Beating the S&W Lock


PDA






ugaarguy
July 22, 2008, 02:26 PM
Thus far S&W has not listened to their customer base and built no lock revolvers as standard production. However, according to information here http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=378526, RSR group, one of three distributors to be offered the no lock 642s from a canceled export order, has sold all of those guns before the initial ship date. Also according to info in that thread RSR group is getting a second run of the model 37-2 no lock, no MIM revolvers made for them.

This shows us two things. First, the demand for no lock S&W revolvers is at least as high as web forum sentiment indicates. Second, it shows us that although S&W won't do standard production no lock guns, they will do no lock, and even no MIM, revolvers as special runs if a distributor orders enough.

We the customers need to continue to call, or have our dealers call, distributors like RSR, TALO, Davidsons, Lipsey's, Ellett Brothers, etc. and ask if there are any special run no lock S&W revolvers available. As shown by the RSR 37-2 order the distributors are small enough that they listen to the end customer, but big enough to get S&W to make at least small runs of no lock revolvers. If we keep demanding no lock production runs from the distributors and make sure to buy them quickly we can show S&W how large a market there is for these revolvers.

If you enjoyed reading about "Beating the S&W Lock" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
buzz_knox
July 22, 2008, 02:33 PM
This shows us two things

There's a third thing that is shown: the presence or absence of a lock is not dictated by the lawyers. When S&W management decides that when the money is right, it will produce revolvers without locks.

Every time S&W issues these lockless pistols, it's another nail in the coffin of the whole "the lawyers made us do it" argument.

Guillermo
July 22, 2008, 02:44 PM
I am reluctant to say "never" as the supply of pre-lock smiths may dry up one day.
One thing that I can say is that until that time comes, Smith will have to get along without my money

Thaddeus Jones
July 22, 2008, 02:58 PM
I bought one of the lock free 642's, it should be here by Friday.

My FFL said that the distributor had sold out of them. I guess the "small minority" :rolleyes: that hates the lock is a little bigger than the S&W apologists will admit.

Perhaps S&W will remove its head from another orifice, and offer us some decent lock free revolvers.

ArmedBear
July 22, 2008, 04:13 PM
I don't understand what purpose the lock serves, myself.

If I want to keep a gun from being used by someone unauthorized, I'll lock it up in a safe. What good is a lock, when someone who wants to take the gun can just pocket it?

That said, Loc-tite fixes any potential problem with the lock. I'm not sure why people think it's so important not to have it.

woodsltc
July 22, 2008, 04:32 PM
I don't understand what purpose the lock serves, myself.


The lock serves no purpose!

The lock is a political solution to a problem that never existed!!!!!!!! :cuss:

Don

rcmodel
July 22, 2008, 04:52 PM
The problem does serve a purpose in several more populous states that require locks for the guns to be sold in those states.

S&W, Ruger, etc. would give up a huge part of market share if they didn't offer locks for those states that require them.

Since they have to make them for those big states, it makes business & production sense to put them on all of the guns they make.

I can't blame S&W for doing it.
Just the wacky way they went about doing it!

And I can blame California and other states for requiring them too!

rcmodel

Phydeaux642
July 22, 2008, 04:54 PM
I have a 642 with a pimple that has never caused me any problems, but my new lock-free 642 will be here tomorrow. I ordered mine as soon as heard about them and it's a good thing that I did. Price: $425.:D

Now, I wish they would do a no-lock 686.

ArmedBear
July 22, 2008, 04:56 PM
California does not require them. California does not recognize the locks as "locks", legally.

California does require that handguns be sold with a lock included -- a cable lock. I bought a new J-Frame and they had to include a cable lock with it.

That's what I'm confused about.

The locks serve no practical purpose, since I wouldn't leave a locked handgun sitting around where it could be stolen, and in a safe, you don't need to lock the gun to prevent its use.

However, the locks serve no political purpose, either.

highlander 5
July 22, 2008, 05:48 PM
Mass also requires a lock be included with a firearm but our consumer safety laws don't recognize the S&W INTERNAL locks as legal even though S&W made a deal with the city of Boston under Mayor "Mumbles" Menino to avoid being sued for damages due to "gun violence"

Downrange
July 22, 2008, 06:00 PM
I must have a half dozen of those cable locks by now. I keep wondering what use I might have for them, but they don't seem strong enough to discourage a third grader tricycle thief...

ArmedBear
July 22, 2008, 06:04 PM
I've used them at the gym, when I lost my combo lock and didn't have time to get to the store for another one.

You know what's REALLY stupid?

Some manufacturers include locks that are high-quality, but since only certain locks are actually approved by the state, I've had gun shops swap them for really crappy locks. They were legally required to. The crappy locks, that as you said, wouldn't discourage a third grader, were approved, but the high-quality locks weren't on the list.

Dan-O
July 22, 2008, 06:08 PM
I made sure my 340 was not locked when I bought it, and then threw away the key. The gun is either on me, or locked in a safe so I am not worried about someone using their own key to disable the gun.

