Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > FIREARMS DISCUSSIONS > California handguns
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California handguns Discuss your favorite California handgun technical and related questions here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-16-2013, 8:53 AM
SFShep SFShep is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Benicia, CA
Posts: 173
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Question S&W 442 internal lock "reverse failure"?

Hoping I might be able to get some advice on a matter of "reverse gun-safety" so to speak.

I've been interested in purchasing a S&W 442 for a while now and with the huge spike in purchases nationwide (especially with the new NY law that limits magazines to 7 rounds), now is as good a time as any.

That said, maybe some of you here can offer some advice. S&W makes two models of the 442. One with an internal lock (SKU 162810) and one without (SKU 150544). Here in CA the 442 with lock is listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale while the current 442 without internal lock is not (there is a no-lock 442 listed on the Roster with the SKU 102810, but S&W tells me that's an old and discontinued version).

I was hoping to purchase the model without the lock but unless they approve the current non-lock model after this year's SHOT Show, I may have to settle for the locking model.

So let me ask, have there been any instances of the internal locks accidentally switching on? Say you're shooting the gun and the recoil jars something loose in the locking mechanism and switches it on. Possibly in the middle of a gunfight, thus turning the gun into a paperweight.

I don't plan on shooting any +P or +P+ ammo in it. In fact I plan to use standard pressure low recoil ammo to make it easier to handle. But I still fear the safety sort of "reverse failing" by switching on when I may need the gun. Here's the article where I got this impression from:

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/Massa...nal-gun-locks/

Hope I can get some good advice to whether my fears are founded. Safeties on a gun can help prevent accidental discharge and a safety that fails and accidentally switches off could cause a negligent discharge. But the opposite can be true too right? An internal safety that needs a key to operate sounds like it could reverse-fail by switching on from the jarring of the recoil while you're fighting for your life in a shootout with an intruder (or mugger if you have a CCW) and render the gun useless. I'm hoping this is just a theory and hasn't actually happened.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-16-2013, 9:03 AM
DrewN DrewN is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orange County
Posts: 213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We have/had 4 different "New Classics" in our household (27,57,29,36) and have not been stingy with the hot loads. I've never even noticed the locks are there. If they worry you, it's straightforward to remove them.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-16-2013, 9:16 AM
glockman19's Avatar
glockman19 glockman19 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 10,396
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

My daily carry is a S&W 442 or 624, both have internal locks...I have not had any issues with them after 5 years.

If you don't like the lock it can be removed...but...I do not condone modifying any carry gun.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-16-2013, 10:42 AM
SFShep SFShep is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Benicia, CA
Posts: 173
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman19 View Post
My daily carry is a S&W 442 or 624, both have internal locks...I have not had any issues with them after 5 years.

If you don't like the lock it can be removed...but...I do not condone modifying any carry gun.
Exactly. I would never modify the safety on any gun I plan to carry. Cause I know if I have to use that gun in self defense and its discovered I modified the safety, I've signed my doom I'm court right then and there.

Then again, I also don't want the internal safety lock to fail me and engage accidentally when I need to stay in the fight.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-16-2013, 10:54 AM
The Mad Mule's Avatar
The Mad Mule The Mad Mule is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: West LA
Posts: 624
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Those locks on S&W revolvers is honestly what's been making me consider a GP100 and LCR more than the 686 and 442. I have seen (yeah yeah, it's the Internet and all that) reports and one video of the lock malfunctioning at the range. But for all we know, the lock was already half-engaged out of the factory, and it just needed a few jolts to knock it into full lock.

Some Ruger revolvers have internal locks inside their grips, which irks me just as much, but I have yet to hear any reports of those locking up on their own terms.
__________________
Quote:
And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle so that man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-16-2013, 11:53 AM
tuna quesadilla tuna quesadilla is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Placentia
Posts: 3,642
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFShep View Post
Exactly. I would never modify the safety on any gun I plan to carry. Cause I know if I have to use that gun in self defense and its discovered I modified the safety, I've signed my doom I'm court right then and there.

