Smith vs other brands

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...

Why is it an issue?

I have three lock-equipped S&W revolvers, and several other Smiths without it.

Honestly, when I’m shooting any of the three the lock is the furthest thing from my mind. I’ve never used the lock so I don’t even know how well they work, I’ve never had them lock up unintentionally when shooting and I’ve never had sand, grit, water etc. get into it and clog anything up inside either. (I don’t know if that’s ever been an issue so that point may be moot.)

To me the Smith lock is a lot like the Ruger warning billboard etched in steel on almost every gun they sell; a bit of an eye-candy annoyance on a beautiful firearm but nothing that makes me avoid them.

To each his own .

Stay safe.

I have had Ruger revolvers for a while and just traded in to my first smith last year. It is a 686 with a lock, and I really like it. It seems more svelte than the Ruger GP100 and has a better trigger. If I can get more smiths for decent prices I will, even with the lock.

All the fuss over the lock is humorous. The lock is there, it’s easy to remove, and it has never accidentally engaged on somebody and got them killed. What is really surprising is that nobody has made a slightly different profile of release button to cover the lock and forget about it.

I purposely bought one with a lock because at the time the price was right. And did not feel any need to go have a snowflake meltdown because of the lock. Nor do I even think about it until someone complains on a internet forum. I mean it is not like it is a door knob, with a large key to open. Never even notice it, nor has it the gun ever failed. Much ado over nothing.

Here in NYS (upstate) the paperwork issues kind of lock you into whatever you buy. You can swap off a gun you don't like but it's almost as much hassle as buying another. Point is, you really want what you buy to be a keeper.

That said, I've drifted toward Smith and away from Ruger revolvers. Have been thoroughly unimpressed with the GP (had one) and SP (have one) series. They seem like bricks to me and not fun to shoot. BTW I'd be back to Ruger in a flash if they resurrected the Security/Speed Six series; got two and love them.

So, in spite of some bad experiences with Smith that were eventually made right, I've come to appreciate their offerings. Under the circumstances, I've decided to avoid brands with known negatives.

I did, however, take a chance on a couple of CA Undercovers last year. Was pleasantly surprised how well that worked out.

Sometimes you want a steak, sometimes you want pizza, other times you want chicken wings. Variety is the spice of life!

One thing that I do find interesting is that no one talks about the internal locks on Ruger Single Action revolvers. It makes me wonder if the S&W lock wasn’t visible from the outside of the gun if it wouldn’t be a concern either?

I would only buy a lock model on the super cheap/ stealing it- kind of deal. Then the first thing I’d do is take the lock out and plug that hole. It’s just a personal principle kinda thing for me. There is NO way I’d spend new money on what they are asking for let’s say a 19 classic and have the lock. Make those classics without the lock like they used to be THEN they are classic and We’re talking. My hard earned big money went to Colt!

Pat Riot said:

One thing that I do find interesting is that no one talks about the internal locks on Ruger Single Action revolvers. It makes me wonder if the S&W lock wasn’t visible from the outside of the gun if it wouldn’t be a concern either?

Click to expand...

I figure that since the majority of revolver photos show the left side and that hole is so prominently placed - you're likely on to something.

No one sees the *flag* unless the lock is engaged so it always comes down to that doggone hole. That and anti-PC mania.

One of the key points (pun intended) to the Taurus lock is that even though visible - it is easily ignored in its place on the hammer arch.

In an interesting personal note in that regard, for a great many years I preferred revolvers - almost ANY revolver - that did not have a side plate for much the same aesthetic reasoning. Just could NOT stand that sprinkling of screws for a side plate nor the cover-to-frame break-line.

Todd.

shoebox1.1 said:

I would only buy a lock model on the super cheap/ stealing it- kind of deal. Then the first thing I’d do is take the lock out and plug that hole. It’s just a personal principle kinda thing for me. There is NO way I’d spend new money on what they are asking for let’s say a 19 classic and have the lock. Make those classics without the lock like they used to be THEN they are classic and We’re talking. My hard earned big money went to Colt!

Click to expand...

I've always thought it odd that the *Classic* line comes with a lock when S&W is perfectly willing to sell limited numbers of new models as no-lock versions.

If S&W mandated that every pistol had the lock - it'd make sense but they in fact do not mandate that.

Todd.

While I dislike the lock, I am a lot more concerned about a general lack of QC on new S&W revolvers. The lock can be deleted easily enough.

I have had issues with 3 out-of-the-box S&Ws which is IMHO not acceptable from a marque like S&W. Back in the day you were just about guaranteed of an accurate, perfectly finished and 100% functional revolver. I now find myself checking for a canted barrel the first thing is inspect a new S&W. Needles to say, that doesn’t fill me with that nice warm and fuzzy feeling.

EDIT: While I have not experienced issues with other brands, I have heard from many folks who have. S&W is not the only one dropping the ball.

