[Moonclip]

I know, I know, beating a dead horse! I Hope I don't see a bunch of arguing and political stuff here. I'm just curious on the percentages of who will own one and who wont. I am a huge S&W DA revolver fan but I can't bring myself to own one with the lock though I own other guns with them such as Taurus.

That one at least is less obtrusive and I've never heard of a Taurus lock being defective. I have many S&W revolvers but not a single ILS model. I even pass deals on them generally. I saw a 637 with a lock in decent shape for $210 last year and I passed. I'd maybe get a 500 or a 460 but even thats debateable.

[Huddog]

My 642 has one because they have one. It was either buy one with a lock or search for one without. Since this is my everyday carry and I no longer have small children, they are growed up, I don't lock it.

[PH/CIB]

I have a 638 Bodyguard that has the built in lock. I do not like the lock and wish the gun did not have it, I probably should have bought a used gun without it. However I have never had a problem with it and I leave it unlocked. To me just the lock is just another thing that could go wrong at the worst possible time.

[moewadle]

and resist it mightily. Plus, there is that feeling, I think, that is prevalent to the effect, "They don't trust me to be a capable adult with my firearm so they are going to put a lock on it. Nanny state sort of stuff"

I am not a long-experienced SW person so I probably seem arrogant stating this. But I will. I tend to agree with what some fairly prominent shooter was saying in one of the columns or articles I saw in a shooting magazine. I read it on the internet. He said, referring to SW handguns, "I don't know what MIM is and I have never had trouble with the locks. If I ever do I will deal with the problem at that time." He went on to praise the SW line of products.

[Ceemack]

My general attitude right now is "No way!" But someday I may decide I really need an up-to-date Smith, and have to take the plunge.

In the meantime, I'll look for older Smiths that don't have the #$#%^! lock.

To me, they're like a white (or maybe a French) flag--a symbol of surrender.

Defenders of S&W say the locks have to be there to satisfy laws in certain state that require locks. Maybe. But California is the biggest state with that kind of requirement...

...and S&W's internal lock doesn't fill the requirement.

So what the heck is it for?

[Moonclip]

I live in CA, and none of mine have the lock! It just requires a bit of lookig for the older models. Besides new S&W revolvers are getting expensive! I'm sad I can't own the .38super S&W revolver that came out due to the lock.

I can deal with some MIM, I can deal with the firig pin being no longer on the hammer on the centerfire revolvers, but I had to draw the line somewhere!

[davidconatser]

The lock is a bad idea. No argument.

S&W caved to political pressure. Granted.

The lock is one more thing to fail in a weapon prized for its reliability. Unfortunate but undeniable.

But for a guy new to concealed carry and to revolvers who is not confident enough to adequately evaluate a used gun, they seem like the best available new revolvers.

The lock malfunctions seem to be predominantly with the underweight revolvers with heavy loads. The same combination that can unseat the bullet from the cartridge.

I am very pleased with my 640 and 686 and 25. I have no interest in aluminum or scandium guns. Rented one. Hated it.

I do not use the lock, but carry the key on my keyring since stoppages that have been reported often resolve with locking and then unlocking.

We all have to look at the evidence available and decide what is important to us.

I will tolerate the lock, but would pay an extra $100 for a revolver without it. Seems like something Smith should offer.

[Old Fuff]

I could live with the lock, simplly because I could disable it. But the current level of fit and finish, the quality of the MIM parts, the two-piece barrels with EDM cut rifling with the tube crush-fit to the frame (changing a barrel is now a factory job) and other concessions to cost saving has resulted in a product that doesn't reflect well when one examines earlier guns.

In addition to that, I don't generally buy any product that has features I don't like - at least as long as I have a choice, which I do.

My objections aren't limited to the above. I also dislike ultra-lightweight snubbies in .357 Magnum, and full-length underlugs on larger revolvers. While they have their place, the super-sized X-frames are not my cup of tea.

At this time in my life my needs in new handguns is very modest, and older production guns appear to be excellent buys. Frankly, I'm going to take advantage of this.

[Dienekes]

Ditto the above. My "needs" are modest, and it's amazing how useful and long-lived an old M&P or Model 10 can be. :neener:

If I did buy one I would be looking for a good foolproof way of disabling it. However I get along well without any polymer guns (have had a couple) and I think I can get through my remaining years with what's on hand.

