Smith vs other brands

Because everyone prefers something different. I still have issues with the lock myself, but the Classic Model 29 I’m testing is a pretty nice piece despite the damn lock.

Because I wanted one

Despite the lock S&W are still very good revolvers for the price.

The lock is easily removed.

Variety is the spice of life.

What you seem to be asking in another way is, would you give up "Smithness" and go to another good brand because of the lock. My answer is, if I want a Smith, I want a Smith, and that is what I'll buy. If I have a choice I'll get one without the lock, but won't be overly concerned if it has one.

The lock is obviously a con but it is not a deal breaker for me. A .357 S&W (take your pick of model) is less than half the price of a Dan Wesson, much less expensive than a Colt if you can find one, Charter Arms isn’t in the same league of any of these imo and the Ruger? Well that is a bit of a tougher argument...

Maybe because despite the lock, S&W's probably still have the nicest actions, a nice look, and decent customer service.

Last I looked, they haven't filed for bankruptcy a few times, so they'll hopefully be around for a while to ensure parts and service.

A lifetime service policy doesn't hurt, either.

Dan Wesson sells exactly 1 model of revolver with an MSRP around $1,500.
Colt only has 3 models.
Charter Arms are functional but leave something to desire when it comes to fit, finish, trigger.
Ruger is really the only competition with a full line up and a similar level of quality.

I own revolvers from all companies listed and S&W is what I would default to when buying a new revolver. Realistically the lock isn't that big of a deal.

I have 3 S&W revolvers with locks. I have never had one issue or problem with them except for a couple of annoying comments from others looking down their nose at me for being a “sell out” and supporting a company that put locks on their products thereby emasculating the commenters somehow.

Let me ask you a question, OP.
What does it matter? You can spend your money on anything you want. If you don’t want a Smith & Wesson, don’t buy one.

Buy older ones. That is what the rest do if they don't want the lock.

Yes, it would seem the lock is more of an ideological issue than a mechanical issue.

Ruger stopped selling higher capacity Mini-14 mags for a while, Colt no longer wants to sell AR's to the public, so others have ideological issues, too.

The Smith’s I have/had all have locks. Never had a single problem. The Smith action is better than the Ruger IMO. My new King Cobra has a very slick action. I chose the King Cobra because Smith doesn’t make a 6 shot .357 as small as the Colt. I chose the Smith for its 7 shot cylinder, 3 inch barrel and adjustable sights and forged frame, something Ruger doesn’t have.

Speedo66 said:

Yes, it would seem the lock is more of an ideological issue than a mechanical issue.

Click to expand...

An aesthetic one, too. It’s ugly as hell.

Speedo66 nailed it. Each company has their ideological issues but we still pick what we pick because we like them.
I have a attachment to Colt revolvers. Complicated actions? Cylinder latch going 'wrong way'? 'Not robust'? But these are all things I accept because I just like my Colts.
It's just a pick your own flavor when it comes to brand loyality. Unless a company comes out and says all their profits are going straight towards a gun control bill, that's a different story. coughs in Springfield Armory

brutus51 said:

Why would people spend good money on a Smith revolver with the lock when they can get one from Ruger, Colt, Dan Wesson or Charter arms without one?

Click to expand...

Maybe because they like the lock feature.

I prefer the lines of Smith’s and the trigger more importantly than Rugers.

Unfortunately DW revolvers rarely if ever show up in my area, and I’m not real apt to buy a revolver blind as I am with some other guns.

Colts are nice but the new King Cobra fit no criteria I needed it to. And the new Python is expensive.

And some of us don’t really give a crap about the lock. I wish they were gone but I think a much bigger deal is made of them then needs to be.

Short answer for me:

The internal lock has never been a deterrent in wanting a particular Smith in a particular configuration.

In point of fact, I see the lock as an opportunity to buy a Smith I want without competing as a buyer with all the folk who have a problem with the lock.

Where as, I have specifically sold off versions of Rugers or Colts for deterrent particulars found in their basic design. Weight, aesthetics, cylinder latches and the like.

Todd.

brutus51 said:

Why would people spend good money on a Smith revolver with the lock when they can get one from Ruger, Colt, Dan Wesson or Charter arms without one?

Click to expand...

Because the price was right and the pistol had the features I was looking for:





as a rule, I prefer the Smith and Wesson revolvers that have the hammer mounted firing pin, as it delivers more energy directly to the primer, and therefore is less likely to have a squib or misfire. My experience with S&W revolvers have been very positive and I think they make great revolvers:



But you know, if the price is really good, I have purchased these:

I bought mine because I really don't give two figs about the lock. I've never had one fail, never really heard of one failing on a heavy gun, and really don't care how it looks. I bought my 686+ because I liked the action and the way it shoots. I have owned a dozen or more Rugers, but the Smith just balances better in my hand than a GP100 be it 2.5, 3, or 4".

I'm an unabashed Charter fanboy. I find them to be better than they are priced, and I have no qualms carrying one when I want something lighter than a full size frame wheel gun. However, they are no where close to the level of polish and fit I get from a Smith. I mean, there is about a 500 dollar spread between the two.

In short, everyone is entitled to purchase what they like for the reasons they have. Personally, the lock on a Smith bothers me less from an anesthetic standpoint than the bill board sized paragraph of legal "don't shoot your eye out, kid!" found on the sides of some Rugers. Then again, none of that matters to me. They could line the Ruger lawyer-speak in gold leaf or paint the Smith lock hunter orange. If they shoot well and fit my hand, that's all I'm worried about.

jar said:

Maybe because they like the lock feature.

Click to expand...

That is a fun notion. I once worked retail behind the gun counter. A guy was looking at a Smith 686. I was telling him what I could about it and he pointed at the Hillary hole and asked what that was. I told him it was a lock for safety during storage.

He may have purchased it anyway but he stopped asking questions at that point and said he would take it.

earlthegoat2 said:

That is a fun notion. I once worked retail behind the gun counter. A guy was looking at a Smith 686. I was telling him what I could about it and he pointed at the Hillary hole and asked what that was. I told him it was a lock for safety during storage.

He may have purchased it anyway but he stopped asking questions at that point and said he would take it.

Click to expand...

I should imagine there are more than we care to admit who distinctly LIKE the S&W and Taurus locks for the practical if not political purposes for which they were intended.

Todd.

I wouldn't get hung up on the lock. If the gun is otherwise what you want, it'll be fine. I'm a ruger guy but if the perfect S&W (with lock) came up at a good price I wouldn't hesitate. That being said, I don't know what my perfect S&W would be...

Have a Colt snub about 90 years old - that was my dad's off duty gun in the 50s; HAD a Ruger until it was stolen; Now, my wheel guns are all Smiths