S&W "Hillary Holes" and MIM parts...

[John Wayne]

That ugly hole in the side of my revolver does nothing to add safety. If you want to properly secure a gun, do it with a cable lock through the cylinder or barrel, not with a dinky little key and lock held in place by a spring detent.

I have owned 6 S&W revolvers, only 1 of which had a lock. I've had my eye on a model 60 Pro, 686, and 340. The MIM parts don't bother me, but I cannot bring myself for shell out that kind of money for something with that hideous lock. I like my revolvers to be functional as well as good looking. I could get over a keyhole lock on a Glock, but not on a S&W. That's why all the guns I've bought are lock-free. Until S&W figures that out, they won't be making any money off of me.

I thought we were making some headway with the lock-less 442s, but I haven't seen that being implemented in other models.

 

[Old Fuff]

Today's Smith & Wesson revolvers come with:

1. A plastic case, that is designed so that it can be secured with an ordinary padlock.

2. An external lock that when applied prevents the trigger from being pulled.

3. An internal lock that blocks the hammer from rotating.

If this isn't enough security there is always a gun safe.

Needless to say, this wasn't something that the gun buying market demanded.

But of course Ms. Brady and Mayor Bloom-brain would approve.

 

[PRM]

Here ya go...

Similarly I see lots of hate threads about the newer MIM parts. And while again no one likes them I have yet to see a post saying that an MIM part crumbled to dust and rendered a gun unuseable. ~ BCRider

I posted several threads on this both here, and the S&W Forums.

My Model 60-9 broke two of the MIM hammer blocks. Snapped at the weakest point. S&W used to answer this problem by mailing the customer new drop in hammer blocks. The only problem was they were also MIM. Although this is a part that should not bind or break ~ trust me they do, and yes they will affect the function. I did a search of the internet and found this to be a fairly common problem. Enough so, that about two months ago, I was told by S&W Customer Service this part is no longer MIM, but the old style stamped metal. They sent me one and I have had no further problems.

If you are a fan of MIM ~ go for it, I will take the old style dependability any day.

 

[Lucky Derby]

The above post by PRM is the first one of have seen about an actual problem with the MIM. Is MIM as nice as the older forged parts? No, it is simply a cheaper way to produce a firearm. I prefer the old forged parts, but would not have a problem trusting a MIM gun. In fact I do regularly trust a MIM gun, but it is a Colt.
I have witnessed a lock engaging under recoil. Yes it was a lightweight J frame firing full house .357s. That alone is something I would never do, however the gun is suposed to be able to do it. I would NEVER EVER trust a gun with a lock.

 

[contender]

If a Smith and Wesson top company man revolver shooter such as Jerry Miculek will not take a chance on keeping the lock for a match .........why should i take a chance on saving my life with the lock?

you can talk about "game" guns all you wnat as far as what Jerry uses, but the quote from Grant Cunningham on page 2 of this thread purty well sums it up.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=533044

 

[Old krow]

the lock is NOT here to stay

I'm actually a little surprised that they have lasted this long. Once Saf-T-Hammer bought them out, they renounced the agreement made with the prior owners had made with the Clinton Regime. I think that if enough people spoke up about it (as in contacted them) they might just get rid of it altogether.

Thanks for posting that PRM.

 

[orionengnr]

What I don't understand is why hasn't S&W removed the locks from production. Guns with locks cost more to manufacture, and customers are unhappy. S&W must be run by incompetents.

Well...maybe yes and maybe no. From a manufacturing standpoint, it is nearly always more expensive to make a change than it is to continue as-is.

Yes, the ILS parts cost money, but in actuality, probably only a few cents per revolver. Whether the frame is cast with a hole and then finished, or whether the hole is drilled after casting...to change either one requires re-programming of the existing automated process. Re-programming requires human labor costs, and very likely costs more than leaving things as they are. Of equal importance (as of yet) they have no incentive to do so.

When and if S&W sees dramatically decreased sales directly attributable to the ILS, the status quo will change.