[davidconatser]

If this isn't too far off topic: If you rule out new Smiths, is there any general advantage to an older Smith vs a Colt? Or is there more variation between individual guns than between makes?

I have read Jim March's "Revolver checkout" sticky a few times. Maybe it is time to look at some older guns.

[glockman19]

I have S&W Revolvers with locks. I only locked it once to see how it worked otherwise they will never be locked again.

[Old Fuff]

The older Colts are fine revolvers, but parts for them, and qualified gunsmiths to fit them are becoming few and far between. The same can be said about some S&W models, but because of the tremendous number of the more popular models that were made, the situation is better then it is with Colts.

That said, an old 1955 era Detective Special is one of my favorites, as is an old Officer's Model .38 target revolver. On the other hand the very best double-action trigger pulls will be found on pre-war "long action" Smith & Wesson's.

To window shop, go to www.armsbid.com where an outstanding collection of both makes will be auctioned, starting tomorrow (April 18, 2008).

[dvanblaricom]

I have not purchased any S&W items since they caved in 2000 to the gun grabbers. I loved my S&W pistols but I only have 1 left and that is because my mother willed it to me.

[RyanM]

I will never own any firearm that has a lock built into it. It's both another thing that can break or fail, and it's politically repugnant. Evidence of how society now revolves around the lowest common denominator.

[hyphen]

I think people are blowing this lock thing way out of proportion. Of all the locked Smiths out there I bet you can literally count on one hand the amount of failures that have occurred. I personally know about 7 people that altogether have purchased a total of about 14 locked Smiths and not one of them has ever had a problem with the locks.

Plus, the locks are so easily disabled/removed that I can't understand why people are so riled up about this. It has nothing to do with someone not knowing how to operate his or her own firearm. It's about keeping it non-functional for anyone else if you so want it to be. Don't like it but want a new S&W? Pull out the lockwork, throw away the key. Problem solved.

[Ops Officer]

I answered yes because I do own one, a Model 642 I bought for my wife. I won't buy another S&W with the ILS or not. I got passed the lawyer lock, but I discovered the trigger was difficult to use. We dry-fired it for a couple of weeks and fired it a little, but it was still too heavy and uneven. A pistolsmith reduced the pull and smoothed it as much as he could. He said he measured 14 lbs. before he started. Then there is the clear coat that bothered me. It looks so fragile that I worry I'll damage it if I clean the gun aggressively. The gun is reasonably accurate for the intended distance to target.

I have a number of pre-lock S&W handguns. My experience with the Model 642 makes me appreciate them all the more.

[Dismantler]

I just do not think that is that big of a deal. I had one and sold it, but that had nothing to do with the lock. If I see a used Smith (I always buy used) that has the lock, I will buy it if it fits my needs.

[Virginian]

IF they re-introduced a nice SIX (6) shot model 66 or 19, and all I had to worry about was the lock, I would get one. And probably make a piece to eliminate the lock.

[Thaddeus Jones]

I purchased my last "new" S&W revolver in 2001. I have no intention of purchasing another new gun from S&W, unless, or until, they make the idiot lock optional.

In the meantime, I keep buying all the LNIB examples I can find, of the fine revolvers S&W used to make.

Oh, in addition to making a revolver useless for carry, the lock ruins the classic lines of the S&W revolver, making them ugly. TJ

[Evyl Robot]

In development for my lock plug, we disabled the lock on my wife's 627PC by removing the flag. That's really all there is to it. the cylinder is still in the frame, all other parts are intact.

Pull the side plate, mainspring, pluck the hammer, and pull out the flag. Reassemble. Done. Without the flag, the gun will not lock, and you don't have the hole in the side of the frame if you leave the cylinder in it. Frankly, the blank design that I'm working on is more for aesthetics than anything else, as I think the lock parts are ugly.

Keep me from buying a new Smith? It didn't keep me from buying a 29-10 or a 627-5. I've got a 586 on layaway with a lock. This is after we had to fight with the lock on the 627 at the range one day. That was just spooky enough that the wife could no longer live with it. That's a pretty small complaint on an otherwise fine piece of machinery IMHO.

[DawgFvr]

I own a brand-spanking-new S&W 642 w/lock. Ok...I know that S&W sold out to a lock company in 2000 and that all they do now is attach revolvers to them...and the old guard just whine about it! For that very reason...I now carry it more than any other weapon...load it with + P rounds and dare it...just dare it to fail once. Now...if,how/when it ever fails while attempting to save my life, I've told my wife to sue S&W for mucho money. Now I no longer need an insurance policy, thus saving me more money to purchase more guns. Move out...draw fire.

