Buying a Smith with a Lock Hole?

Steve Milbocker said:

The 629 I had locked up twice.

Click to expand...

Did it lock up because the internal locked by itself? Or was it for some other reason?

I buy firearms for a variety of reasons. Some I have always lusted after, some are very practical tools, some are impulse due to some unknown bit of excitement, some are too good a deal to pass up. S&Ws with locks are generally in the "too good to pass up" category. Exceptional condition, cheap price, no brainer... The lock doesn't bother me at all, and for those who it does, well they just miss out.
Example, a 10-14 Classic purchased for a college kid who it was gifted to. He wanted some gadget, no attachment to the gun, like new, $275 later it was mine. At the local GS $625! Deals are where you find them, hole or no hole!
And I call BS on the "junk" name calling. I have zero issues with the ones I have, but then I don't spend my time on "You Tube" or other social media nonsense...I just shoot!

I don't like the Lock Hole one bit, but I currently have 3 Smith revolvers with the darn hole. No problems so far and I don't foresee any. I owned several others with the hole in the past and none caused any problems. That said, I sure wish Smith would reverse course on this issue.

I'm in the no lock camp. It's not hugely relevant to me because s&w doesn't make anything I'm interested in buying so it's a non-issue. If they did make something I'd want, I would buy it regardless of the lock but it would irritate me. It represents the nanny state so many desire, goofy tidbits that no one uses to make people that don't buy guns happy. I don't like lever guns with safeties, it's the same thing- something a pencil pusher insists on that no one normal will ever use.

fxvr5 said:

Did it lock up because the internal locked by itself? Or was it for some other reason

Click to expand...

Yes. I had to leave the range both times and get into the box and find the key. I thought it had to be a fluke the first time it happened but the 2nd time was enough for me.

Mine with the Lock Holes are great. They are sound, have excellent triggers and won't ever lock up.

JCooperfan1911 said:

Those passing by the new Smiths are losing out. They are some of the smoothest, most accurate, and reliable Smiths yet. The modern manufacturing techniques have reallt improved them.

Click to expand...

redcon1 said:

They all have the lock. aesthetically, the lock is not even noticeable to me and it certainly hasn't caused any functional problems.

Click to expand...

fxvr5 said:

What do you mean "needed" trigger jobs?

Click to expand...

I own several older Smiths and the triggers were excellent right out of the box and finish was much higher quality. The triggers on the Smiths I’ve owned with the locks had a bit of creep and were quite gritty. I was pretty disappointed with them. I did keep a 617 that was worked over by my pistol smith and is quite accurate. If I get ambitious one of these days I’ll polish it up and then she’ll be pretty except for that hideous hole!!

Steve Milbocker said:

Yes. I had to leave the range both times and get into the box and find the key. I thought it had to be a fluke the first time it happened but the 2nd time was enough for me.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that information. Do you recall if when it locked up, it was only when using heavy recoiling loads, or lesser powered loads?

I bought a 442 for winter coat pocket carry (with a pocket holster) as a first response/backup.
In consideration of Murphy's Law, I carry the key in a zippered pocket in my wallet

I have a couple with the hole. Don't like it but never had any problems with it. Never used the lock.

I have no S&W's with the hole, and won't ever have one. I've never seen a product that is rejected by so many potential customers with the company just ignoring that rejection out of some stubborn "Nope!" thinking. IF they got rid of the lock, and it was put together correctly, I would almost surely be buying a 686 4". If a no hole one comes along at anything close to a decent price, well, that's that, I won't need anymore S&W revolvers in my collection anyway. At this point, the only thing new S&W could possibly sell me is an M&P AR and an M&P-22 pistol. Other than that, they make nothing that interests me in the slightest. If I'm looking to buy a new revolver at this point, I would be looking at a Taurus 66. A couple of my friends have newer ones and they seem to be pretty decent guns.

Just a quick point to remember…there ARE current production S&W revolvers without the lock.
The featherweight scandium/titanium 340PD model in .357 Magnum comes to mind, for example.
No Internal Lock models include: https://www.smith-wesson.com/search/node/No%20lock

Blue Jays said:

Just a quick point to remember…there ARE current production S&W revolvers without the lock.
The featherweight scandium/titanium 340PD model in .357 Magnum comes to mind, for example.
No Internal Lock models include: https://www.smith-wesson.com/search/node/No%20lock

Click to expand...

That’s what gets me , if they can and are willing to produce j frames without the lock , why can’t , or why won’t they make other models without the lock ? Was it to get sales numbers up on sagging sales in that group of revolvers ? Or is it the cost of retooling that they figure they will not make back up in sales ? Is it to keep that lock company going ? That is a question that I would like to ask the CEO or a top executive in sales and marketing . The reason is surly not the same as it was in the 90’s .

Once you take the lock out, the hole is for putting one drop of oil inside every so often. See @sparkyv post 56.

So for the initiated, it’s an oiling hole.

I choose never to buy a S&W with the lock hole. But that's just me.

The only thing I concern myself with is the issues of overtightened/canted barrels and the resulting poorly fitted yoke that Driftwood has shown. I have a 629 that has a slightly over tightened barrel but fortunately not enough that the yoke was affected or to the point that I have to adjust my windage where it is maxed out one way or the other to compensate for the barrel.
As for the lock, it is no more of an eye sore to me than QR codes or the owner’s manual that is engraved on my Ruger’s barrels.

fxvr5 said:

Thank you for that information. Do you recall if when it locked up, it was only when using heavy recoiling loads, or lesser powered loads?

