Will Smith and Wesson ever get rid of the internal lock on their Revolvers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S&W has had some questionable "features" on their guns. Magazine disconnect on the old 3rd-gen semi-autos, internal locks on revolvers, manual safeties on striker-fired pistols, although at least you can buy an M&P without the safety.

The magazine disconnect had a purpose for LE in cases where a perp grabs an officer's gun, although it's debatable whether the LEO would even be able to drop the mag every time. The manual safety can help prevent Glock Leg, but requires specific training. The internal lock on a revolver is most worthless, IMHO, as it offers no safety while carrying as it must be unlocked, and for safe storage an external lock works just as well plus offers visual evidence of condition. And there's a very small chance the internal lock can fail and cause the gun to be inoperable when it's needed most, and that cannot be remedied in the field. Fortunately these failures appear to be extremely rare, and I have never met anyone who has had it happen to them. If it was a big problem it surely would have eaten significantly into S&W sales.
 
And yet Ruger stopped doing theirs and no one even noticed.

I suspect part of the reason nobody noticed Ruger stopped putting in a lock is because it was well hidden under the grips. If you did not take off the grips, you did not know there was a lock.

This is the lock that was in place in the New Vaqueros when they first came out. In order to lock or unlock the lock one had to drill a small hole in the right hand grip to insert the key into the lock. There was a countersink molded into the underside of the grip to make it easy to drill the hole. Due south of the hole for the grip screw. Ruger even told you how big a drill you needed, but I don't remember now. I never bothered to drill the hole and never used the lock. Neither did anybody I know. So the Ruger lock was so unobtrusive that if you didn't drill the hole, or remove the grips, you never knew it was there.

pohAgVCPj.jpg




At some point, I don't know when, Ruger did away with the lock completely. This is a New Vaquero several years newer than the one pictured above. If you look closely though, the countersink is still on the grip. No point redesigning the mold for the grips, they work fine with or without a lock.

posspH5lj.jpg
 
Yeah, S&W's security against Clinton-era persecution. That's why a lot of us won't own one - more than the looks, more than the potential for failure, it's a symbol of compromise with the anti-gunners.

Why do you want to continue to persecute S&W today? It's not even owned by the same parent company any longer. S&W is currently owned by American Outdoor Brands, and headed by P. James Debney . It was owned by Tompkins PLC, and headed by Ed Shultz when they made the Clinton deal.

What reason could you possibly have that makes any sense, to make Debney pay for what Shultz did years ago? Neither he or American Outdoor Brands had anything to do with the company then.

That makes about as much sense as not buying a Ruger today, because when Bill Ruger was alive he wouldn't sell Hi-Cap magazines for the Mini -14 to civilians. Today Ruger will sell you box car loads of them. And no one with the last name of Ruger even works there any longer.
 
That makes about as much sense as not buying a Ruger today, because when Bill Ruger was alive he wouldn't sell Hi-Cap magazines for the Mini -14 to civilians. Today Ruger will sell you box car loads of them. And no one with the last name of Ruger even works there any longer.

Ruger will sell me standard capacity magazines, but S&W still won't sell me a revolver (aside from a few models) without the lock. That's the difference.
 
Ruger will sell me standard capacity magazines, but S&W still won't sell me a revolver (aside from a few models) without the lock. That's the difference.
Colt has never installed a lock. They won't sell you a New AR15 though. Seems every manufacturer has had its quirks.
 
They just fired Debney last week. So, maybe there is hope for the future. ;)
 
I just paid a premium for a prelock S&W 629 because I didn't want the interal lock. IMHO just something to go bad at the wrong time, malfunction or rust. I would have bought a new current one if they didnt come with the dang internal lock. I bought mine partially for bear defense and wouldn't want it locking up on me right when Mr. Grizzly is charging me. I also think the lock is ugly and ruins the aesthetics of the otherwise beautiful gun.

I know a lot of folks obviously don't mind them but I don't like or trust them.