[Old Fuff]

Now...if,how/when it ever fails while attempting to save my life, I've told my wife to sue S&W for mucho money. Now I no longer need an insurance policy, thus saving me more money to purchase more guns.

Well you have a point, and maybe a solution... :scrutiny:

But what I want to know is, what does your wife really want? You or the money... :neener: :D

[batmann]

This has been hashed over and over and over. These polls are meaningless
If you don't like the IL--DON'T BUY ONE. They are here to stay.

[DawgFvr]

But what I want to know is, what does your wife really want? You or the money...

well...she's the one who told me to, "move out, and draw fire". :eek::D

[saemetric]

I personally don't like them from a looks standpoint and I always prefer older guns. I have noticed that in most pictures I see of S&W revolvers that the photos try to hide the lock in the picture-maybe they too don't like it.

[DawgFvr]

Actually they/we are tired of ducking heat rounds every time a photo of a post-lock S&W is shown.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e61/DawgFvr/SandW/Tylergrip1.jpg

Shields UP!

[Hawk]

"Maybe"

Sooner or later, probably sooner, there will be something I want that isn't available in a competitive product or in a used pre-lock.

[callgood]

Via dumb luck I found a NIB Model 610-2 on gunbroker. And it was listed at much less than the rest of them- with locks. This sort of stuff never happens to me. I figured Divine Intervention was at work and snapped it up.

The trigger is fantastic!

I vote "nope"

[Gator]

Maybe....if someone comes out with a kit to fill the hole.

[jaydubya]

My 637-2 and 686-6+ both have the internal lock, as well as MIM parts. Which does not bother me a bit. Both have thousands of rounds fired, and I am quite confident of them.
Cordially, Jack

[Snapping Twig]

If you gave me one I'd sell it and buy an older model with the money.

[smittymojoe]

I will never own any firearm that has a lock built into it. It's both another thing that can break or fail, and it's politically repugnant. Evidence of how society now revolves around the lowest common denominator.

This is pretty much how I feel about the issue of the locks. I'll not own one.

smitty

[Old Dog]

It's not just the lock for me ... I share Old Fuff's feelings about all the other features of the newer S&W revolvers ... I also strongly dislike the strange shrouded two-piece barrels and full-length underlugs, but additionally hate the new finishes -- the weird clearcoat on the Airweights, for example, that peels off; the flat black finish that looks toy-like and cheap compared to an older, deeply blued Smith; and yeah, for whatever reason, I like the firing pin on the hammer ... MIM parts, hmm, never had any fail, just don't like the looks of the MIM hammers and other parts ... And the lock is simply a goshawful unsightly blemish and the knowledge of how and why it got there renders any Smith with one a gun I cannot in good conscience own (hence traded or sold the S&Ws w/locks I owned; only one I kinda miss is the 5" half-lugged 686+ with the Ahrends finger-groove coco bolo stocks ...

But by all means, folks, keep buying the new Smiths, don't worry about that lock thingy if it means nothing to you, and don't worry about looking for any of the old ones ... it's just getting too hard for me to find good specimens of used old Smiths lately, 'cause for some reason, all the guys on the Smith & Wesson Forum are buying 'em all up ...

(and for the record, I do swap out the MSH assemblies w/ILS on my SA 1911s)

[ceadermtnboy]

I agree with everyone on the point that the old Smiths look better without the locks, and were put together with more hand fitting and finishing. On the other hand there are some mighty fine revolvers that you may miss out on. Take for example my 686 plus 5 inch half lug barrel revolver that smith made a one year run of a couple of years back. If I had not bought it based on what changes Smith & Wesson had made on it, let me tell you I would have missed out on one dandy shooting and handling revolver. It had the lock, taking it out took about 5 minutes. It left an ugly hole where the lock was, but like many on the post, I just dont want a lock on my revolver. It has MIM parts, but from what gunsmiths have told me, the new Smiths are more precise because of the new tooling and are much improved over the older models. Jerry Miculek also states that the new changes have improved the design. Sure he gets paid by S&W, but look at what he uses to dominate competition shooting. I have a few old models and appreciate them and love the craftsmanship, but I actually shoot the new models more often, and feel they are great.

