Pre-lock vs Lock Smith & Wessons

Status
Not open for further replies.
elktrout

elktrout

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
448
Location
Gulf Coast
What are the positives/negatives of the older Smiths (without the lock) and the new ones that have a lock? Is there any possibility that firing the gun could activate the lock (at the worst possible moment)? What about the sleeved barrel?
 
I have shot Smith's for 50 + years now...my first was a Model 28 with an "S" serial number. As far as the lock goes, it's an eyesore for sure, but in my use and that of close friends/family members, we've not had it malfunction whatsoever. Same with MIM parts.

Sleeved bbl's: I've bought two M-69's since they came out...really like the 4-1/4" bbl., making them light weight but with the option of carrying full house .44 magnums....as a rule, I load them with Skelton's 7.5 gr Unique with a good 140 gr. LSWC for 950 fps. At 38 oz., they're a dream to carry. The sleeved bbl's no longer bug me, tho the IL's are still an irritant. Smith claims the sleeved bbl's improve accuracy and they may be right or it might be better machine tools plus CNC improvements...I donno. I do know it's a fat tube, but without the weight and both guns are superbly accurate with Hornady's XTP's (200 & 240), as well as home cast LSWC's of wheel weight alloy. And BTW, I've shot both with full house loads...not fun...but accurate and an available option if you ever need them...

As to accuracy, the 4 Smiths I now own with the lock are at least as good as my pre-lock's going back to 1968 or so. I will say that the bluing/finishing has not kept up however. The modern guns just aren't the equal of even the Bangor Punta vintage Smiths.

Too, while I can't gripe about the single action trigger pulls on my IL revolvers, (they're about the same as before); the DA trigger pull weights have definitely increased markedly...and especially so in the "J" frame models.

Of the 4, IL equipped Smiths I've bought over the past decade, two have had to be returned to Smith for re-work. One, a .38 Spl, 637 for a locked up cylinder after less than 20 rounds. S&W did the work, on their dime, and I had the gun back in two weeks. The 2nd was a .22 lr M-63 for an uneven cylinder/forcing cone gap and lead spitting. That one took 3 months. In both cases, they did the work and ate the shipping both ways. They did not argue and gave me no grief...but both problems should have been caught in a GOOD QC program, IMHO.

Would I buy another...yep if they ever came out with something I'd really like...like a 631 "J" frame, 4" bbl. in .32 H&R, or a stainless M-16 without that $(&$)*Q$*!$ full length rib! But either, (or really any custom work and maybe even warranty work) may be out of the question until they set up operations in ? South Carolina is it? Long overdue, getting out of Massachusetts IMHO.

HTH's & Best Regards, Rod
 
Last edited:
Sleeved barrels may have some accuracy advantages, also the redesigned K-frames with the sleeved barrels should have eliminated the weak, crack-prone forcing cone issue.

On the other hand, its not unheard of for the barrel sleeve flanges to snap off.....win some lose some.
 
Rodfac said:
I have shot Smith's for 50 + years now...my first was a Model 28 with an "S" serial number. As far as the lock goes, it's an eyesore for sure, but in my use and that of close friends/family members, we've not had it malfunction whatsoever. Same with MIM parts.

Sleeved bbl's: I've bought two M-69's since they came out...really like the 4-1/4" bbl., making them light weight but with the option of carrying full house .44 magnums....as a rule, I load them with Skelton's 7.5 gr Unique with a good 140 gr. LSWC for 950 fps. At 38 oz., they're a dream to carry. The sleeved bbl's no longer bug me, tho the IL's are still an irritant. Smith claims the sleeved bbl's improve accuracy and they may be right or it might be better machine tools plus CNC improvements...I donno. I do know it's a fat tube, but without the weight and both guns are superbly accurate with Hornady's XTP's (200 & 240), as well as home cast LSWC's of wheel weight alloy. And BTW, I've shot both with full house loads...not fun...but accurate and an available option if you ever need them...