A bunch of us old grumps P&M'ing does not sufficiently impact their bottom line, and (apparently) the vast majority of new buyers have no awareness or concerns about the ILS.

For my part, six or seven years ago I was buying ILS S&W revolvers and knew absolutely nothing about the lock. It was only after "IT" happened to someone I know that I started reading and paying attention.

 

[Old Fuff]

A bunch of us old grumps P&M'ing does not sufficiently impact their bottom line, and (apparently) the vast majority of new buyers have no awareness or concerns about the ILS.

This "old grump" doesn't wish S&W any bad luck, it just that some of us with experience going well back before the current methods of construction prefer the way they formally made revolvers. By all means those that find the current guns to be superior to the older ones should buy them, and let the old grumps go out and get what whatever they like.

 

[Prosser]

Hi Orionengnr:
Yes, I'm the one that had his 360PD lock up, dry firing, to try and smooth out the 16 pound, smooth as 40 grit sand paper trigger.

Now, without the lock, it has a weird trigger take up, but, at least it goes bang everytime I shoot it. My gunsmith had not had one lock up, either. So nice to be first,...:banghead:

While not smooth like a Colt, or non-MIM trigger parts gun, it's now at a nearly liveable 10 pounds, and, MUCH smoother then when it started.

The combination of a 12 oz gun, and .357 magnum/hand grenade/flame thrower/gun is too impressive to completely dismiss, for a SD weapon.

"Yes, officer. I can identify him. He's the one running down the street, with his hair on fire, blind and deaf. No, I don't think I hit him with the bullet."


That said, there are better GUNS for self-defense. But, none so light, with the potential to pack such a punch.

 

[Kernel]

The lock is ugly, and I don't buy ugly.

If S&W had an unobtrusive lock, like the Tuarus lock on the hammer, or Ruger's which is hidden under the grips, then I would consider buying another new S&W. As is, I haven't aquired a factory new Smith since my 3" 686+ that I bought in 1999.

The day Smith makes their new 2.5" 638 without a lock, I'd buy one.

 

[hemiram]

If S&W wants to ever sell me a new 686 or 629, the only two revolvers I'm interested in buying, the lock needs to go. Period. As far as MIM goes, I really don't care all that much about it.

 

[Stainz]

A few facts:

1. American owned Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W in 2001 - and introduced the IL. GW Bush took office in 2000 - why is it a 'Hillary hole'?
2. MIM parts, like the hammer, trigger, and rebound slide, are highly uniform and require no fitting. I know of no failures of such parts.
3. The short lived cast steel hammer block, like it's similarly constructed Ruger counterpart, does fail - and they are back to bent sheet metal there.
4. If the IL is so undependable, why has S&W yet to spend the first dime defending themselves over it's use in court? It's been around most of ten years.

I started receiving SS retirement earlier this year, so I have seen a few laps around the fiery orb. I just knew the new-fangled, and then more expensive, SS Model 60 in .38 Special was the wave of the future. That was heresy then. Little matter, I was in school anyway. Soon, our thoughtful Uncle would provide me with the firearms I 'needed'. Raising a family and working left little time or money for firearms. Local shops poo-ed Brit-owned S&W for cowering to the 'Clinton' regime, when I could become firearm-interested, so I went the Ruger way - until a S&W gifted from my wife 9/02. Within weeks - an IL-equipped S&W - the first of many. Never a problem.

Sure, the IL is ugly - as are the MIM parts. You know what pegs the ugo-meter to me? Rubber grips! I can change that. I suspect, when I finally get tired of the IL's looks, I'll get some plugs for them... hope they have a quantity discount!

Stainz

PS If I said 'no' to the IL-equipped S&W's, I wouldn't have acquired a new 3" 63 - or 2 5/8" PC627 UDR this year - that would be sad, indeed!

 

[Deanimator]

1. The lock failures have been documented extensively, including by Massad Ayoob.
   
2. I don't absolutely object to a gun with a lock. I ABSOLUTELY object to a gun with THAT lock. It's a shamefully incompetent design... not to mention seemingly placed to be a finger in the eye to the owner.
   
