company uses. It may be more of a lesson that extraordinarily light handguns firing extremely powerful ammunition can be damaged by the battering of constant, extreme recoil forces.

In my own experience, shooting two model 642 Airweight .38 Special +Ps, an all stainless model 640 .357 magnum, and a model 340M&P .357 magnum, all of which have trigger locks, I have never experienced this type of failure. In my model 340, I've shot plenty of the carry ammo I use—hornady 125 grain Critical Defense .357—and never experienced any failure. In that same pistol, my son and I once fired 15 consecutive rounds of full house 158 grain white tail hunting .357 ammo. It was an extremely unpleasant experience—easily the worst recoil I have ever experienced in any handgun, including my own model 29 .44 magnum—in fact it was extremely painful, and we never experienced shifting or locking of the trigger lock mechanism.

I can imagine that under enough such abuse, the mechanism might some day spontaneously lock itself. But with standard .357 self defense loads shooting lighter bullets, I don't even worry about it. On any given day you are called to draw your gun in anger, regardless of type or caliber, you may experience an unforeseen failure that could get you killed. Your always reliable semi-auto could jam. Your favorite high dollar commercial self defense load could serve up a squib round. That "never been a problem before" MIM part could fail.

I don't waste any energy thinking about those things. I take care of my guns. I clean them, lube them, and inspect them for function while doing so. Then I put it out of my mind and carry them, trusting that either things will work out fine, and that if they don't, I'll wake up in a better place. I think I'm a lot happier that way.

punkndisorderly wrote:As far as the comment about Ruger's lack of an ambi safety, there are also right handers that don't want an ambi safety (like me) and left handers that will buy one evenwithout one, Also, at the Ruger's price point, the extra seventy-five dollars to have one put in aftermarket doesn't put it much, if any, more expensive than other competitors. I won't be buying one as I would rather spend the cash on improving the 1911 I have. If I was going to buy another 1911, it would be a more. High end/ custom one.

My point was to not be dismissive of the legitimate concerns of left handed shooters. And by the way, economy of scale dictates that a production run of thousands or tens of thousands of pistols is going to reduce both the parts and labor costs of installing ambi safeties on 1911s to a couple of bucks. As to Rugers specifically, I believe in the free market. There are a number of 1911s that come with ambi safeties. I buy those, and not the others. As to the concerns of right handers, think of this: it is nearly impossible to purchase a left handed only 1911, so even with the ambi safeties, the 15% of the pistol buying market that is left-handed is getting screwed. I'm not complaining, but in the bigger picture, you righties have nothing to complain about either when it comes to pistols with ambi-safeties. Improvise, adapt, overcome. Spend a few dollars to make it right.

See how unpleasantly dismissive that sounds?

I think it might be the reputation ambi safetys have as well. The do tend to spread in the middle and come apart if not retained in some other manner. I have a little drawer with about 6 sets of ambi safeties that dont hold together firmly at all. They came from different brands so it isnt a single maker issue. For a casual shooter who will never take his gun apart or shoot it much they will be ok but if it used a lot then it will likely fail in my personal experience. Ambi safeties like on the HK USP are much better IMO as they use a solid shaft and the right side lever pins on the end of the shaft.

Thanks for the feedback.

The Annoyed Man wrote:BTW, Massay Ayoob only found three documented cases of a S&W trigger lock mechanism failures. All three instances involved scandium framed pistols shooting very hot ammunition. One was a .38 Special shooting +P loads. One was a .357 shooting full house loads. One was a model 329 .44 magnum shooting full house .44 magnum loads. In the case of the first two pistols, the gun actually did seize up. In the case of the third, the lock indicator flag actually flew off of the gun, but the gun kept firing. The .38 and the .357 were owned by the same man and the failures occurred at the same shooting range in Manchester, New Hampshire. The third gun was owned by a guy in Rochester, Indiana. In his case, he was shooting what was at the time his duty revolver. Once he determined the cause, he went back to carrying and practicing with his Model 629 .44 magnum, and he experienced no further failures. Both men determined independently that the cause of the failure was the trigger lock mechanism shifting under the very heavy recoil of super hot loads in a very light light pistol. (SOURCE)

Ayoob has not been able to document any trigger lock failures on any of the standard steel framed guns. His conclusion at the end of the article?