Matt-J2
July 22, 2008, 06:23 PM
Hmm, that could be my new criminal enterprise, sneaking into homes at night and locking people's revolvers! :p



What can I say, locks bring out silliness. Also, I have one of thse CA approved cable locks, cameth my Neos. I used it once, bit of a PitA. Went back to the normal trigger lock.

Brazos
July 22, 2008, 06:27 PM
If I remember correctly the company that bought S&W a few years back (10 yrs ago?) was the company that invented and made these locks (can't remember the name of the company now). S&W was on hard times after they teamed up the Clinton administration to avoid all the lawsuits being waged against gun manufactures. The British company that owned S&W at the time teamed up with the Clinton adminstration and caved to their demands in order to avoid the frivelous law suits. Well this did not sit well with the gun buying public, NRA, etc. People stopped buying S&W guns and therefore they either went bankrupt or close to it and the parent company from England sold S&W to a company (I believe based in Arizona) for $1,000,000. That paticular company developed and made these locks. It ended up being a wise investment because the Bush Administration took office and took a different position than the Clinton's in that cities, police depts., citizens could not sue a gun company because their loved one was killed by a gun made by a paticular gun company (unless of course it was a faulty gun due to manufacturing that led to an accidental death). Because of this the new owners of S&W no longer held to the previous agreements made between the British company & the Clinton's. The end result the buying public, NRA, etc. started buying S&W's again and the company now is back to its former glory. So as you see the parent company of S&W makes these locks. Since they own S&W I don't see it changing. So there you have the history behind this from my vauge memory. Personally I hate them.

Brazos

ugaarguy
July 22, 2008, 09:53 PM
Brazos, American Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W. The S&W internal lock is entirely different from the Saf-T-Hammer combo lock grips. Further, locks are optional on M&P autos, and not available on Sigmas. As proven by canceled foreign orders and distributor special runs there are ways to get S&W revolvers without the lock. We the gun buying public just need to push it at the distributor level where we seem to be getting at least some response.

pinkymingeo
July 22, 2008, 09:59 PM
S&W still isn't producing no-lock revolvers. The 37-2's are made up from leftover parts, including the old, superseded pre-magnum frame. I don't think there's any indication of a change in company policy toward the lock.

Shade00
July 22, 2008, 10:45 PM
I have been considering a new S&W since I cannot find the model I want used locally - of course I have the lock issue in the back of my mind. None of my S&Ws have it, and I was going to do my best to avoid them ever having it - but I would really like to have a new Model 63...

Halo is for Kids
July 22, 2008, 10:46 PM
More than a few are going to bulk buyers for resale and "the keep one nice and shoot the other one" crowd.

machinisttx
July 22, 2008, 10:46 PM
It took me all of 15 minutes today to permanently disable the lock on my mom's new 642---and it was the very first lock equipped S&W I've been inside.

Seriously, it's not that hard to disable.

ugaarguy
July 23, 2008, 12:46 AM
It took me all of 15 minutes today to permanently disable the lock on my mom's new 642---and it was the very first lock equipped S&W I've been inside.

Seriously, it's not that hard to disable.
We shouldn't have to disable it in the first place. What's going to happen to your mom in court if she has to use that revolver and some slick attorney asks why she had you disable a safety mechanism on her gun. Why do S&W's autoloader customers get the option of no lock models, but their revolver customers do not get such option?

S&W still isn't producing no-lock revolvers. The 37-2's are made up from leftover parts, including the old, superseded pre-magnum frame. I don't think there's any indication of a change in company policy toward the lock.
The new no lock 642s are indeed current production J Magnum frame guns without the lock. The 640s, even though they have a grip safety are also on the J Magnum frame. Last, are you sure this second run of RSR 37-2s are not built on the J Magnum frame?

33-805
July 23, 2008, 12:58 AM
I do not remember whether it was on this board or elsewhere that I saw a post on one of these locks self-engaging after the revolver fell to the floor. Anyone heard of this?

Second question. How do you disable the lock? I do not have any Smiths with locks, but I am curious. I imagine they will get very cheap after Smith stops making them....

BigBlock
July 23, 2008, 01:26 AM
Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier just to buy a Ruger? :neener:


Good luck explaining to the lawyers why you disabled the lock if you ever have to use it.

pps
July 23, 2008, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by Dan-O, "I made sure my 340 was not locked when I bought it, and then threw away the key. The gun is either on me, or locked in a safe so I am not worried about someone using their own key to disable the gun."

I'd keep the key handy in case the lock engages and locks up the gun. Better yet, I just pulled the sideplate and removed the entire lock. The Klinton hole is covered by some black gaffers tape.:)

machinisttx
July 23, 2008, 01:44 AM
We shouldn't have to disable it in the first place. What's going to happen to your mom in court if she has to use that revolver and some slick attorney asks why she had you disable a safety mechanism on her gun. Why do S&W's autoloader customers get the option of no lock models, but their revolver customers do not get such option?

1. I know of exactly one case where a "safety" device being disabled was made an issue. The individual on trial was cleared of any wrongdoing. The lock on an S&W is more correctly called a "safe" storage device, not a gun safety device. Your irrational fear of being prosecuted over a device not present in 95% of the revolvers in existence is :confused: Disabling the lock is far different from removing the hammer block or other actual safety device.

