So that we can always direct the newbies to this thread for the definitive discussion about this topic. I'll rev up the ice breaker: Integral locks have come, or are coming, to all revolvers thanks to the crazy communists in California. S&W has their lock interfering with the hammer travel which is activated through a key hole on the side. Taurus has their recessed lock hole in the hammer itself usually and it operates to immobilize hammer travel. Ruger's integral lock is not widely implemented yet, but if the New Vaquero is the harbinger, the Ruger lock will block the mainspring area under the grips, necessitating removal of the grips to activate the lock. No doubt they will add instructions to the barrel. Some might think me dead set against locks because I do not care for new S&W revolvers because they have an integral lock. I would just note that I possess a Springfield Champion 1911A1 that came with their ILS system in the mainspring housing. Yes there was a sight hole in the mainspring housing. I activated the lock once to see if it worked, unlocked it, and eventually replaced it with standard parts. I tolerated the ILS on purchase because I rid myself of it for about $50.00 with no sign it was ever there. If I could stand owning a Taurus revolver, I wouldn't mind their implementation of their lock, it can be permanently deactivated, the hole of which is small and not easily located at a glance. So too can the S&W lock be permanently decommissioned. A Dremel will end the lock in less than 10 seconds once the proper part is revealed. The Ruger lock is not one I have been able to examine, but I generally approve of the concept of a lock so hidden that it insults the "logic" of those communists who demanded it. I'll bet the Ruger lock can be deactivated by Dremel, but it is probably also the case that the aftermarket will provide the necessary lockless part for the Ruger implementation if there is a market for its total removal. So my main objection to integrally locked revolvers is primarily that I hate the lock, no matter how well designed, as a theoretical impediment to a successful use of the weapon when most needed. Secondarily, if the locks are a fact of life to acquire a new revolver, then I want the most invisible/easiest to permanently disable lock on the market. And that is where S&W fails horribly. Not only does one get to deal with the sideplate, (which wouldn't stop me) but even when successful, one is still dealing with the everlasting eyesore on the left side of the weapon. Not even S&W photographs the lock side promotionally in their catalogs that I have, or on their website. Just like Ruger doesn't show off the billboard. However, as shown repeatedly in this forum, the billboard is a cosmetic problem easily remedied. I haven't seen a good method of filling the hole on a S&W. So there is my complaint in so many words: I can deal with a lock, but not one that scars the firearm permanently unless it is as cleverly done as Taurus did it. Give me invisibility, or nearly so, and the ability to permanently deactivate it or replace it with non-locking parts without scarring the firearm, or don't bother trying to sell me on it. Aesthetics are as important as function in my book since one does not have compromise anything to have both if the engineers are clever enough. Too bad S&W did their lock so poorly.