Massad Ayoob wrote:This is not necessarily an indictment of Smith & Wesson, nor even of the integral lock system that company uses. It may be more of a lesson that extraordinarily light handguns firing extremely powerful ammunition can be damaged by the battering of constant, extreme recoil forces.

In my own experience, shooting two model 642 Airweight .38 Special +Ps, an all stainless model 640 .357 magnum, and a model 340M&P .357 magnum, all of which have trigger locks, I have never experienced this type of failure. In my model 340, I've shot plenty of the carry ammo I use—hornady 125 grain Critical Defense .357—and never experienced any failure. In that same pistol, my son and I once fired 15 consecutive rounds of full house 158 grain white tail hunting .357 ammo. It was an extremely unpleasant experience—easily the worst recoil I have ever experienced in any handgun, including my own model 29 .44 magnum—in fact it was extremely painful, and we never experienced shifting or locking of the trigger lock mechanism.

I can imagine that under enough such abuse, the mechanism might some day spontaneously lock itself. But with standard .357 self defense loads shooting lighter bullets, I don't even worry about it. On any given day you are called to draw your gun in anger, regardless of type or caliber, you may experience an unforeseen failure that could get you killed. Your always reliable semi-auto could jam. Your favorite high dollar commercial self defense load could serve up a squib round. That "never been a problem before" MIM part could fail.

I don't waste any energy thinking about those things. I take care of my guns. I clean them, lube them, and inspect them for function while doing so. Then I put it out of my mind and carry them, trusting that either things will work out fine, and that if they don't, I'll wake up in a better place. I think I'm a lot happier that way.

A word to potential employers:

Hire the left handed....it's fun to watch them write!

:-)

SIA

Some comments from me, not directed at anyone in particular (TAM! ) regarding the "Internal Infernal Lock" that S&W, Taurus, Ruger (and possibly others, some on revolvers only, others on ALL guns!) have, my thoughts, take them for what they are (free!):

To me, an "Internal Infernal Lock" is a deal breaker, for several reasons:

1 - there is the remote chance that either you (or someone else) has "locked" the gun and when you NEED it, it will be locked, thus rendering it to be nothing more than a hammer. Sure, it's remote, but I'm not going to bet my life on it.

2 - I've read of failures of the lock (both on S&W and Taurus) WHILE shooting. Do a little googling on "taurus security system failure" and also for the S&W internal lock. I haven't personally experienced it and I don't plan on it. Sure, it's remote, a really small chance. But WHY in the world would anyone in their right mind want to introduce another mechanical "issue/problem" to a life-saving item? By anyone I mean the manufacturer, well, it was probably the lawyers.... By life-saving I mean saving MY/YOUR life and STOPPING the bad actions of another. Anytime you complicate a mechanism you introduce more chance for failure. It seems that firearms sometimes have enough issues WITHOUT additional encumbrances. Every gun I own goes BANG every time I pull the trigger.

3 - It "uglies" up the gun. Sure, that's an aesthetic/personal opinion thing. I know with the several of the internal lock revolvers that you can disable the lock, but then you are still left with a small keyhole on the side of the frame. NO THANK YOU. Not on my guns. I've read about folks that have installed a shroud/cover of the disabled keyhole. IF you do have one of these guns then I would *highly* recommend doing this, as it will keep debris out of the internal workings (well, it is one less point of entry).

Just my opinions, hope this helps. Buy what you like, after all, it is your money.

If you want some information on the "security"/safety systems, here's a little bit of reading:

Taurus has the "Taurus Security System" on its revolvers, semi-autos, rifles, etc....
http://www.taurususa.com/security-system.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ruger, they have it on their snubby revolver, the LCR: https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/lcr.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (page 7)
On the LC9: https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/lc9.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (page 14)
Also - their web page points out an interesting tidbit: "The State of Maryland has mandated that all pistols and revolvers manufactured on or after January 1, 2003 must have an “integrated mechanical safety device” to be legally available for sale in Maryland. As a result, beginning in 2004, newly designed and manufactured Ruger pistols will be equipped with internal locks." (http://www.ruger.com/safety/storageLocking.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

ban