[Gator]

They do have some neat guns, I especially like the "Classic" series. If I could somehow plug up the hole so that it looks halfway decent, I'd get a model 21.

P.S. Not all of the new Smith's have two piece barrels yet....if you can live with the lock get 'em while you can. :)

[BBroadside]

Explanation of my vote: I consider the lock a small but negative factor about the S&Ws. I would pick one if it were the overwhelming choice but in a "close race" with another brand I'd pick the other one.

I've never actually seen one of these. Can anyone post a pic of what the actual lock looks like (I'm guessing it's very small).

[Gator]

There's a pic in the first post on this page...unless you are asking for a pic of the internals (http://www.familyfriendsfirearms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68058)?

[rdrancher]

No locks on my S&W's, thanks.

I don't mind them much if the placement is unobtrusive, like on Taurus Semi-autos for example.

rd

[KyJim]

I have deliberately bypassed several locked models in favor of pre-locks.I have, however, purchased a couple of J-frames with locks.

[MICHAEL T]

I only buy pre lock Smiths . I don't like the lock and I belive the older S&W were better fitted and just better over all. So you all buy the new ones and I search out the older ones . They still need a home

[Evocatii]

I have put plenty of rounds through my m-60 and its sings a sweet song. No problems with the lock to report and I have actually used the internal lock in a few instances. Nothing but convenience for me. It has proved useful. Shocking.

[ceadermtnboy]

I have read a couple of comments about the placement of the lock on the new Smiths and how other brands would be chosen if the lock was less obtrusive ( hidden ). I have owned a Taurus revolver once! Believe me they ain't a Smith & Wesson and there is no way I making a choice of weapon based on looks, maybe my wife? I guess I buy weapons based on other things such as accuracy, trigger action, reliability. Hey I hate!!! the billboard on the ruger gp100, blackhawks, etc. But it doesnt keep me from buying, its still a quality product. Made in America as well!

[Deanimator]

I've never owned an S&W revolver with a lock, don't now and never will.

I've got a safe, so the entire premise for the thing is irrelevant to me.

All of my centerfire revolvers have at least a secondary self-defense role. I don't trust my life to the S&W ILS and never will. With a safe full of GOOD revolvers, there's no reason for me to waste time, money and maybe my life on what S&W makes now.

[BBroadside]

That's exactly what I was looking for, Gator. Quite a photo essay! (I think the ultimate gunsmith would be an intelligent monkey about 6" tall, with proportionally small fingers.)

[CajunBass]

Well, I don't have any particular want or "need" for a Smith & Wesson revolver. Nothing wrong with them, I just don't want one.

Having said that, IF I ever did, I wouldn't let the lock stand in the way of getting a gun I want. I've got other guns that do have locks and the lock was neither a plus or a minus. It was just there.

I see no more reason to think the lock would fail than I do to think any other one part would fail.

I have asked this before, and never got an answer. Maybe someone here knows. Has there ever been a case of the lock failed in the unlocked position or is it always to the locked position?

[S&Wfan]

CajunBass

. . . I have asked this before, and never got an answer. Maybe someone here knows. Has there ever been a case of the lock failed in the unlocked position or is it always to the locked position?


Yes, there have been quite a few! I've not heard of someone dying yet because the gun failed to fire but having the wheelgun lock up at the range in a situation where it cannot be fired, nor can the hammer be returned from partially cocked ain't a good feeling, I'm sure.

There was a thread, I believe on the S-Wforum documenting the failures, so Smith couldn't keep telling folks, "Gee, you are the first one!";)

There was also a thread there describing how to disable the @##@% lock. Just do a search over there and you'll be able to find those threads.

Hope this helps,

Tom


PS: I own quite a few Smith wheelguns. None have a lock, and none ever will. I want a gun to go "Bang" when I pick it up and pull the trigger. That's what a gun is supposed to do!

If one has time to locate a key, and stick it into the gun with fumbling, shaking hands as a BG is busting into your house . . . you had time to run away!

Naturally, guns need to be kept secure around children, but I've always said that unloaded guns get you killed. Same with locked ones and ones that you point too late at someone who wants to kill or hurt you. If the dreaded day ever comes, this is what I hope the BG sees . . .
http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/363/363373/folders/282194/22698211.JPG


My steadfast rule at my house is that EVERY handgun remains loaded. Handguns are weapons of last resort, so they need to be ready to go instantly.

Thus, no locks for me! Ever!