2. She didn't ask me to do it. I did it because I know they ARE a damned hazard on a carry gun and I don't want hers to fail if she ever needs it. I'll also be paying for her CHL fee and/or instructor fee, problem with that too?

machinisttx
July 23, 2008, 01:49 AM
I do not remember whether it was on this board or elsewhere that I saw a post on one of these locks self-engaging after the revolver fell to the floor. Anyone heard of this?

Second question. How do you disable the lock? I do not have any Smiths with locks, but I am curious. I imagine they will get very cheap after Smith stops making them....

After looking at how the mechanism operates, I understand how and why these guns occasionally lock up during firing. it's not the best design.... A member over on AR15.com recently had his scandium framed .41 magnum lock up during a string of fire. S&W has claimed that they cannot duplicate the problem, but replaced the lock mechanism springs in guns that were returned for this reason. It does happen.

If you pop the sideplate and remove the internals on a lock equipped gun, it's easy to see how it works and how to disable it. This is an owner only job, no gunsmith will ever consider disabling the lock for a customer.

BigBlock
July 23, 2008, 02:11 AM
Your irrational fear of being prosecuted over a device not present in 95% of the revolvers in existence is Disabling the lock is far different from removing the hammer block or other actual safety device.

There is nothing irrational about it. If a lawyer wants to use that angle in court, you're going to have a HELL of a time explaining your way out of it. Just because one person got off once doesn't mean you will. Willfully disabling the lock would be an act of negligence and you are opening yourself up for a manslaughter charge. Even mentioning that in front of a jury of average people will put them on your bad side. The average judge, jury, and lawyer has no idea what the difference is between the lock and a hammer block. Did you explain to your mother the possible dangers before modifying her gun?


At least bake mom a cake before you visit her in jail...

ugaarguy
July 23, 2008, 02:54 AM
1. I know of exactly one case where a "safety" device being disabled was made an issue. The individual on trial was cleared of any wrongdoing. The lock on an S&W is more correctly called a "safe" storage device, not a gun safety device. Your irrational fear of being prosecuted over a device not present in 95% of the revolvers in existence is Disabling the lock is far different from removing the hammer block or other actual safety device.
Fear of lawyers twisting words in front of an uneducated judge & jury is not irrational. You and I know the difference between an internal lock and an internal safety, but the average person in our society does not.
2. She didn't ask me to do it. I did it because I know they ARE a damned hazard on a carry gun and I don't want hers to fail if she ever needs it. I'll also be paying for her CHL fee and/or instructor fee, problem with that too?
Paying for your mother's drivers license and insurance, and disabling a manufacturer installed safety device which you believe is unsafe on her vehicle without her consent are two entirely different things.

If you'd like to add something constructive about how we can get S&W to offer revolvers without locks, and thereby not be put in the predicament described please contribute. If you're alright with buying S&Ws with locks and disabling them talk about it in another thread.

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier just to buy a Ruger?
When Ruger makes a revolver with a lightweight titanium or aluminum frame that's also small enough for pocket carry I very well might. Until then I'll keep buying used pre-lock S&Ws, keep looking for no lock special runs, and continue seeking ways to show S&W the market for no lock revolvers.

Shade00
July 23, 2008, 03:12 AM
I don't think I'll be buying a carry revolver with an IL. There are plenty of good S&Ws out there without locks so you can avoid this dilemma altogether. I may consider a range-only .22, but that's it.

And I agree, Ruger needs to start making some lightweight revolvers. A lightweight Ruger would really float my boat. Hear that, Ruger?

steveracer
July 23, 2008, 04:16 AM
Never been a real problem in court, and NO ONE can site a single case where this backfired on a shooter who was in all ways legal.
I have said this MANY times here: The lock comes out, like the mag safety on HiPowers, and the ILS on SA 1911s. We have the ability to buy terrific revolvers from a reputable company. I buy them, because they are very, very good guns. I remove the lock because, like series 80 parts on a 1911, they have NO PLACE in mine. No lawyer is going to fault me in court for ANYTHING if I legally defend myself or my loved ones with a gun. They may try, of course, but my gun won't have locked up preventing its use in righteous self defense.
The "lawyer will find a way" has NEVER HAPPENED. The lock comes right out, without special tools. Why are people so resistant to this, but they take the magazine disconnect out of the HP without a second's thought? Or replace the J-locks on 870s with no-lock parts from Brownells? Or ditch the series-80 parts on 1911s and add the special shim to the frame?
This is irrational. The guns are still safe, legal, reliable, and YOURS to do what you wish with them. Someone, anyone, PLEASE show me one case resulting in fine/jail/penalty!

We need to contact Lew Horton for a run of no-lock Smith revolvers, and see what results they get. This will give us the most realistic response, as they are a BIG distributor.

Thaddeus Jones
July 23, 2008, 10:14 AM
OK lets cover this again, THE LOCK IS NOT A SAFETY....IT IS A SAFE STORAGE DEVICE.

ONLY ONE STATE MANDATES INTERNAL LOCKS.....MARYLAND.....NO OTHER STATE REQUIRES INTERNAL LOCKS.

