pre-lock v. post-lock S&W revolvers

[SoonerSP101]

I'm sorry if I'm bringing up a thread that has been discussed before. I've searched for S&W and lock. Read about it. It's on the left side above the cylinder release like in the image below of the "Classics" Model 36 (which is rated for +P BTW). But my question was never really answered so please humor me.

It seems that the newer models have an internal lock. I have a newer Remington 700 rifle that has a little place for a "J" type key. I unlocked it when I bought it and never intend to lock it. No problems mechanically with the operation of the rifle. I kept the key just in case but.....anyway.....

Is this the same king of thing? Do people only want the pre-lock due to principle? Or is there a functionality element?

 

[Old Fuff]

AGAIN!!!!

Well O.K...

Some believe, with some justification, that the lock may be able to turn itself on during recoil. While this is very rare, it has happened. On a revolver that will likely be used or carried as a weapon, superfluous gadgets are not always welcome.

Around the time that the lock was introduced, other unrelated changes were made in the name of cost reduction. These changes might, or might not affect performance, but the older pre-lock guns have a well-proven track record. Personally I believe in letting others do the beta testing, but unquestionably, S&W has plenty of satisfied customers. So what you buy is up to you.

 

[Gator]

What Old Fluff said.... plus, the lock is UGLY!

 

[joneb]

The safety should be between your ears. Adding this IL to a gun should only be a option for those that wish to have it, the IL is a symptom of gun control and should be treated as such.
As for reliability I can't see how adding X amount of parts to a mechanical devise could be a good thing.

 

[BikerRN]

Some believe, with some justification, that the lock may be able to turn itself on during recoil.

My S&W 22-4 "locked up" during it's first fifty rounds of firing. S&W was real quick to fix the "problem" and ship it back to me and it has had over 1,000 failure free rounds through it since. S&W told me on the phone that they "Didn't find a problem with the lock, but we changed the Lock Spring and the Main Spring."

It works now, but I always have that nagging little doubt in the back of my mind. BTW, this is my off duty carry gun. After Christmas I will change my off duty carry gun to a 3" Ruger GP100 because it doesn't have a "lock". On Duty I carry the issued autoloader.

Biker

 

[18DAI]

The best discription/explanation I've read concerning internal locks is, "Internal locks are a nanny state intrusion, and an anti gun collusion". TJ

 

[Deanimator]

Some believe, with some justification, that the lock may be able to turn itself on during recoil.

And according to some accounts, when dropped.

 

[bender]

AGAIN!!!!

this isn't a rehash for me... I never really knew what these "S&W locks" were. I don't buy s&w due to high price. Last one I had was a 686 bought back in the 1980s, which I no longer have.

Now that I know, I wouldn't buy one anyway... on principle... regardless of price.

 

[Old Fuff]

One of the great things about this country is choice.

Those that don't object to the lock (or even like it) are free to go to their local dealer and buy whichever current model they like.

Others that feel otherwise can find older pre-lock models on the used market, sometimes like new, for less then the same gun just out of the factory.

So long as this is the case I won't lose any sleep...

 

[Hawk]

I'm new enough to these rotational vs reciprocating handguns that I've not developed any strong preferences. I like the appearance of the pre-lock versions better but not enough to dissuade me from buying a new one should some new-fangled design, not available used, strike my fancy. Hasn't happened yet but it might.

The self-engaging lock reports are rare but seem clustered in the magic alloy lightweight models chambered for cartridges suitable for safari.

Those more knowlegeable than I have also maintained that the MIM sear / trigger, introduced around the time the locks were, can't be stoned as finely as the earlier type. This is likely so but, in the absence of a finely stoned older model, I couldn't personally testify to this. Seems plausible, though.

It seems to be a non-issue with the vast majority of folks. The general gun-buying public seems not to care and even here, where the cognoscenti might be assumed to congregate, the massive multi-part "642 club" tells me the lock isn't a priority - unless I miss my guess, a goodly number of 642s are post-lock and their owners seem a happy lot indeed.

 

[FranklyTodd]

a goodly number of 642s are post-lock and their owners seem a happy lot indeed

Don't forget us happy M&P340 owners! http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=282173

Somewhere I saw a thread telling how to disable the lock, but it's a risk I'll run (I do agree it is annoying that there's no choice). I'd venture the reliability of a post-lock Smith revolver is still better than any autoloader... before anyone asks for a souce, I don't have one - made it up! (feels right though)

 

[BikerRN]

The self-engaging lock reports are rare but seem clustered in the magic alloy lightweight models chambered for cartridges suitable for safari.

Not quite. My 22-4 is a blued steel hunk of metal that is anything but "lightweight". It's chambered in 45 ACP and I was shooting "Target Ammo" the day it locked up on me.

My 442, also with a lock, has never locked up on me, and I shoot nothing but "Defensive Loads" through it. It is a lightweight alloy gun.

Biker

 

[Hawk]

The lock reports span the line but the statistician in me still sees clustering in the lightweight high-intensity product. There are far fewer scandium space-guns so an equivalent number of reports would still weight towards that end of the line.