[MCgunner]

I really don't like the location and design of the lock. I don't desire a Smith revolver, but the lock is only a minimal reason. Mostly, they're overpriced and ain't built with the quality of the past. HOWEVER, the 642 is a danged nice little pocket revolver with a reasonable price. It could be an exception someday. I might get the Taurus equivalent, though. I'm one of the few on this board that likes the Taurus alternative. I've had great service from my three. I don't worship the Smith and Wesson as a god of any kind. Most of my revolvers, actually, are Rugers.

[Old Fuff]

For the record, the Old Fuff has also gotten good service from the small number of Taurus snubbies he has previously or does own. But with one exception they have been all-steel revolvers, and none of them has included any Titanium components. This may, or may not have made a difference.

That said, I still favor pre-lock J-frame Smith & Wesson's for pocket carry, not so much because of the lock as the way they are built. Moving up to a mid-sized holster gun I usually choose a 1955 era Colt Detective Special, or a K-frame S&W with a 3 or 4 inch barrel.

[ceadermtnboy]

I have heard people say that Taurus revolvers are good quality,so many so that I have to agreee that they put out an decent revolver. Personally, I had a Taurus Tracker all SS that the firing pin broke on the first trip to the range, I shipped back and 4 weeks later I had my revolver back. The only problem was that they had not touched my revolver, pin was still broke. After a heated phone call and return trip, it got repaired. The gun was eventrually sold, and I vowed not to buy another Taurus period. I just feel better with the experience that I have had with Smith & Wesson.

[nero45acp]

For me the issue isn't just the lock, but a whole series of changes that S&W has made in the past 10+ years that keeps me away from their current offerings. I like my S&W revolvers with the firing pin on the hammer (except of course their .22s), forged & case hardened triggers and hammers, wood stocks, and sans the slanted cylinder release and lock.

Fortunately, there's still a fair amount of excellent cond. older S&Ws out there at a fairly reasonable price to keep this troglodyte happy.;)


nero

[rdrancher]

Fortunately, there's still a fair amount of excellent cond. older S&Ws out there at a fairly reasonable price to keep this troglodyte happy.

Be happy sir troglodyte...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlRXQEA0yj0

rd

[dairycreek]

I own two S&W revos with a lock. Have shot them both a lot and have had no trouble. I did own a S&W 329 and had substantial difficulty with it having the lock slip to the locked position while shooting. I sent it back to S&W twice to have it repaired and it still malfunctioned. I don't mind the lock idea as long as it works. The idea of a malfunctioning and unreliable weapon is just not acceptable.

[tinygnat219]

IMHO the lock really isn't a big deal. I wish Smith had done something ELSE with the lock, like not included it, but I just picked up a used 686 with a lock. It's mine for a LONG time.

[P. Plainsman]

I own S&Ws with the ill-designed internal lock, but it bothers me, so I checked "maybe."

I avoid new S&Ws for lightweight carry revolvers, especially the air-lite Sc and Ti guns, because I fear the lock will engage and tie up the gun.

I avoid new S&Ws for lightweight guns in hard-recoiling calibers in larger frame sizes, for the same reason. Would never buy a 329PD .44 Magnum after reading TV host Michael Bane's first-hand account:

http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2007/08/s-revolver-safety-failure.html

As far as I am willing to go with the power-to-weight ratio, on S&Ws with locks, is my steel N-frame 4" Model 629 in .44 Magnum. It is a really cool gun, powerful, accurate and comfortable, yet the thought of "lock lockup" occasionally troubles me. It has never happened, in about 2,000 rounds fired. I don't shoot the ultra-stomper heavy bullet loads in the 629 [ouch!], but I do shoot lots of factory Magnum ammo (240 gr JHP @ 1250 fps).

The lock on my S&W 617 .22 LR target gun doesn't bother me at all. That is a fun/sporting revolver, not a "business" piece.

At the end of the day, the Lock is one of the big reasons I always recommend the sturdy, trustworthy, lock-free Ruger SP101 for CCW, over a current S&W .357 snubby, and I follow that advice myself.

[WayneConrad]

I would dislike a car with a useless fifth wheel even if it cost me no extra money and got the same mileage.

[Rugerlvr]

I have no particular opinion on the lock. Now if it were shown to cause misfires, or jams, then hell no. Otherwise... Meh.