If I want to pay too much for a substandard handgun, and have to take it apart, remove parts, and tweak it to be reliable before I can use it, I'll buy a Kimber. ;)

prisoner6
July 23, 2008, 10:19 AM
Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier just to buy a Ruger?

Could be. And when they make a lightweight revolver suitable for pocket carry they will become a consideration. I like and respect the SP101, but lightweight it is not.

pps
July 23, 2008, 10:22 AM
OK lets cover this again, THE LOCK IS NOT A SAFETY....IT IS A SAFE STORAGE DEVICE.

ONLY ONE STATE MANDATES INTERNAL LOCKS.....MARYLAND.....NO OTHER STATE REQUIRES INTERNAL LOCKS.

If I want to pay too much for a substandard handgun, and have to take it apart, remove parts, and tweak it to be reliable before I can use it, I'll buy a Kimber.

Some of us just like revolvers though. In particular, I like the S&W trigger. So, for the time being, I just have to do a deep cleaning whenever I get a S&W revolver and remove all thet lock debris.

Matt-J2
July 23, 2008, 03:31 PM
In regards all the court comments, isn't that what the defendant hires their own lawyer for?

Shade00
July 23, 2008, 04:19 PM
As they say Matt-J2, you can't unring the bell - once a prosecutor has railed on something, no matter if he's incorrect, it is nigh impossible to make the jury forget.

Matt-J2
July 23, 2008, 04:31 PM
This is true, but if you have a lawyer who can use the truth to make the prosecutor look like an idiot, that sticks too.


Course I know I sure can't afford a lawyer that good.

On the flip side, you have to hope a DA is actually good at their job, so as to actually convict the real criminals out there.

Quite the conundrum when I think about it.

Deanimator
July 23, 2008, 04:49 PM
I am reluctant to say "never" as the supply of pre-lock smiths may dry up one day.
I'm not reluctant at all. As long as the lock exists in its current form and location, I will NEVER buy (or even accept as a gift) a S&W revolver so equipped. My life means more to me than the ego of those at S&W who persist in that farce.

machinisttx
July 23, 2008, 05:22 PM
OK lets cover this again, THE LOCK IS NOT A SAFETY....IT IS A SAFE STORAGE DEVICE.

Exactly. Some people can't comprehend that it isn't a safety or relate in any way, shape, or form to the actual safe use of the firearm.

ArmedBear
July 23, 2008, 05:26 PM
BTW Ruger now makes their revolvers with internal locks, although their website doesn't make it clear which ones. It may be all of them.

What I don't get is this: how is the lock a "safe storage" device? If the gun is lying around where someone who shouldn't get at it, can get at it, how is that "safe", locked or not?

Arrogant Bastard
July 23, 2008, 05:40 PM
Good luck explaining to the lawyers why you disabled the lock if you ever have to use it.

I can't imagine how disabling the S&W lock would even be an issue in a SD investigation -- it shouldn't be engaged at all while being carried. It's not like a thumb safety.

Arrogant Bastard
July 23, 2008, 05:43 PM
There is nothing irrational about it. If a lawyer wants to use that angle in court, you're going to have a HELL of a time explaining your way out of it. Just because one person got off once doesn't mean you will. Willfully disabling the lock would be an act of negligence and you are opening yourself up for a manslaughter charge. Even mentioning that in front of a jury of average people will put them on your bad side. The average judge, jury, and lawyer has no idea what the difference is between the lock and a hammer block. Did you explain to your mother the possible dangers before modifying her gun?

I would imagine that would only have any bearing if she claims the gun "just went off".

However, even then, the S&W lock isn't part of the normal set of safeties present on a carried weapon -- it's for storage purposes.

It would be a far bigger issue if the gun were found by a child and tragedy ensued.

ryanl
July 23, 2008, 05:46 PM
edit

Cougfan2
July 23, 2008, 05:47 PM
This is the text of a letter I sent to S&W regarding the internal lock. Just sent is so haven't heard anything back and may not. Tried to be respectful.

Dear Sirs,

To start, I am a long time fan of Smith and Wesson products and have owned many over the years. That being said I wish I could purchase an S&W pistol without the internal lock. I have heard others say that you have responded that you included the lock at the advice of your attorney’s. Meaning no disrespect, I’m not buying it. There are many revolver and pistol manufacturers that produce pistols without an internal lock. The reason for my aversion to the lock is that it is one more thing that could go wrong at a critical time. As unlikely as a malfunction may be, I won’t stake my life or the life of my family on the chance that it PROBABLY won’t happen.



I know manufacturing costs need to be kept at a minimum in order to keep your products in an attractive price range, but I think you would see a big surge in new sales if you would offer the pistols with the option of no lock. Without that I am limited to Ruger or a few other firearms manufacturers.



Thank you for taking time to listen to my concerns.

printcraft
July 23, 2008, 06:00 PM
Open the side, pull the flag, file off the lug, replace the flag, no hole in frame.