Click to expand...

They were upper end hand loads but not maximum. Not my picture but this is the culprit. A performance center gun at that.

red rick said:

That’s what gets me , if they can and are willing to produce j frames without the lock , why can’t , or why won’t they make other models without the lock ? Was it to get sales numbers up on sagging sales in that group of revolvers ? Or is it the cost of retooling that they figure they will not make back up in sales ? Is it to keep that lock company going ? That is a question that I would like to ask the CEO or a top executive in sales and marketing . The reason is surly not the same as it was in the 90’s .

Click to expand...

I understand, and maybe it is just internet gossip, the most of the models, maybe all the models, available without the lock are J-frames. Law enforcement would not buy them for back up use if they had the lock.

S&W decided to offer the no-lock guns to the public consumer.

I do not think, and you know what they say about "assume", none of the larger frames S&W's are available currently without the lock.

Apparently, S&W is meeting its sales projections with the internal lock on most revolver models.

It has nothing to do with law enforcement acceptance. The models without a lock are double-action only j-frames. None of their other frame sizes have double-action only models.

The locks are to prevent small children from firing the gun. Anyone else could be expected to have the ability to bypass the lock with a paperclip or screwdriver. A small child is also not expected to be able to pull the 14 pound double-action trigger, and all the no-lock models have enclosed hammers (Centennial models) that do not have a hammer spur that would be expected to allow a small child to cock the hammer for a lighter trigger pull.


S&W hammer locks: Do it for the kids.

westernrover said:

It has nothing to do with law enforcement acceptance. The models without a lock are double-action only j-frames. None of their other frame sizes have double-action only models.

The locks are to prevent small children from firing the gun. Anyone else could be expected to have the ability to bypass the lock with a paperclip or screwdriver. A small child is also not expected to be able to pull the 14 pound double-action trigger, and all the no-lock models have enclosed hammers (Centennial models) that do not have a hammer spur that would be expected to allow a small child to cock the hammer for a lighter trigger pull.

View attachment 1122489
S&W hammer locks: Do it for the kids.

Click to expand...

I wonder what age a kid can pull a 14lb trigger ? Are they smart and mature enough not to pull the trigger when they are 12 ?
It makes no sense , what about all of the M&P pistols , shouldn’t they have a lock , or do they consider that someone has to rack the slide and a small kid can’t do that , so if it were racked , it’s not on them .

Children who accidentally shoot themselves with unsecured revolvers typically point the gun at themselves and then tragically actuate the trigger using TWO thumbs. Households with vulnerable people must secure firearms. I would not hang my hopes on a tiny internal lock by any stretch of the imagination.

Somewhat of a contentious topic among some circles.

When I went through a S&W revolver armorer class in the mid 2000's, I asked some of the revolver armorers whether they'd seen any issues with the ILS (aka-lock) among folks at their agencies. None could think of a problem.

Comes to that, over the years since the introduction of the ILS, I've seen a fair number of revolvers equipped with it come through our range (in both LE and private owner hands). No issues observed.

In those earlier years I asked a few folks at the factory (as a S&W trained armorer) how many problems they'd seen returned under warranty that specifically involved the ILS. One guy said that aside from a couple issues with the early the X-frames, he couldn't think of any. (He said they'd revised the springs since that time, as the recoil from the .500 & .460 MAG models was heavy.)

One of the techs in Revolver Repair told me they'd had some warranty returns from customers claiming problems with the ILS, but the problems turned out to be caused by issues other than the ILS (which were easily corrected). For example, stubbing with the hammer's DA sear (fitting issue) may cause some folks to think there's a problem with the ILS. Fortunately, from what we were told in the armorer class, the new large MIM hammer sears are so precisely made, that with the factory cut we could expect them to drop into virtually 90% of the new model revolvers. Nice. If you've ever had to replace a hammer sear in an older model S&W revolver, and had to file/fit all 3 surfaces (short cut, long cut and top cut), it can be ... tedious.

I only own one revolver that has the ILS, an early production M&P 340, from the first production run, when that model only came with the ILS. I ran a lot of Magnum and +P loads through it and didn't experience any issues. I even practiced replacing the ILS locking arm with a new one, and installing the itty bitty torque lock spring in the arm (since they didn't come installed together), and the new ILS parts didn't offer any problems, either.

Last time I asked anyone from the factory, their legal dept was adamant in keeping the ILS present in all revolver models that have externally visible hammers, and only the internal hammer Centennial-style DAO revolvers will be offered sans the ILS. Considering how well they're selling, it doesn't seem to have been a problem with customers, either, despite the way 'traditional' aficionados still sometimes express some angst. While it does add extra parts (5, if I remember right), it doesn't seem to cause issues. I bought some spare/repair ILS parts after my revolver class, just in case my gun, or any of the guns belonging to any of our guys & gals, ever needed repair/correction. They've been sitting in my parts kit since '05.

Anyway, I gave up worrying about the ILS many years ago. I don't use it, myself, as I have other ways to prevent visiting grandchildren from gaining access to firearms.

For $50 or so you can get the plug for the hole. Find a competent gunsmith and another $50 and you now have a lock-less gun.

westernrover said:

The locks are to prevent small children from firing the gun. Anyone else could be expected to have the ability to bypass the lock with a paperclip or screwdriver.

Click to expand...

Have you bypassed the lock with a paperclip or screwdriver?

I owned an S&W 640, 5" 460 Magnum, and an 8 3/8" 460 Magnum. I carried one of the lock keys on my keychain in case of emergencies. I never had to use it.