[10-Ring]

I've been able to pick up a model 17 and a 19 w/o one...maybe one day, if the need arises, I'd pick one up w/ a lock, but for now, I'm lock free D

[Wolfeye]

Personally, I don't care one way or another about integral gun locks. My impression is the politicians wanted them to protect the children, but it's education that keeps children safe, not locks.

The only time I might use an integral lock is when I put my hypothetical S&W on the airlines.

[jack the toad]

I currently own 3 Smiths with the lock. I plan not to buy another one unless it is a deal.
I hope someday S&W will offer the lock as an option.

[Old Fuff]

I see no reason for anyone to get emotionally upset. :what:

For those that like the older guns that come without locks and other improvements(?) there is a choice. As an example I would cite an auction that was held this past weekend (www.armsbid.com) that had plenty.

How about an early post-war model 27 (.357 Magnum) with a scarce and desireable 5" barrel, cased and in mint condition going for $675.00? That's a price S&W coundn't touch today, and it included a pined 1-piece barrel with deep rifling, recessed chambers, "real steel" lockwork, genuine wood stocks, and of course no lock. Add to that some fine hand craftsmanship, and a deep high-polish blue finish that isn't seen today except on guns with an over-$1000.00 MSRP. :)

Folks that don't care about the lock, or even like it, can download a current catalog from www.smith-wesson.com and go shopping. Any number of retailers will gladly take their order - and their money... :)

So everybody should be happy. I know that I am. :evil: :D

[mec]

I put "No" but have to admit that I have bought one with the lock. I was going to disable the lock if the gun worked out but had to send it in to S&W for repairs because of something I did (Not s&w's fault.) It came back with a substandard barrel and was inaccurate.

Contrary to my earlier experiences with customer's service there, it seemed to me on this occasion that the service reps were unable to communicate effectively with the gunsmiths and provide a coherent answer to my routine questions. The seemingly obfuscatory response to the lock malfuctions puts me off too.

Some recent s&w's function very well and have been highly accurate but like Old Fuff, the accumulated burdon of recent changes have pretty much killed my interest in the line.

[Hawk]

So everybody should be happy. I know that I am.

Did you get that 27?
I'm jealous.


I never stood a chance - was getting slapped around by Java. The machine at work took it fine but that didn't help with the 27.

[jjohnson]

Well, having been a shooter for over four decades now and not liking extra mechanical junk that doesn't add function:barf:, I'm voting "no" with my dollars.

Before S&W caved in to their lawyers:cuss:, they made some pretty fine handguns. In fact, they made a LOT of pretty fine handguns. I figure that for the rest of my natural lifetime, I can get very nice USED S&W handguns from the "pre-lock" years to satisfy my needs.

I won't own one unless somebody gives me one (feel free, fellas, I will send you my address if you DO want to donate). I can still get a new Taurus or something if I really want that S&W feel in a revolver, way easier still if I want to skip the new M&P or something in an auto.:neener:

[shooter429]

I will not own another airlight in a magnum caliber as I had actual experience with the ILIF on my 329 with heavy loads. I have not had an ILIF on any all-steel magnum, but I still do not like that I always have to carry a key "just in case." Once bitten...

S&W should not have caved, and they should not continue with the poorly engineered locks. No safety, not even an internal lock takes the place of responsible handling and storage, which, if done correctly, makes internal locks moot and unnecessary, IMHO. If they must provide a lock, why not just a cable lock like the ones Ruger ships with their guns?

Shooter429

[Old Fuff]

Hawk:

Did you get that 27?

No. Because their software messed up and I coundn't bid, just watch the action... :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :banghead:

I'm jealous

No need, I'm just mad. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Old Fuff]

In defense of Smith & Wesson - The current owners didn't fold, a former owner in the U.K. did.

But when the company was sold to the present owners, who bought it for a fraction of its value, they had to agree to assume the "agreement."

What is called an agreement really wasn't. It was an out-of-court settlement, and as such was in effect a court order. That's a lot different then a simple agreement. If the current owners hadn't done what they did, when they did it, there would not be a Smith & Wesson company today.

[Hawk]

No. Because their software messed up and I coundn't bid, just watch the action...

If neither of us could bid on it due to Java machinations, I submit it wasn't really a 675.00 firearm. We won't know until it sells or the next auction.

I don't have a lot of faith in the pre-lock S&Ws staying anywhere near reasonable for long. The 675.00 sure wouldn't have held if not relying on what I used to call "stupid Internet Explorer tricks". I'd hazard a guess that if either you or I had pre-bid 800.00, neither of us would have won - somebody would have gone 805.00 sure as I'm a foot high.