"Storage lock" I have the bar lock that came with my new 649. If I want to lock it for storage I'll use that lock. I do NOT want my gun to "LOCK" for my safety after the first shot. (hold on BG I need to get out this little key here..... ok don't move..... ok good.)

On the flip side of the Prosecutor argument.... "So Mr. Smith you purchased a pre lock model of your revolver knowing all the time that there was a safer model with a Safety lock available...... ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it's clear that Mr. Smith had nefarious plans.........) insert your own fears here.

BigBlock
July 23, 2008, 06:54 PM
OK lets cover this again, THE LOCK IS NOT A SAFETY....IT IS A SAFE STORAGE DEVICE.

This is irrelivant semantics. The general public are sheep. No wait...not just sheep...stupid sheep. A "lock" is a lock, PERIOD. A gun geek can call it whatever they want. It will still be an important safety device in the eyes of the jury. And to call it a "storage device" is ridiculous. :rolleyes:

So when the prosecuter asks, "Why sir, did you remove the locking device manufactured with your gun?", what are you going to say? "Uh...'cause it shoots easier that way"? You're totally screwed at that point.

If you think "justice will prevail" in the American justice system, you are living in a fantasy world. The whole reason we need guns in the first place is because "the system" doesn't work.

Arrogant Bastard
July 23, 2008, 07:52 PM
So when the prosecuter asks, "Why sir, did you remove the locking device manufactured with your gun?", what are you going to say? "Uh...'cause it shoots easier that way"? You're totally screwed at that point.

Ah, I just noticed you live in Oregon. That might have something to do with your fear of prosecution. You could solve that problem by moving to a state that typically starts with the assumption that a SD shooting was justified, and doesn't poke around for reasons to arrest a law-abiding citizen. :neener:

BigBlock
July 23, 2008, 08:16 PM
You could solve that problem by moving to a state that typically starts with the assumption that a SD shooting was justified

I am unaware of any such place in the entire world.

You shot somebody = you go to court. That's the way it works. Justified or not isn't relivant.

(and for those that are going to bring it up, NO, the castle doctrine isn't going to protect you either)

For the record, Arrogant Bastard, Oregon's gun laws are more free than Texas.

publiuss
July 23, 2008, 09:54 PM
Political, and ease of disabling arguements aside, my problem w/the locks is not really the locks themselves, but their location. That hole in the sideplate is just too much for me. They could have hidden it somewhere like Taurus did on the back of the hammer. I still don't like the stupid concept of the lock but S&W could possibly sell me a revolver if they relocated the hole to a less obvious spot.

Phydeaux642
July 23, 2008, 11:03 PM
You shot somebody = you go to court.

I'm not so sure that that is always the case. There have been cases where someone was not charged and dragged into court because the situation was deemed self-defense. It may not happen often that way, but it does happen.

Shade00
July 23, 2008, 11:11 PM
It's not always going to be the case. If the grand jury decides the shooting was justified, you're not going to have to go to court.

ChrisVV
July 23, 2008, 11:13 PM
"t took me all of 15 minutes today to permanently disable the lock on my mom's new 642---and it was the very first lock equipped S&W I've been inside.

Seriously, it's not that hard to disable."

I dont think it is a matter of being able to disable it. I find that more than any other group, us firearm enthusiast are principled people. The lock goes against our principles.

I do not think I am alone on this.

ArchAngelCD
July 24, 2008, 05:10 AM
The ILS is useless because all the keys are the same. A trigger lock is more secure because you need the correct key to open it. Also, when the trigger lock is removed it's gone and can't disable your revolver.

In any event, I ordered my M642 through my LGS on Monday, RSR Group got their initial shipment on Tuesday and shipped the same day. I picked up my M642 today, Wednesday. That's a good turn around time if you ask me...

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/M642-2.jpg

The M37's IMO don't count because the 200 they made available were made from leftover parts. The 4,000 M642-1 revolvers are being made from new parts. (are we sure this run was from a canceled order or were they made for a "test run"?) All that BS about retooling is just that, BS. With all the manufacturing machines being computer controlled all it takes is inputting in new instructions and you get no-lock frames instead of defective frames.

Shade00
July 24, 2008, 11:38 AM
Indeed... I too doubt that they have to retool to build the frame differently - just stop cutting the dang hole!

prisoner6
July 24, 2008, 11:52 AM
It's not always going to be the case. If the grand jury decides the shooting was justified, you're not going to have to go to court.


you may not get criminal charges, but you can be pretty sure that you will get hit with a civil case.

PawDaddy
July 24, 2008, 04:05 PM
You could be sued/charged regardless of whether the lock is there or has been removed.

Wouldn't that be a better thing than if you or a family member died because the lock locked while firing? I think that anyone would rather be sitting in court than at a funeral.

ugaarguy
July 24, 2008, 04:15 PM
Wouldn't that be a better thing than if you or a family member died because the lock locked while firing? I think that anyone would rather be sitting in court than at a funeral.
There's an old saying: "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." Of course the point is the principle of not having the lock there to remove in the first place.

Gary A
July 24, 2008, 04:23 PM
What's going to happen to your mom in court if she has to use that revolver and some slick attorney asks why she had you disable a safety mechanism on her gun.