As informal as it is, the S&W forum attempts at tracking such seem to ascribe a disproportionate number of hiccups to a relatively small group of Buck Rogers type product.

I'm aware of no hard numbers but the trend seems plausible.

'Course, none of that exempts relatively heavy handguns firing powder puffs. It's just "playing the odds".

 

[Tberger688]

Somewhere I saw a thread telling how to disable the lock, but it's a risk I'll run (I do agree it is annoying that there's no choice). I'd venture the reliability of a post-lock Smith revolver is still better than any autoloader... before anyone asks for a souce, I don't have one - made it up! (feels right though)

Not true! Never had my autoloaders give me a problem but if they did I know how to clear them. Now my .460 S&W had a broken spring on the "flag" and I could lock it up simply by turning it upside down and shaking it.

 

[cmidkiff]

I've got a 620 with the lock. It was unlocked when I bought it, and hasn't been locked since. I've fired all sorts of loads through that gun, it's my kids favorite... it's been 100% reliable.

I've also got a 29-2 (made well before the lock) that is not even in the same ballpark when it comes to quality and finish. The 620 is a beater, tough, it'll handle lots of abuse, the trigger is fair, the 7 shot capacity is kinda neat... The 29-2 is a classic. Gorgeous bluing, smoooooooth DA, crispy clean SA, a real quality firearm. No comparison.

The hand work and quality that went into older guns (I have a Detective Special and a Lawman MkIII that are just as nice as the 29-2) isn't matched in todays world. I suppose if S&W or Colt were to produce a high quality product the equal of what they built >20 years ago, none of us could afford it!

The locks? They really ought to go, or at least be an option. It's a sad commentary on today's nanny-state government that they exist at all.

 

[joneb]

I know what you're thinking, is it locked or unlocked and where is the f@#$%& key ? In all that excitement I kinda lost track myself you've gotta ask your self a question, DO I FEEL LUCKY ? well do ya dumb a$$.

 

[Jackal]

Here's a question. If there are two identical S&W revo's on a table, both priced the same, one has the lock and the other doesnt, which would you buy??

 

[Old Fuff]

Here's a question. If there are two identical S&W revo's on a table, both priced the same, one has the lock and the other doesnt, which would you buy??

Good question, but you need to start a different thread with a poll.

 

[cmidkiff]

...two identical S&W revo's on a table, both priced the same, one has the lock and the other doesnt, which would you buy?

The pre-lock will have forged rather than MIM parts, PLUS, the lack of the lock itself... No question, I want the older one. (and I have made that decision on several occasions!)

 

[DawgFvr]

hmmm...the pre-lock might just be "shot-out"...off timing and, in many instances, poorly maintained....naw, think I'll stick to a new Ruger...hee, hee

 

[18DAI]

No brainer, I'll buy the one without the lock. Thats what I've done every time, and will continue to do. TJ

 

[Deanimator]

Here's a question. If there are two identical S&W revo's on a table, both priced the same, one has the lock and the other doesnt, which would you buy??

I've never owned an S&W revolver with the current lock and never will.

It's like a political candidate who supports an assault weapon ban. It's a complete and absolute deal breaker.

My problem is that with the OGCA show now permanently between Columbus and Dayton, the availability of good, used, pre-lock S&W revolvers in NE Ohio seems to have dried up.

I wish RM Vivas would finally get around to doing something with their website. I bought an M&P from them almost a year ago, and their website is in WORSE shape than it was back then.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I refuse to pay for a feature that I don't need, which may put my life at risk, and which will take me time and trouble to disable.

 

[cyclist]

Years ago, when I was in my pre-adult years, then again later once I became a real adult, different instructors in assorted firearms safety type classes or seminars both said almost verbatim the same thing:
"A safety is a mechanical device prone to failure".

Granted that they were talking about basic firearm safety and keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction even though one knew the safety was engaged/on, but the point still remains that it is in fact a mechanical device that can "fail" when you least want it to. And the failure aspect could be either on or off depending on what you want the firearm to do. And I suspect one day we will learn about an AD/ND where someone with one of these states "I thought the lock was locked".

As to this integrated lock in the S&W revolvers goes, to me it is a secondary issue. I won't go out of my way to avoid getting a revolver with one on it, but apples and oranges if two otherwise identical revolvers were presented to me I'd personally be swayed to the lockless one. If I want to lock a revolver I can put a trigger lock on it, or I can crudely put a padlock through the frame preventing the cylinder from closing, or I can put the revolver in a locking case or lock it in a safe or vault of some sort. I do not need someone else to decide for me how something should be secured.

Does the locking system bother me? Not too much.
Does it affect my consideration of buying a revolver equipped with one? Maybe a little.
Would I ever buy a revolver with an internal lock? Maybe.
Do I own one now? Nope.

Ultimately only you can decide if it's okay or not for you.

= = = = =

Followup thought/question:

Is there a way to quickly tell if one of these revolvers is in locked or unlocked mode? I've held one but didn't notice any indicator showing the lock state.

 

[Bullet]

I have a few S&W's. None with locks. I will never own a S&W with a lock.