Pat Riot said:

One thing that I do find interesting is that no one talks about the internal locks on Ruger Single Action revolvers. It makes me wonder if the S&W lock wasn’t visible from the outside of the gun if it wouldn’t be a concern either?

Click to expand...

The Ruger lock never had a reputation for locking itself. It was also benign and easy to forget. It has also been discontinued.

Because I buy what I want. Rather someone else wants it or not is up to them.

Wagon I agree. QC is the main thing! These revolving handguns we adore are not “ latest tech” and cost more than a lot of bottom feeders! Therefore all the company’s should be putting out better products! It was horrible waiting for 5 weeks to get my BRAND new colt back. Canted barrels and all that stuff really should be very very rare. I guess it’s the world we now live in. I’m just glad we are all here and in a country that allows this hobby ( for now) I for one will not build mud bricks under the taskmasters whip! Lol

I have two S&W guns with the lock, a 637 and a 431PD and the lock has been a non issue. And the lock wouldn't stop me from buy a Smith & Wesson that I wanted. Like most I like the older S&W revolvers. Mostly the K-Frames. Colt is never on my radar. A charter Bulldog would be nice but is not pursued. I have owned several Taurus revolvers back in the late 1980s and beyond and never a single problem with them. I wish I had all the old model 85 snubbies back. And the model 66 357 magnums. The Taurus duty guns like the model 80 and 82 were as good as most S&W guns. Back then they even had a bluing you could see yourself in.

Now that Taurus is using a cheap BBQ paint as a finish on their guns I have lost interest. They have a lock but no one mentions them much. Its just a diffent market now than what it was 20 years ago.

I'd like to know how many here have PERSONALLY experienced a lock failure.

I'm sure not saying it can't happen but I would suspect more often then not it gets repeated by someone who "heard about... ", "knew a guy..." or mechanically extrapolated the possibility of them mysteriously locking up.

Then, among failures, I wonder how many have honestly NOT been mucked with since leaving the factory.

Not looking for a fight but it would be interesting to know close to exactly how many have failed were the owners sworn to truth.

Todd.

CraigC said:

The Ruger lock never had a reputation for locking itself. It was also benign and easy to forget. It has also been discontinued.

Click to expand...

I did not know it was discontinued. I went and looked at my new Ruger New Vaquero manual and there is no mention of the locks. The RNVs that I bought in 2008 did.

The 3 S&Ws that I own have never had the lock activate itself. I have yet to meet anyone that has, but I have heard of it online.

I only buy older Smith's. No lock. I am on the look out for a SS 642 no lock. Just don't like the looks of the lock.

wagonburner said:

While I dislike the lock, I am a lot more concerned about a general lack of QC on new S&W revolvers. The lock can be deleted easily enough.

I have had issues with 3 out-of-the-box S&Ws which is IMHO not acceptable from a marque like S&W. Back in the day you were just about guaranteed of an accurate, perfectly finished and 100% functional revolver. I now find myself checking for a canted barrel the first thing is inspect a new S&W. Needles to say, that doesn’t fill me with that nice warm and fuzzy feeling.

EDIT: While I have not experienced issues with other brands, I have heard from many folks who have. S&W is not the only one dropping the ball.

Click to expand...

Exactly my experience. I am against the lock both morally and aesthetically, but it is one of the few things that has never gone wrong on my newer S&Ws.

I buy S&W because I like them. They are also the only company making a 45 ACP revolver with a tapered 4” barrel. Or any cartridge with a 4” tapered barrel. When I competed in PPC the competitors had S&W revolvers, either factory or custom.

None of the other companies come close.

Kevin

That's what that little hole is a lock ???
Never used it, never will!!!
Prefer that it wasn't there, but have never had one fail.

Jeff

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 people understand the lock is such a minor inconvenience. Smith's still have excellent triggers and timing.

Dan Wesson is a top notch choice.

ApacheCoTodd said:

I'd like to know how many here have PERSONALLY experienced a lock failure.

I'm sure not saying it can't happen but I would suspect more often then not it gets repeated by someone who "heard about... ", "knew a guy..." or mechanically extrapolated the possibility of them mysteriously locking up.

Then, among failures, I wonder how many have honestly NOT been mucked with since leaving the factory.

Not looking for a fight but it would be interesting to know close to exactly how many have failed were the owners sworn to truth.

Todd.

Click to expand...

I have four guns with the lock. One is a .500 Magnum with thousands of rounds through it. I have never seen, let alone experienced, a lock problem. I don't doubt they have happened. I just assume that the stories have been repeated so often that it makes it seem as though the issue is more common than it actually is.

Not a problem. Most of mine don't have it, but I'd say that's more of a function of buying a nice used model instead of new just to save cash.

I've had problems (unrelated to the lock) in both pre- and post-lock, but never had an issue other than how it looks. The new models are as good to go as ever.

Oddly enough, I'd say best fit and finished gun is a 686 from the late Bangor-Punta Era which was supposedly a low point for them.