Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Beating the S&W Lock

Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by ugaarguy, Jul 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ugaarguy

    ugaarguy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    12,013
    Thus far S&W has not listened to their customer base and built no lock revolvers as standard production. However, according to information here http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=378526, RSR group, one of three distributors to be offered the no lock 642s from a canceled export order, has sold all of those guns before the initial ship date. Also according to info in that thread RSR group is getting a second run of the model 37-2 no lock, no MIM revolvers made for them.

    This shows us two things. First, the demand for no lock S&W revolvers is at least as high as web forum sentiment indicates. Second, it shows us that although S&W won't do standard production no lock guns, they will do no lock, and even no MIM, revolvers as special runs if a distributor orders enough.

    We the customers need to continue to call, or have our dealers call, distributors like RSR, TALO, Davidsons, Lipsey's, Ellett Brothers, etc. and ask if there are any special run no lock S&W revolvers available. As shown by the RSR 37-2 order the distributors are small enough that they listen to the end customer, but big enough to get S&W to make at least small runs of no lock revolvers. If we keep demanding no lock production runs from the distributors and make sure to buy them quickly we can show S&W how large a market there is for these revolvers.
     
  2. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    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.
     
  3. Guillermo

    Guillermo member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,346
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    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
     
  4. Thaddeus Jones

    Thaddeus Jones Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,008
    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" :rolleyes: 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.
     
  5. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.
     
  6. woodsltc

    woodsltc Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    Tennessee
    The lock serves no purpose!

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

    Don
     
  7. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    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
     
  8. Phydeaux642

    Phydeaux642 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,655
    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.:D

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

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.
     
  10. highlander 5

    highlander 5 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,310
    Location:
    lynn,ma
    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"
     
  11. Downrange

    Downrange Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    VA
    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...
     
  12. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.
     
  13. Dan-O

    Dan-O Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    781
    Location:
    Kansas City
    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.
     
  14. Matt-J2

    Matt-J2 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    Appleton, WI
    Hmm, that could be my new criminal enterprise, sneaking into homes at night and locking people's revolvers! :p



    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.
     
  15. Brazos

    Brazos Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    73
    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
     
  16. ugaarguy

    ugaarguy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    12,013
    Brazos, American Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W. The S&W internal lock is entirely different from the Saf-T-Hammer combo lock grips. Further, locks are optional on M&P autos, and not available on Sigmas. As proven by canceled foreign orders and distributor special runs there are ways to get S&W revolvers without the lock. We the gun buying public just need to push it at the distributor level where we seem to be getting at least some response.
     
  17. pinkymingeo

    pinkymingeo Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    591
    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.
     
  18. Shade00

    Shade00 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Ruston, Louisiana & Jackson, Mississippi
    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...
     
  19. Halo is for Kids

    Halo is for Kids Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    399
    Location:
    Lotsa places...
    More than a few are going to bulk buyers for resale and "the keep one nice and shoot the other one" crowd.
     
  20. machinisttx

    machinisttx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    678
    Location:
    North of Dallas, south of the Red
    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.
     
  21. ugaarguy

    ugaarguy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    12,013
    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?

    The new no lock 642s are indeed current production J Magnum frame guns without the lock. The 640s, even though they have a grip safety are also on the J Magnum frame. Last, are you sure this second run of RSR 37-2s are not built on the J Magnum frame?
     
  22. 33-805

    33-805 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    141
    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....
     
  23. BigBlock

    BigBlock member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Location:
    OR
    Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier just to buy a Ruger? :neener:


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

    pps Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    461
    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.:)
     
  25. machinisttx

    machinisttx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    678
    Location:
    North of Dallas, south of the Red
    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 :confused: 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?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page