Well, I'm no lawyer and maybe they could twist things around to make it a problem, but I don't understand it. If you have to use the revolver, then the revolver must be unlocked. Whether it is unlocked because you unlocked it, or unlocked because the lock doesn't work has no bearing. If you had to use the revolver in a legal, self-defense situation, the revolver must be unlocked. How in the world could anyone argue that you should have had the revolver locked in that case? The lock is not a "safety" device like the safety on an auto, it is to prevent unauthorized usage, not negligent discharge (although when locked it certainly does so). The worst thing is it seems to be designed that if it fails, it fails in the locked position instead of failing in the unlocked position. Numbingly short-sighted, IMO.

Evyl Robot
July 24, 2008, 04:55 PM
If they suddenly came to their senses and did away with the lock, I'd be pissed, having several lock-equipped (well, actually disabled) guns. In any case, it would help thier sales, I have no doubt of that. As quickly as the no lock 642's went, S&W has received a powerful message. Money talks WWWWAAAAAYYYYY louder than letters from would-be customers, and that is that. You don't think that Apple dropped the price and bumped up the features on the i-phone because of disgruntled letters, do you? How about vehicle manufacturers and safety recalls? It all comes down to the bottom line. S&W decided that the potential money savings of covering thier posterior with a useless lock outweighed the potential loss of sales. I would like to believe the 642 has proved them wrong. I hope they see it that way as well.

MADDOG
July 24, 2008, 07:23 PM
ArchAngel the picture you show is a 642-1. I thought the current ones were 642-2. Is the picture the recent purchase?

Phydeaux642
July 24, 2008, 07:51 PM
ArchAngel the picture you show is a 642-1. I thought the current ones were 642-2.


The new lock-free 642s are marked 642-1.

.38 Special
July 24, 2008, 08:39 PM
Funny how, even after all these years, the argument still boils down to one group saying that if you don't disable the lock your gun will tie up at the worst possible time and you will die, and the other group saying that if you do disable the lock you will be arrested and imprisoned for life.

Meanwhile there seem to be an awful lot of us who are just enjoying our guns and not worrying about it.

Hmm...

Tberger688
July 26, 2008, 05:26 PM
"I am reluctant to say "never" as the supply of pre-lock smiths may dry up one day.
I'm not reluctant at all. As long as the lock exists in its current form and location, I will NEVER buy (or even accept as a gift) a S&W revolver so equipped. My life means more to me than the ego of those at S&W who persist in that farce."

Anybody that understands revolvers knows that the new S&Wís are junk. With that being said I agree with your statement above completely. Guyís look at these guns, gas pipes for barrels with fake shrouds, very, very shallow rifling, barrels that are screwed in on an angle (which by the way you canít remove), MIMís everywhere, poorly designed locks.

GM and Ford were once cocky like S&W until Toyota and Honda came along, now the Ford and GM cars are much better cars thanks to the competition.

Stop buying this S&W crap and watch what happens!

pps
July 26, 2008, 06:02 PM
Poster by 38special "Funny how, even after all these years, the argument still boils down to one group saying that if you don't disable the lock your gun will tie up at the worst possible time and you will die, and the other group saying that if you do disable the lock you will be arrested and imprisoned for life.

Meanwhile there seem to be an awful lot of us who are just enjoying our guns and not worrying about it.

Hmm..."

It's your gun and your hiney. Do what you want. For me, one less useless piece of debris to worry about. The officer checking our ccw weapons made no comment on the Klinton hole during my last renewal.

.38 Special
July 26, 2008, 08:08 PM
It's your gun and your hiney.
With the obvious implication that if I don't disable the lock I will lose my "hiney".

Ah well. If it weren't for the binary thinkers these discussions would be so dull...

.38 Special
July 26, 2008, 08:14 PM
Of course, it's made even more interesting by the "Anybody that understands revolvers knows that the new S&W’s are junk" type posts. I like a good honest troll as much as the next guy but this fellow gives every appearance of actually believing what he's written.

Good times!

Guillermo
July 26, 2008, 08:15 PM
the obvious implication that if I don't disable the lock I will lose my "hiney".


the reality is that if you don't disable the lock your chances of losing your "hiney" increase.

pps
July 26, 2008, 08:31 PM
"I like a good honest troll as much as the next guy but this fellow gives every appearance of actually believing what he's written."

It's not a matter of believing what is written, but rather what I've seen. In 2006 I saw a shooter's 627 jam up from the flag engaging the hammer and locking up the gun. The shooter later completed the ICORE course sans lock. As far as the troll comment, you really shouldn't be so tough on yourself.

.38 Special
July 26, 2008, 11:24 PM
the reality is that if you don't disable the lock your chances of losing your "hiney" increase.
By about .00000000000001%, I figure. Which is approximately the amount of increase in risk of getting your hiney sued off, or arrested and incarcerated. Pick your poison.

.38 Special
July 26, 2008, 11:28 PM
It's not a matter of believing what is written, but rather what I've seen. In 2006 I saw a shooter's 627 jam up from the flag engaging the hammer and locking up the gun.
I competed in Bianchi style shooting and saw failures in nearly every match -- and this was in the pre-lock days.