As soon as pre-lock S&Ws get "stupid high" I expect the "never gonna buy a lock" club stops getting new members.

[Old Fuff]

Jim Supica ia a partner in the auction. He is the co-author or Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson, that is the standard "bible" of S&W collectors. I have known Jim for years and done business with him at both www.armchairgunclub.com and www.armsbid.com.

I know him to be a totally honest person in his dealings. I won't know for sure until the final results are posted to confirm what the real price was, but I'd bet it was $675.00.

On the other hand I'm sure there would have been higher bids if the software had worked, and the fact it didn't probably cost Jim a considerable amount of money over the total number of lots auctioned. When things slow down I'll take the issue up with him, and hope things are better at the next auction. This was the first time they tried proxibid, and it obviously didn't work.

Incidentally, I spotted a number of non-Smith & Wesson lots that also sold for much less then I would have expected. I just picked the Model 27 as an example. Would have I bid it up? Darn right!

And I think you are probably right in thinking that in a few years we will be looking at today's highest prices and thinking, "boy those were the good ol' days."

The only thing on our side is a continuing shift in buyer interest toward automatic pistols in place of any revolvers.

[CajunBass]

. . I have asked this before, and never got an answer. Maybe someone here knows. Has there ever been a case of the lock failed in the unlocked position or is it always to the locked position?

Yes, there have been quite a few! I've not heard of someone dying yet because the gun failed to fire but having the wheelgun lock up at the range in a situation where it cannot be fired, nor can the hammer be returned from partially cocked ain't a good feeling, I'm sure.

No, you misunderstood my question. Obviously if the lock fails to the "lock" position it's a bad thing. However the lock has two positons. Locked and unlocked. Has it ever failed to the unlocked position, where you would be unable to lock it if you wanted to. The gun might, probably would function fine, but might be unlocked when the owner thought it was locked.

[W.E.G.]

Make no mistake.

I will NEVER buy one of those lock-guns.

NEVER.

[Bellevance]

I own two with the lock, a 617 and a 686, and several more Smiths without the lock. The lock doesn't really bother me, apart from its ugliness, and mostly I just ignore it. It's foolish, probably, and ineffectual, but it's not going away any time soon, and I have enough confidence in S&W overall (despite the documented failures) not to worry about its locking up when I really really need it to go boom. That said, my need-to-go-boom guns are my 19-3 and my 10-5.

Given the choice, I'm much more interested in adding pre-lock Smiths to my small collection than any with the lock--again, because I don't like the hole in the frame--but I'd happily pick up another 617 (4-inch) with the lock if the deal were appealing.

[Hawk]

On the other hand I'm sure there would have been higher bids if the software had worked, and the fact it didn't probably cost Jim a considerable amount of money over the total number of lots auctioned. When things slow down I'll take the issue up with him, and hope things are better at the next auction.

That's all I was driving at: the thing would've gone for more if the Java app wasn't acting up - I would have seen to it personally.

It appears you would have as well.

That might have been interesting.
:)


At any rate, up until last Saturday, there wasn't anything my machine wouldn't run - that Java thing is just too delicate. Looks like it needs IE too, but I'm not sure of that. More good news: there's no obvious way of getting it set up until it's too late. A dummy auction a day or two ahead of the real thing would be nice, if you're going to be talking to him...

[Dobe]

I have several Smith revolvers. My favorite is the 19-3. I have a 17-3, and a nice 18-4 as well as some 28's and and 25-5, and other models. I own B]ONE[[/B] Smith with a hole in the side. It is a 25-13(I think it is a 13). I'm selling it as soon as I have the time to dig it out of storage and post it.

There is something about that hole that just irritates me.

[Old Fuff]

Hawk:

That might have been interesting.

Bid against me and you don't get no mo' free advise... :evil: :D

By the way it has happened. A friend showed me a gun he'd won, and I recognized it at once... :what:

[Hawk]

Bid against me and you don't get no mo' free advise...

I hereby swear and affirm that I will absolutely, positively, not bid against the Old Fuff when a Python is being auctioned.

:D

[buzz_knox]

What is called an agreement really wasn't. It was an out-of-court settlement, and as such was in effect a court order. That's a lot different then a simple agreement. If the current owners hadn't done what they did, when they did it, there would not be a Smith & Wesson company today.

