TexasCHLforum.com

A little more than an unverified rumor this time as it happened with a 329PD Michael Bane was himself shooting.

http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2007/08 ... ilure.html

The only fly in the ointment is that Michael had the gun completely reworked. No doubt, S&W will use that as the reason for the failure.

I have put several hundred rounds of 158gr 357mag Gold Dot (These are HOT) through my 386PD and the lock caused no problems.

If he hadn't had the gun "worked over" by someone other than himself, I might put more stock in his story. But, people put things back together wrong all the time and mechanical things break. It's happened since man invented the wheel and it'll happens when cars are equipped with flux capacitors as standard equipment.

My S&W Model 25 Mountain Gun has a lock. If I am out in the wilderness and have a sudden need to put a 255gr thumping on a critter, I am confident it will fire as designed.

YMMV

I've never had a problem with mine but I also haven't tinkered with it.

This is why Recessed cylinder and pinned barrel models are the route to go. If something aint broke dont fix it. Buy enough for your family while you can. Mod.19's are still reasonable on the used market.

If you read closer..even Massad Ayoob had a similar failure

It appears heavy rounds and even heavier recoil causes the locking mechanism to either jam or COME OUT!

NOT GOOD!

The few incidents that I've read about this happen lead me to believe that a) it's extremely rare, and b) if it *is* going to happen, it happens very early on , once you start firing full-power loads.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if it hadn't failed after 50 full power rounds, it isn't going to fail at all. Not that I'd be worried about it in the first place. A handful of failures among a huge number of guns is hardly statistically significant. It's certainly not worth getting a case of the vapors over.

Xander wrote:A handful of failures among a huge number of guns is hardly statistically significant. It's certainly not worth getting a case of the vapors over.

It IS, however, a good reason to test your revolver extensively with your carry ammunition at the range, trying to get it to malfunction. If your gun won't "auto-lock" after a few hundred heavy rounds, it almost certainly never will. (Any excuse to visit the range, I say ) I do note that the failures seem mostly confined to the ultra-lightweight, heavy-recoiling revolvers. Solid-steel revolvers seem to be immune to this problem.

That being said, I too refuse to own a S&W with the "zit" on the frame. If I somehow wound up with one of those guns, you can bet I'd disable the stupid lock the first chance I got. All it takes is disassembly and a Dremel (and, of course, putting it back together - "Bag O' Gun" is an embarrassing thing to hand your gunsmith ).

Heck, I even removed the internal-lock mainspring housing on my Springfield. I don't like locks on ANY of my guns.

I've concluded lock failures are rare, but they DO happen. Ayoob mentioned several cases of reported lock failures in his American Handgunner column, and the S&W forum has several reports as well.

The lock on my 340Sc self-engaged when I was tapping on the frame to remove the sideplate. OK, it's not while actually firing the revolver, but . . .

Thane wrote: . . . you can bet I'd disable the stupid lock the first chance I got. All it takes is disassembly and a Dremel (and, of course, putting it back together . . ..

Yep! (Detailed instructions - with illustrations - were posted at the S&W forum some time back . . . )

HankB wrote:I've concluded lock failures are rare, but they DO happen. Ayoob mentioned several cases of reported lock failures in his American Handgunner column, and the S&W forum has several reports as well.

The lock on my 340Sc self-engaged when I was tapping on the frame to remove the sideplate. OK, it's not while actually firing the revolver, but . . .

Thane wrote: . . . you can bet I'd disable the stupid lock the first chance I got. All it takes is disassembly and a Dremel (and, of course, putting it back together . . ..

Yep! (Detailed instructions - with illustrations - were posted at the S&W forum some time back . . . )

If you're gonna disable the lock, you'd better make sure that neither you nor whomever owns the gun AFTER you ever has an unauthorized person fire the gun and cause injury. If something like that happened, you might be hit with a liability judgement.

Another point. I doubt if many dealers would buy or accept in trade any gun that has had the lock mechanism disabled - for the above reason of course.

And any gunsmith who would do this modification would have to be out of his mind.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

HankB wrote:I've concluded lock failures are rare, but they DO happen. Ayoob mentioned several cases of reported lock failures in his American Handgunner column, and the S&W forum has several reports as well.

The lock on my 340Sc self-engaged when I was tapping on the frame to remove the sideplate. OK, it's not while actually firing the revolver, but . . .

Thane wrote: . . . you can bet I'd disable the stupid lock the first chance I got. All it takes is disassembly and a Dremel (and, of course, putting it back together . . ..