As to accuracy, the 4 Smiths I now own with the lock are at least as good as my pre-lock's going back to 1968 or so. I will say that the bluing/finishing has not kept up however. The modern guns just aren't the equal of even the Bangor Punta vintage Smiths.

Too, while I can't gripe about the single action trigger pulls on my IL revolvers, (they're about the same as before); the DA trigger pull weights have definitely increased markedly...and especially so in the "J" frame models.

Of the 4, IL equipped Smiths I've bought over the past decade, two have had to be returned to Smith for re-work. One, a .38 Spl, 637 for a locked up cylinder after less than 20 rounds. S&W did the work, on their dime, and I had the gun back in two weeks. The 2nd was a .22 lr M-63 for an uneven cylinder/forcing cone gap and lead spitting. That one took 3 months. In both cases, they did the work and ate the shipping both ways. They did not argue and gave me no grief...but both problems should have been caught in a GOOD QC program, IMHO.

Would I buy another...yep if they ever came out with something I'd really like...like a 631 "J" frame, 4" bbl. in .32 H&R, or a stainless M-16 without that $(&$)*Q$*!$ full length rib! But either, (or really any custom work and maybe even warranty work) may be out of the question until they set up operations in ? South Carolina is it? Long overdue, getting out of Massachusetts IMHO.

HTH's & Best Regards, Rod
Click to expand...
Supposedly all revolver manufacturing and service work is staying in Springfield.
 
I have both types. They are both great.

Most of the people I know or have met that have issues with the lock parrot what others have said about them but have no actual experience with them or have a friend that knew a friend that heard something about the lock causing a problem. There’s nothing more pathetic than a man that knows nothing about something yet takes personal umbrage over something because they think it makes them look experienced…duh, it doesn’t.

I have owned 3 guns with the lock. Still own 2.
I fired hundreds of rounds of .357 magnum in a model 327NG (27 ounces) and a model 60 Pro (J frame weight 23 ounces). The locks never have moved. I also have a 25-15 Classic .45 Colt. I load it with some pretty stout loads and the lock stays UNlocked.

Regarding sleeved or two part barrels. I really don’t have an opinion other than if you ever have a cylinder lock up it may be that the outer sleeve has turned and bound up the ejector rod. That happened to me with my 60 Pro. I haven’t heard of it happening with anyone else’s guns.
Some say the two part barrels are more accurate. In my experience with my gun with both types of barrels they are all accurate with the right loads.

One problem with the older pre lock guns…finding parts.
In my view this is most important if one is new to guns and shooting and knows nothing of gunsmithing. If you try and send an older revolver model to S&W for repair there is a very good chance they no longer have parts.

Oh, and you can remove the locks. It’ll look a lot less pretty but there are some fabricators out there that make blanking plugs for them.
 
Last edited:
I see plenty of contemporary Smith & Wesson revolvers available with or without the lock.
One example is the very cool 340PD model. It shows different SKUs for different versions.
 
For me it’s not just the lock that bugs me, but how they had to warp and distort the frames of some of their revolvers to fit them in there. The K-frames look the worst, the back area is all stretched out. Looks awful. Smith could have done a far better job with the locking mechanisms, they are poorly designed and other guns have done it so much better and much more discretely.

Without getting too political, it was a capitalization to the nanny state for sure. I personally won’t own a new S&W other than the lock models. Some of the more recent design changes seem dubious to me and unneeded, but I’m not a bean counter. The market is competitive and they’ve got to keep cheapening the product I suppose. Recent fit on examples I’ve handled in store are a real let down. Every J-frame snub I’ve seen in the past year or two have huge gaps between the yoke and frame for example.

Just way too many old yet in good shape Smiths out there to be had. Sadly, these pre-lock guns are becoming more and more collectible with each day, and as the newer guns depart more and more in construction parts and service are going to be issues in the future. I already know Smith will not/cannot work on some guns due to absence of spare parts on hand.