As always, I freely admit to disliking the lock. But the rhetoric is still overblown. I mean, we get it: "S&W IS A BUNCH OF SELLOUTS AND THEIR GUNS ARE GARBAGE AND THEY ARE ALL COMMIES AND I'LL NEVER EVER EVER OWN ONE AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU!!!!!!!!!"

Maybe, after all these years, it's time to move on.

Guillermo
July 27, 2008, 01:45 AM
38spl,

Of the people on this board I am one of the few that has used my gun in anger. It happened 3 times. Never once worked out how I imagined. And nobody was mistaken for Dirty Harry or Martin Riggs. It was quick, ugly and scary as hell.

Of the million-to-one shot that I am in that position again, the-million-to-one shot that my lock disables my weapon makes the odds really long.

Still, as one that has looked down the barrel of a gun of a man who said that if I did not comply with his orders he would shoot me, I am all for minimizing those numbers.

A million-to-one is good odds until it happens to you.

pps
July 27, 2008, 02:13 AM
As always, I freely admit to disliking the lock. But the rhetoric is still overblown. I mean, we get it: "S&W IS A BUNCH OF SELLOUTS AND THEIR GUNS ARE GARBAGE AND THEY ARE ALL COMMIES AND I'LL NEVER EVER EVER OWN ONE AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU!!!!!!!!!"

Such binary thinking.

I like Smith and Wessons, but don't like the lock. 3 screws on the side plate, remove hammer, remove lock, replace hammer, replace sideplate and screws. Simple.

If the lock doesn't bother you, great.

I'm not sure what synaptic deficit caused your histrionic, caps locked, rant based on an inaccurate inference about poor Smith and Wesson quality, but I'm sure your psychiatrist can prescribe something to help you.

ArchAngelCD
July 27, 2008, 02:23 AM
MADDOG,
Like Phy said, this run of no-lock's are marked M642-1. You can tell they are current production because of the serial number. The 2001 M642-1 revolvers had serial numbers in the CA and CE range, the new M642-1's have DCM serial numbers. Also, on the box right next to the serial number there is the number 8192. That number tells you the revolver was made the 192nd day of 2008.

Now for all the "you'll get sued" and "you'll get charged" if you remove the lock... That's total BS! If the lock was a safety device you might have a problem but the lock is a storage device, not a safety device. If you disable a safety device and the weapon discharges inadvertently because the safety device wasn't there to prevent it and someone is injured or worse you are in a world of legal trouble. The ILS doesn't fit that bill. The ILS is no different in operation than a trigger lock. You won't get sued for removing a trigger lock and you won't get sued for removing the ILS. Disabling the lock is no different than unlocking it when it comes to safety while carrying the revolver. I'm totally sick of hearing the same old tired talk about getting sued for removing a storage device from a gun you are carrying. C'mon people, please think about what you are saying and don't let the anti's get to you...

Robert Hairless
July 27, 2008, 02:34 AM
This is true, but if you have a lawyer who can use the truth to make the prosecutor look like an idiot, that sticks too.


Course I know I sure can't afford a lawyer that good.

On the flip side, you have to hope a DA is actually good at their job, so as to actually convict the real criminals out there.

Quite the conundrum when I think about it.

You have a pretty good insight into the dynamics of the situation, Matt.

If a prosecutor doesn't make an issue of anything you've done, then there's no issue to concern you and you have what the Internet legal experts term "a good shoot." You get to go on with your life without interruption, and if you've disabled the internal lock or used the ammo you made in your garage or whatever else you've done won't matter. That's because the people who can make an issue of it haven't done so.

I suppose that things can work out that way if you've led a good life, brushed your teeth after every meal, and your uncle is the D.A.

What if you do have to defend your life, you succeed in it, and the people who count aren't sure you were right or are sure you weren't? I know that all the Internet legal experts have decided that "a good shoot is a good shoot," but that's not what they say about most cases reported in The High Road.

Keep an eye on the Legal section of this forum and you'll see that the Internet legal experts are almost never unanimous in agreeing that any "shoot" reported there is "good."

So if you can't count on the Internet legal experts who are gun owners and your buddies, you would have to be a cheery young man indeed to count on the people who make decisions in the real world.

As you say, though, your lawyer's job is to handle the prosecutor and make him look like an idiot if he makes you look like a killer. You'll want to get a very good lawyer to do that of course, but of course you can't afford to pay one of those, so you'll probably want to get your Cousin Vinnie to keep you from going to prison and perhaps even the cemetary.

You'll risk all that for the sake of removing what anyone except an Internet gun expert would consider a safety device--including the manufacturer--because the Internet legal experts tell you not to worry and that "a good shoot is a good shoot."