Yep! (Detailed instructions - with illustrations - were posted at the S&W forum some time back . . . )

If you're gonna disable the lock, you'd better make sure that neither you nor whomever owns the gun AFTER you ever has an unauthorized person fire the gun and cause injury. If something like that happened, you might be hit with a liability judgement.

Another point. I doubt if many dealers would buy or accept in trade any gun that has had the lock mechanism disabled - for the above reason of course.

And any gunsmith who would do this modification would have to be out of his mind.

why would removing it be any different than those who make guns without the darned things? They aren't installed for liability reasons in the civilized U.S. but to keep the Kalifornians happy. My guns came with locks, but they will never be used on anything but a bicycle.
Personally I think that doing trigger work might expose a gunsmith to more liability risk than removing those silly locks.

Liberty wrote: why would removing it be any different than those who make guns without the darned things? They aren't installed for liability reasons in the civilized U.S. but to keep the Kalifornians happy. My guns came with locks, but they will never be used on anything but a bicycle.
Personally I think that doing trigger work might expose a gunsmith to more liability risk than removing those silly locks.

If you disable a safety feature, and someone is subsequently harmed in an incident that would have been prevented if the safety feature had not been disabled, you can be found liable.

The thing is, you took purposeful action to disable the safety feature. That's what makes you potentially liable.

If the gun didn't have the feature to begin with, you didn't do anything.

It doesn't matter whether the feature was included for liability reasons or not. It's there, and if you remove it (and harm results), you can be found liable. The plaintiffs can (and will) argue that if you hadn't removed the lock, the harm could have been avoided.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
If you disable a safety feature, and someone is subsequently harmed in an incident that would have been prevented if the safety feature had not been disabled, you can be found liable.

The thing is, you took purposeful action to disable the safety feature. That's what makes you potentially liable.

If the gun didn't have the feature to begin with, you didn't do anything.

It doesn't matter whether the feature was included for liability reasons or not. It's there, and if you remove it (and harm results), you can be found liable. The plaintiffs can (and will) argue that if you hadn't removed the lock, the harm could have been avoided.

But whats the difference between that and adjusting the trigger pull? or other customized work? Internal locks are stupid and dangerous, I think it can be proven in in any court. Even serving hot coffee is a liability issue. I wouldn't worry about it. We can drive ourselves nuts worrying about getting sued. I still serve coffee, drink it, have guns without locks, make umbrella payments and live happily but broke. Personally I think the risk of a is locked gun is lot more than civil liability. Civil liability is is after all only about money.

Liberty wrote: But whats the difference between that and adjusting the trigger pull? or other customized work?

That's a good point. It is possible to incur liability for various modifications to a gun, as Ayoob has well documented. But usually, the circumstances are a little different. Say you were pointing a gun at someone who was posing a threat, and the very light (modified) trigger allowed the gun to discharge when you really didn't intend it to, say just as the "threat" was retreating/disengaging. And there are witnesses who testify that you shot the guy as he was trying to get away from you. Then, you have both criminal and civil problems.

Liberty wrote: Internal locks are stupid and dangerous, I think it can be proven in in any court.

Good luck. That they are "stupid and dangerous" is merely your opinion. Others have a different opinion, like they are valuable safety features. What matters is what opinion the jury forms at trial. Like I said, good luck with that one.

Liberty wrote: I wouldn't worry about it.

Your choice.

But see what happens if you bring a gun into a store with the lock disabled and try to sell it.

Liberty wrote: Personally I think the risk of a is locked gun is lot more than civil liability. Civil liability is is after all only about money.

Again, your choice.

I just wanted to point out what could happen just in case some people were not aware of it.

How's this for a worst case scenario?

You know the guy Devoe who killed 6 people last weekend? He did it with a gun that he STOLE from the guy he was living with.

Suppose instead that he had broken into your house and stolen YOUR S&W where you had disabled the lock? Then he goes and kills 6 people with the gun.

If you had not defeated the lock, the gun would have been useless to him.

What do you think a jury is going to think about THAT?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:How's this for a worst case scenario?

You know the guy Devoe who killed 6 people last weekend? He did it with a gun that he STOLE from the guy he was living with.

Suppose instead that he had broken into your house and stolen YOUR S&W where you had disabled the lock? Then he goes and kills 6 people with the gun.

If you had not defeated the lock, the gun would have been useless to him.

What do you think a jury is going to think about THAT?

The jury is going to think that the intervening and superceding act of theft followed by murder negate any liability for disabling an internal lock for which the key is universal.

You might have a better argument if someone handled the firearm with the lock flag on and the weapon discharged. Liability would become an issue there.

Disabling the lock on a gun that is used to commit multiple felonies is very remote for causation purposes. There are simply too many intervening and superceding steps by the perpetrator.