I think quality across the board on revolvers is dropping. Last week I handled a new Ruger SP101 in store that can only be described as horrid. The gun had no B/C gap and the cylinder snagged against the forcing cone when closing the gun with any forward pressure on the cylinder. Endshake was off the charts excessive. Trigger was abysmal even by Ruger standards, not just rough but crunchy. Machining of the rear sight groove showed severe chatter marks, the brushed finish of the gun seemed rushed and unevenly done with several unusually bright spots. The worst Ruger revolver I have ever handled. It was the stainless DAO .357 model. It was a model I was seriously considering buying, or ordering online. That experience sure cured me of any interest. Going to have to look for an older one I suppose.

I think it’s just hard to make a machined, all metal, partially fitted revolver in a world of plastic striker 9mms shot out of an injection molding machine and compete in pricing.
 
Last edited:
I'm not interested in anything S&W presently makes, except for ARs and M&P 15-22's.
I have a nice assortment of older pre-lock revolvers, 3 28-2's, a 629-1, and a 625-2.
I've had a bunch of others in the past, and about the only addition to the revolvers is a 686-1 or no-dash one of these days.
A M&P15-22 pistol is another future buy. I'm getting close to the end as far as buying guns goes. If I come across a H&K P7, well, that would tempt me greatly.
 
I have/had Smith's with, and Smith's without the lock.
Looking down the sights and firing at a target I can't tell a difference.
Never had an issue, N frame, L frame and J frame lock equipped Smiths.
No experience with sleeved barrels.
I have heard and seen on forums many men bashing and claiming to boycott S&W lock equipped revolvers.
(Please don't get them started on MIM parts!!)
I remember when I was young hearing older guys bashing Bangor Punta Smith's relentlessly!
I've heard these same men bashing and boycotting Ruger for Bill Ruger's magazine capacity limit suggestion.
I've heard these men bashing and boycotting Springfield for the Illinois gun licensing fiasco.
I have even sat and heard rants about Colt and claims of alienation toward the civilian market.
I've often wondered, do these guys only buy Brazilian and Austrian/European handguns?
 
Last edited:
I have both also, I must say if I were blind folded I wouldn't be able to tell the difference when pulling the trigger.
My 57 has been as good as my 28s have been and I have never had any trouble from the lock on my 57
 
I have seen one first hand report of a lock locking itself, on a heavy caliber (.44RemMag I think) scandium frame, with light-for-caliber bullets (snappy recoil). If it was going to happen, that would be the time. I've only read one report.

On the other hand, the revolvers I own, that I might possibly carry, that have locks, have the teensie stud ground right off the locking tab. Now I doubt think about it.

It is ugly though. . .
 
No mechanical issues with any of the lock S&W's I own. A 686, a 22-4 (M1917 repro) and a 642. Wish they weren't there, but I suppose it was a corporate move to appease hand wringing nanny state politicians.
 
The company that owns S&W invented that lock, it's not going anywhere soon. You can get a very few select number of S&W models without the lock but those are all J-frame models.

I own one internal lock gun, a 627, it has thousands of rounds through it in competition the lock is a non issue for me but I still avoid it if I can find the same config without the internal lock. The same can be said for used vs new for me too, I would rather buy used in most cases.
 
Last edited:
INTERNAL LOCK REVOLVERS
  1. The lock can actuate under heavy recoil. I seen several reports of this happening from longtime well known and respected members of various forums. It is a possibility despite what anyone says.
  2. The lock is an unattractive eyesore.
  3. Many people hate the lock out of principle because of the politics of how and why it came to fruition.
  4. If S&W ever gets rid of the lock in the future, the value of a locked revolver will plummet.
  5. S&W with the lock are generally less expensive vs older S&Ws with the without the lock.
  6. Parts availability and warranty service is greater on the current crop of S&Ws.
  7. Locked revolvers have MIM parts. Not an issue but many people like overbuilt forged parts over MIM cost saving parts.

PRELOCK REVOLVERS
  1. No lock revolvers are more expensive.
  2. They have higher resale value that will only keep going up.
  3. Even if S&W does away with the lock, their pre lock revolvers with forged parts, firing pin on the hammer, and the different cylinder release will always make them a collectible.
  4. They do not have MIM parts.
  5. They are more attractive look wise.
  6. Zero percent chance of an internal lock locking itself.
  7. No warranty service from S&W should the prelock version break or needs repair.
 