Then again, I also don't want the internal safety lock to fail me and engage accidentally when I need to stay in the fight.
Source? Case law?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-16-2013, 12:01 PM
paul0660's Avatar
paul0660 paul0660 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ukiah
Posts: 15,706
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Troll, trolling.
__________________
*REMOVE THIS PART BEFORE POSTING*
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-16-2013, 12:54 PM
Bobby Ricigliano's Avatar
Bobby Ricigliano Bobby Ricigliano is offline
Mit Gott und Mauser
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The People's Glorious Republik of Southern Kalifornistan
Posts: 13,896
iTrader: 303 / 100%
Default

The Ruger LCR is superior to the 442 in every way, and I've owned, shot, and carried both as BUG's.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-16-2013, 3:53 PM
Charlie50 Charlie50 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Somewhere in the grey Bay Area
Posts: 971
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Hey there neighbor... looking over the Carquinez Straight as I type this. I have a 642 with the internal lock and I shoot the s... out it with target and full power plus Ps. No issues. BTW you will find that many target loads using heavy bullets (158 grain) will have more recoil than plus P defensive loads intended for short barrels (Hornady Critical Defense 130 grain for example). Its an everyday carry that I bet my life on, no worries. Apparently a couple of long guns have had documented issues, I searched and found not one 642 verifiable failure.

BTW: I like the Ruger but just did not shoot as well with it. Potatoe Potaato... and there's the appearence of SW vs the Ruger. Can't go wrong with either IMO.

Last edited by Charlie50; 01-16-2013 at 6:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-16-2013, 6:40 PM
littlejake littlejake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Калифорния
Posts: 2,167
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

The Ruger LCR actually has an ILS in its fire control assembly. The key hole is covered by the Hogue Grips.

https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/lcr.pdf page 7
__________________
Life Member NRA and 2A Foundation.
My posts are my own opinions and do not reflect those of any organization I am a member of.
Nothing I post should be construed as legal advice; if you need legal advice, see a lawyer.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt (1759-1806)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-16-2013, 7:00 PM
Raider888's Avatar
Raider888 Raider888 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Fresno/Clovis
Posts: 897
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ricigliano View Post
The Ruger LCR is superior to the 442 in every way, and I've owned, shot, and carried both as BUG's.
How is the Ruger LCR superior to the S&W 442??? Any details???

IMHO, The S&W 442 has a better trigger and a better quality revolver.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-16-2013, 7:40 PM
DrewN DrewN is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orange County
Posts: 213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How is the Ruger LCR superior to the S&W 442??? Any details???

Quite a bit cheaper mostly. The LCR has a pretty decent trigger and a nice big dot, the poly frame soaks up some recoil, and you'll never be bothered if it picks up a few dings. I love mine and I'm usually a traditional blue/walnut or nothing guy. It's a great EDC/everyday back-up with very low maintenence requirements.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-17-2013, 1:32 PM
SFShep SFShep is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Benicia, CA
Posts: 173
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuna quesadilla View Post
Source? Case law?
It's written in the article from Massad Ayoob I included in my original post:

"I did not remove the internal lock, for the simple reason that I’ve seen a prosecutor raise hell about a deactivated safety device when trying to establish the element of recklessness that is a key ingredient in a manslaughter conviction. 'Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant was so reckless that he DEACTIVATED A SAFETY DEVICE ON A LETHAL WEAPON, and so arrogant that he thought he knew more about the gun than the factory that made it!' That’s a mountain I’d rather not have to climb in court, nor debate in front of twelve jurors selected in part by opposing counsel for their lack of knowledge of firearms."

He makes a lot of sense to me in his argument so rather than remove the safety I'd rather buy the model without the safety included and avoid the whole issue. For me on a DAO handgun, the heavy trigger pull is the safety itself.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-17-2013, 10:08 PM
quiet-wyatt's Avatar
quiet-wyatt quiet-wyatt is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Rancho Cordova, CA
Posts: 838
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFShep View Post
I would never modify the safety on any gun I plan to carry. Cause I know if I have to use that gun in self defense and its discovered I modified the safety, I've signed my doom I'm court right then and there.
It's NOT a Safety - It's a LOCK. Two different purposes...
__________________
To do is to be. (Socrates)

To be is to do. (Plato)

Do be do be do. (Sinatra)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-17-2013, 10:16 PM
Spdjunkie's Avatar
Spdjunkie Spdjunkie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: TX; So.Cal
Posts: 1,895
iTrader: 136 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quiet-wyatt View Post
It's NOT a Safety - It's a LOCK. Two different purposes...
^ +1 Agree, You are not removing any "safety" mechanisms, only the ILS.
__________________
"To each their own"

www.rdprecision.net

Randy "HateCA" Cain can be contacted at link above, Thank you.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:57 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.