Will Smith and Wesson ever get rid of the internal lock on their Revolvers?
Or to rephrase, will I ever buy another new Smith & Wesson revolver?
 
The Python never had a lock. And judging by the way the first batch turned out, they would have been better off if they hadn't.
Instead of looking for a solution we go back to bashing. I was pointing out that S&W could possibly change routes. They apparently have removed the lock on a few models so maybe more on the horizon. I would buy a new model without a lock if I liked the gun. Until then I'm regulated to old models. Sounds like S&W may have a crappy repair history from a previous thread. Maybe the fact that they got rid of the head honcho recently points to a improvement coming.
 
I suspect part of the reason nobody noticed Ruger stopped putting in a lock is because it was well hidden under the grips. If you did not take off the grips, you did not know there was a lock.

This is the lock that was in place in the New Vaqueros when they first came out. In order to lock or unlock the lock one had to drill a small hole in the right hand grip to insert the key into the lock. There was a countersink molded into the underside of the grip to make it easy to drill the hole. Due south of the hole for the grip screw. Ruger even told you how big a drill you needed, but I don't remember now. I never bothered to drill the hole and never used the lock. Neither did anybody I know. So the Ruger lock was so unobtrusive that if you didn't drill the hole, or remove the grips, you never knew it was there.

View attachment 887134




At some point, I don't know when, Ruger did away with the lock completely. This is a New Vaquero several years newer than the one pictured above. If you look closely though, the countersink is still on the grip. No point redesigning the mold for the grips, they work fine with or without a lock.

View attachment 887135
And yet these are thesame people who print an entire safety manifesto on the barrel.

Why do you want to continue to persecute S&W today? It's not even owned by the same parent company any longer. S&W is currently owned by American Outdoor Brands, and headed by P. James Debney . It was owned by Tompkins PLC, and headed by Ed Shultz when they made the Clinton deal.

What reason could you possibly have that makes any sense, to make Debney pay for what Shultz did years ago? Neither he or American Outdoor Brands had anything to do with the company then.

And what has he/ they done to rectify this?
 
I suspect that the lock remains because if S&W removed it, it is possible that they would no longer be on the CA approved gun list and require expensive requalification before being allowed to be sold. The CA market is large enough that it would probably affect S&W's bottom line if their revolvers could not be sold there for a time.

https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/search
 
And what has he/ they done to rectify this?

What you have to understand is Smith & Wesson is a publicly owned and traded corporation. They just simply cannot, "do whatever they want". In this type of business scenario, the customer might like to think they are right. But they don't get the privilege of calling the shots, or making any kind of demands. Instead they have a board of directors, along with shareholders who have money invested in it, to answer to.

Unlike the privately owned company Glock. Which the companies founder Gaston Glock owns 99% of the business through a private trust, that Forbes Magazine estimates is worth over $1.5 Billion Dollars.

Glock does not have to answer to anyone. He can do whatever he pleases with the company. S&W's lock exists because of a dangerous legal and political climate in this country. Along with a media that hates guns, loves big government controlling everything, and despises private firearms ownership.

That controls what they do far more than a few customers who don't like or want a security lock on their new gun. Right now it is simply more of a overall business risk for them to take it off, than it is to leave it on. You and I may not like that. But unfortunately that's the way it is.
 
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet. I believe the company that now owns S&W invented and has IP established around the Internal Lock that is integrated into the S&W revolvers. The American Outdoor Brands Corporation, owner of S&W among several other brands, started out as the company Saf-T-Hammer. They made gun locks. One of their first acquisition on the road to becoming the family of brands that is, after several name changes, American Outdoor Brands Corporation was to buy S&W. So S&W is not going to quit using the parent corporate IP. This is the reason for my much earlier comment in the thread that the lock is never going away until the some one new owns S&W.
 
And what has he/ they done to rectify this?

The revolver lock, nothing, because it was always Bob Scott's baby, and Bob Scott still runs S&W via the board. He's not President or Chairman anymore, but he's still there on the board and it's not going past him. Debney never had the power or the desire to do this.