Are you talking about the agreement with HUD or the settlement with Boston? They are two separate matters. The former is a contract with the federal government, and the latter was later thrown out.

[Old Fuff]

What you are calling an agreement with HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) wasn't exactly that. It was an out-of-court settelment to lawsuits brought against Smith & Wesson by approximately 32 cities and a couple of state attorney generals. After it was signed it was presented to the court that entered it into the record as a stipulation by the parties. As such it could be enforced by the court.

I have a copy of the document somewhere. If I can find it (big "IF") I will post it.

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

No way; no how.

[buzz_knox]

We may both be in error, if S&W's recent Annual Report is correct.

We believe we are the only gun manufacturer to enter into settlement agreements with the city of Boston, the
Boston Public Health Commission, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, relating
to the manner of selling handguns. Adverse publicity regarding the settlement agreements resulted in a boycott by
certain of our dealers and customers. A number of dealers stopped carrying our products altogether, and many long
time customers began purchasing products from our competitors. Our settlement agreement with the Boston
authorities was vacated on April 8, 2002, and the HUD settlement is not being enforced.
The settlement agreement dated March 17, 2000 between us, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and HUD
has not been formally rescinded. The HUD settlement placed substantial restrictions and obligations on the
operation of our business, including restrictions on the design, manufacture, marketing, and distribution of our
firearm products. It was subsequently signed by two states and 11 cities and counties.
As of the signing of the HUD settlement, lawsuits had been filed against us by nine of the 11 cities and counties
that signed the HUDsettlement. Among other terms, the HUDsettlement provided that any city or county that was a
party to the HUD settlement and had a lawsuit pending against us would dismiss us with prejudice from its lawsuit
subject to a consent order.
We do not believe that the HUD settlement is legally binding for numerous reasons, including the lack of
consideration received by us for entering into the settlement. No assurance can be given, however, that our position
that the HUD settlement is not legally binding would ultimately prevail in any subsequent litigation. We have
received confirmation that the HUD settlement will not be enforced but have no indication that the HUD settlement
will be formally rescinded. If enforced, these restrictions contained in the HUD settlement could substantially
impair our ability to compete, particularly since none of our competitors is subject to such restrictions.

[Old Fuff]

A complete answer would require a long post, and I don't have time right now.

As the S&W statement says, the "agreement" is not being enforced, but at the same time it hasn't been rescinded. S&W claims that the agreement is illegal (and I agree) but never the less is not sure that a court in the future would see it that way. Also if this was some sort of agreement with HUD (and why were they involved in the first place?) why were the cities with pending lawsuits required to sign on?

In my copy of the agreement document it specifically says that the signed document will be entered, and become a court order - enforceable by the court.

[Thaddeus Jones]

The local gunshop in Madison, has a copy of the agreement on the wall of the store.

In the agreement, the internal locks are specified. If the current owners are not honoring the terms of the agreement, why are all the revolvers equipped with locks?

[Goodshot]

I couldn't contain my excitement when I saw the new model 60 pro series. I knew it had a lock and I ordered it anyway. Now this is a nice revolver ! Even with the lock. $560 NIB +tax. I'm not happy about the lock, but I'm happy with the purchase.

[Moonclip]

Thanks for everyones participation and to the poster that said these polls are pointless, why did you participate?:)

Interesting votes, good points by most. I voted maybe but I'm much more in the never camp.

Heres a good point to ponder as to the question does S&W have to follow the agreement and put the lock.

IIRC there was a overrun of no lock j frame .38spls (maybe the mod 37?) released to the general public 1-2 years ago or so.

Also the new repro mod 40 with the grip safety is sans lock though I suppose the grip safety feature is why they decided it was ok to delete the lock. I'd maybe buy one if they weren't so darn expensive:)

I usually find pre locks and pre mim at prices comparable or lower to new production even in CA with some searching.

[sixgunner455]

I have a 642-2, with the dumb lock. I wasn't excited about the lock when I bought it several years ago, and I'm still not. I can't say that I haven't used it -- whenever I fly anywhere, I lock it and then lock it in the hard case and then put it in the hard suitcase. I know it's overkill, but I consider it revenge on somebody dumb enough to steal my luggage -- they may have gotten my gun, but they can't use it.

It's probably the only one I'll ever buy with the lock, though. If it didn't have it, I certainly wouldn't miss it.