By the way, are manslaughter and murder cases covered in the court reporters? If so, is every one of them reported? If not, how can anyone respond to the "give me a cite" demand that the Internet legal experts use to make their case that nobody was convicted on the basis of this, that, or the other.

johnnylaw53
July 27, 2008, 07:05 AM
let me give this a go. If you disable your lock or just don't use it and the weapon is stolen from you and used to hurt someone more then likly you will get sued and may even lose but this is also true if your weapon don't have a lock and you failed to use the cable lock or what ever came with your weapon. If you use the weapon it will be more why you used it and less on the weapon itself. Those of us who carry need to spend time learning our laws pretaining to when deadlly force can be used and when it cannot be. In Texas all cases go to the grand jury first if it is rule justified then no lawsuit can follow, new law began last September, sometime the folks at the captial do good things.

.38 Special
July 27, 2008, 09:32 AM
I'm not sure what synaptic deficit caused your histrionic, caps locked, rant based on an inaccurate inference about poor Smith and Wesson quality, but I'm sure your psychiatrist can prescribe something to help you.

Welcome to the forum, BTW. I apologize for the "binary thinking" business; that was a little too personal.

You may want to familiarize yourself with the code of conduct (http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html) here, lest the moderators do it for you. :)

TOGGLELOCK
July 27, 2008, 11:26 AM
The Lock is for a real Putz. We didn't need locks on handguns made in the 1880's and we don't need one now. I'll wait for a S&W without a Internal Lock before I purchase another. Sorry, but S&W should know better and DC vs. Heller should have merely commanded them to avoid those silly Locks.
TOGGLELOCK (no pun intended)

ugaarguy
July 27, 2008, 12:50 PM
Alright, I didn't start this thread to discuss whether or not you like the lock. If you like the lock, or are indifferent about the lock this thread isn't for you, so please don't post in it. If you don't like the lock for whatever reason this thread probably is for you. I'm not terribly interested in why you don't like the lock; we all our reasons.

I'm interested in discussing ways that we can pressure S&W enough to get more no lock revolvers on the market. Right now it appears that pressure at the distributor level is the best way to get results. Please, let's keep the discussion focused on ways to get more no lock revolvers made.

Matt-J2
July 27, 2008, 01:25 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Write letters. Actual, physical letters, on sheets of paper, that get sent through the postal service. If you care enough to write a real letter, and pay for it to be sent you increase the chance of someone at S&W(or anywhere) caring enough to read it. Nobody gives two craps about complaint emails from someone they've ever heard of.
Part 2: Stop buying from S&W. Buy from their competitors. Don't even buy old S&W, as it demonstrates you're still in there pocket and will come around soon or later. If you're buying current models, why should they change? They're getting your money anyway. Make a point of this in your letter(s). I makes more of an impression when they're not only losing money, but that money is going to someone else.
And of course, one person's letter doesn't mean whole lot. You need a bunch of em, so organizing is key.



Granted, locks seem to be showing up on everybodies revolvers, so you might need to act really quickly. Good luck.

pps
July 27, 2008, 02:20 PM
I think you answered your own question in your original post. "no lock 642s from a canceled export order, has sold all of those guns before the initial ship date."

If the powers that be at S&W will listen to anything it will be the rapid sell out of the no lock revolvers. If this happens consistently, while sales of the IL counterparts languish on the shelves twice as long as no locks, then S&W, hopefully, will make the right decision out of the need for profit.

Gary A
July 27, 2008, 02:24 PM
I dunno, seems to me that even if S&W rethinks their position on the lock and decides to do away with it, it might be really sticky for them to phase in no-lock guns. If they decide that many people really hate the lock and won't buy a Smith because of it and others don't like them but will buy one because they otherwise have no choice, what would they do with all the ILS guns in production and in the pipeline if they suddenly began producing that model sans lock? They don't want to eat the guns they have. So they would have to wait to sell the ones they have before announcing and producing regular quantities of no-lock guns. How many lock guns would distributors buy if they knew for sure that by waiting a bit, Smith would produce the same gun without a lock? At the least there would be some periods of scarcity for models while the inventory is sold down and before no-lock guns appeared. In a way, Smith and Wesson has hoisted itself by its own petard. They may be testing the waters but any transition to no-lock guns might well be slow and halting. At any rate, Smith is not going to complicate the problem by hastily announcing any intentions to phase out the locks. They can't afford to. They would play it very close to the vest.

I suppose they could a) remove the lock, patch the hole (expensive in time and labor), and discount the guns to clear old inventory (more lost money), or simply put the ILS guns on sale, but even this would be done probably only after inventories were reduced on high-production models.

Matt-J2
July 27, 2008, 02:28 PM
That should help as well. While don't think they've all actually sold yet(because they haven't all shipped , IIRC), no doubt they will.

Good basis for a another letter. Let them know that the only reason they obtained your money is that they released a revolver without the lock, and that if they wish to continue receiving your money, that the need to continue to do so. The letter in this case reinforces what your purchase has stated. The purchase alone might work, or might not. How many IL 642s we sold in the same time period?

ugaarguy
July 27, 2008, 02:33 PM
How many IL 642s we sold in the same time period?
That's kind of the problem. The 642 is S&W's best selling revolver, and S&W sells 6 out of every 10 revolvers sold worldwide.

Matt-J2
July 27, 2008, 02:39 PM
That's what I was thinking, but wasn't 100% sure on. Certainly makes things tougher.

If you enjoyed reading about "Beating the S&W Lock" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!