But if you're referring to what else S&W has done to rectify the troublesome things that Tomkins agreed to, S&W has:

- introduced a high-capacity pistol, the M&P series and then the 2.0 etc. Remember that Tomkins had agreed not to do that.
- introduced AR-15's. Tomkins agreed not to do that.
- introduce numerous handguns and rifles that accept high-capacity magazines. Tomkins had agreed not to make guns that would even accept them.
- dropped the mandate to provide loaded chamber indicators on all guns
- dropped the mandate to provide magazine disconnects on all guns
- dropped all work on "smart guns"
- canceled the ban on selling to gun dealers in crime-infested areas
- canceled the ban on selling to dealers that sell at gun shows
- canceled the plan to do "ballistic fingerprinting" on all guns made
- canceled the ban on selling to dealers that do not require training for purchasers
- went back on the agreement not to make or sell "high capacity handguns" and "semi-automatic assault weapons"
- refused to enact bans on selling to dealers that did not limit the number of guns sold to a customer over a time period
 
Each to their own but I will not buy an S&W® revolver with the present lock. If they must put a lock on their revolvers do it like Taurus® does which is TOTALLY unobtrusive! I do own an S&W® M&P® BODYGUARD® 38 sans lock and about to buy another.

YMMV
 
I remember as as young kid, looking at the Smith and Wesson revolvers at the gun shops and hardware stores. That was in the late 70s- 80s. I was not old enough to buy a firearm then. My dad would buy long guns for me but not a handgun. Only handgun i owned before I was 21, was a High Standard 104 supermatic citation, Dad had bought for me to shoot in school sponsored shooting matches. Back then we could carry them to school, and keep them locked up in our lockers. I lusted for just any Smith and Wesson revolver. They were a thing of beauty in my eye. I grew up reading Elmer Keith, Bill Jorden, Sheriff Jim Wilson and the likes. Their word was gossiple to me. The day I turned 21, in 1986. I bought a used Smith and Wesson model 63 and put a Colt Python on layaway. My love affair had begun. I still own the model 63 and the python. Over the years I have added more. If you look back through the years, with ever change, ever - behind the model number. Smith and Wesson revolvers have changed. Sometimes for the better but most of the time the change was to make them cheaper. From 5 screws to 4 and then finally to 3. In 82 or so the pinned barrel and reassessed chambers were gone. In the 90s the firing pin moved from the hammer to inside the frame and latter they quit using forged parts and went mim parts. If you put a 1950s S&W beside a revolver made today, it is a total different revolver. Smith and Wesson is no different from any other firearms manufacture, they had to change to keep selling. Imports and manufacturers that was making firearms from cast and now even plastic was eating their lunch. The nail in the coffin with S&W revolvers was the lock stuck on the left side. It just looks out of place and really serves no purpose. How many actually use it? Most never have. I changed the whole outline and looks of a classic revolver. Smith & Wesson could have put it somewhere else, out of sight and still could. I have owned them and I have parted ways with all but one. It is on it's way out when something comes along I can use it for a trade. There are just too many older Smith and Wesson revolvers out there to be had at a good price right now. I will never buy one with the lock on it again. I have tried to except it but just can't get used to it being there. I am not saying they are bad revolvers, it is said they are stronger and better than ever. They are just not what I come to think a Smith and Wesson revolver is. They are not the same anymore. I do wish Smith and Wesson would at least relocate the lock or better yet do away with it. Until they do I will just keep my older S&Ws.
 
I agree that the locks on the modern versions
Are Ludacris but I really don't see why people get so worked up about them.
I wouldn't pay a lot more for a gun just because of that although I do find older Smith and Wesson's have smoother triggers but that's something real not just cosmetic.
However I'm glad people pay a premium form because I'm probably about to sell a like new 629 - 1 it looks like it might never have been fired
I'd love to keep it just to spoil my creature comfort treasure hoarding instincts but I just don't think I'll ever shoot it it's just so pretty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top