Beating the S&W Lock

This shows us two things

Click to expand...

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.

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

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" 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.

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.

I don't understand what purpose the lock serves, myself.

Click to expand...

The lock serves no purpose!

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

Don

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

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.

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

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.

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"

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...

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.

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.

Hmm, that could be my new criminal enterprise, sneaking into homes at night and locking people's revolvers!



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.

I may be wrong but....

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

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.

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...

More than a few are going to bulk buyers for resale and "the keep one nice and shoot the other one" crowd.

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.

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....

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier just to buy a Ruger?


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

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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?