Last edited:
I have both. Some were purchased new before the lock was introduced.

I do not care for the look of the lock in the side of the frame but I have not had a problem with the lock while shooting a revolver that had the lock.

Most of my pre-lock revolvers are from the 1960's through 1980's and the fit and finish of the blued ones is better than the current manufactured blued revolvers. Mechanically, I see no difference.

If blind folded, I could not tell if I was shooting one with or without a lock.

There are several models made currently that were not made in the past such as the M69, M986, and M929. So, if you want one of these you have no choice but to accept the lock. My M69 and M986 revolvers are good shooters.
 
357 Terms said:
I remember when I was young hearing older guys bashing Bangor Punta Smith's relentlessly!
Click to expand...
:rofl: Oh my gawd! I had forgotten all about this. I had the same experience. I remember hearing guys rail against them. I remember the words “Those Bangor Punta guns are garbage! Stick with the ‘64 models and older.”
1964 must have been a pivotal year in the gun world where Satan took over the “Gun World” and caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth. :rofl:
 
Last edited:
Add me to the list of those who've owned both, and never noticed any real difference. I don't even buy into the idea that the lock is ugly. It's just another pin/screw/gizmo in the side of the gun. It's just something that's there. No big deal to me either way.

The guns I've owned with two two piece barrels shot just fine.

I too remember going to buy my first revolver. The guys in the shop told me to stay away from the "new" Smith and Wesson revolvers, (This was during the B/P days by the way.) I'd be better off to buy a used one.

Of course the fact that they didn't have a new in the box one to sell me, may have influenced their advice just a little bit. :)
 
Last edited:
I remember reading Jeff Cooper remark that Bangor Punta marked a transition from craftsmen running a gun company to investors running a gun company. If I recall he was referring to the slip in fit and finish. I've owned two Bangor Punta's, still have one, and they are remarkably well made compared to some of today's offerings.
 
I have both. Hard to compare them other than looks. The pre lock guns are all smoother but that is from decades of use. I also despise the lock, it’s just a silly thing that I really don’t get. Insurance rates maybe and now that all the tooling is designed for them it would be hard to come back from.
 
LaneP said:
I remember reading Jeff Cooper remark that Bangor Punta marked a transition from craftsmen running a gun company to investors running a gun company. If I recall he was referring to the slip in fit and finish. I've owned two Bangor Punta's, still have one, and they are remarkably well made compared to some of today's offerings.
Click to expand...

Yes, my first three S&W revolvers were new purchased Bangor Punta guns. The fit and finish is better than the current production models and they are still shooting just fine 40 some years later.
 
mcb said:
The company that owns S&W invented that lock, it's not going anywhere soon.
Click to expand...
Yea but as more and more competition comes into the market, I see S&W realizing they'll make a larger profit by selling more revolvers vs the losing money by continuing on with the lock. Not only are they losing sales, they are spending more manufacturing time and labor by including the lock. They also know full well that the locks aren't popular. Heck, even every revolver picture on their website are of the side without the lock.

I see them doing away with it or offering lock and no lock options.
 
Last edited:
I have S&W revolvers of various ages.

The older ones are more likely to originally have had beautiful fit and finish. They also tend to be smoother.

The new ones work just fine. I have no complaints about them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X
  • Locked
Smith & Wesson 642 with or without lock?
Replies
2
Views
582
jt1
J
M
  • Locked
S&W Pre-Locks Vs. Post Locks
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
Deer Hunter
D
B
  • Locked
Pre-lock & Post-lock Smith & Wessons
Replies
11
Views
801
dispatch
D
N
  • Locked
Internal Locks
Replies
14
Views
905
Tamara
T
G
  • Locked
Pre-Lock S&W Revolver question
Replies
7
Views
1K
SnWnMe
S
Back
Top