3. I've got a safe full of S&W revolvers. I carry a Model 36 almost every day. I've never owned a S&W revolver with THAT lock and never will.
   
4. There's a guy on the S&W Forums who sells a plug for the hole once you remove the lock parts.

 

[BADUNAME13]

2. MIM parts, like the hammer, trigger, and rebound slide, are highly uniform and require no fitting. I know of no failures of such parts.

Ya can't work on em...

 

[earplug]

mim "Ya can't work on em..." UNTRUE!

mim parts are better to modify then the old case hardened parts. The old stuff was very soft under the hard surface.
The MIM parts are very uniform and you don't worry about getting a uniform outside finish if you do something like polish and radius the trigger or cut down the hammer.
The SA hammer notch is easier to polish on the MIM part. Better surface.

 

[Guillermo]

The SA hammer notch is easier to polish on the MIM part

actually the MIM parts do not polish well at all. Many gunsmiths will not do an action job on an MIM gun because they cannot make enough of a difference to assure a happy customer.

MIM parts can be burnished. If you have an MIM gun you should dry fire the heck out of it and it can become smoother.

As to the lock, it is not a problem because it is there. It is the design. Only a flaming idiot would design a lock that works on the same rotational axis as the recoil of the gun. Only a moron of world champion proportions would design a lock that rotated opposite the recoil (on the same axis).

It is simply the dumbest design since the nuclear rifle that did not shoot beyond the blast range of the projectile.

If they had made it where it rotated on a different plane such as the Taurus lock very few would care.

 

[Black Butte]

That ugly hole drilled in the frame is a slap in the face. S&W will not get my business as long as it's there.

 

[roaddog28]

I have only one S&W with the internal lock. Its a model 10-14. I have not had one failure and the revolver has performed well. The only reason I bought it because of the price. I paid $275 unfired with the box, trigger lock etc.. Do I like the hole? Nope. This is the only new revolver I have ever bought. The rest of my S&W revolvers are pre-locks and several are pinned and recessed. I have two Rugers DA. A Police Service Service and a GP100.
I like others here don't want to pay $200 higher for a new revolver and have too look at the hole in the side of the revolver. I recently, wanted to buy a S&W 686 4 inch to replace the one I sold. I looked at new S&W ones for $750. The trigger pull was not any better than a new Ruger GP100. The GP100 new is $559.
I did not want to buy the GP100 because I have one. But I keep looking and found a used 686-2 4 inch for $400. This is in California. The moral of this post is, why overpay for a revolver with a hole in the side of it when a person can find quality used revolvers that are made right for less.

Thats all I got to say.
Howard

 

[Jim K]

I have never believed that those locks are totally foolproof, but the "anti-lock" folks are just not credible.

I once challenged a poster about a claimed lock failure. He promptly called me names, ranted about the government, the Commies, the black helicopters and how he lived only to destroy S&W for knuckling under to the Clintonists. Rant, rage and insanity, and the way he claimed the lock failed is simply impossible. (He said it fell down in front of the hammer and prevented the gun from firing, and that the failure had been checked by a "prominent" [but unnamed] firearms "expert" who advised against buying any S&W ever again, even pre-lock guns "because they all blow up.")

Sad that fantasies can drive people to that level of lunacy.

Jim

 

[Deanimator]

I have never believed that those locks are totally foolproof, but the "anti-lock" folks are just not credible.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Massad Ayoob has more credibility than you. He certainly does with me.

 

[dewalt-2]

I love my 686-6. When I did the initial detail strip and fluff and buff, I removed the lock. Trigger pull after polishing in DA is very smooth and SA is light as a feather.

The new Smith's are what they are, I think they're fine. This debate will go on forever...

 

[Old Fuff]

Jim Keenan has plenty of creditability so far as I’m concerned. He has been both an experienced professional gunsmith as well as a stint as a law enforcement officer. He knows far more about the innards of Smith & Wesson (as well as other) double-action revolvers then most folks you’ll meet on any Internet forum.

I think his remarks were directed toward the more rabid and over-the-hill commentators who are long on opinion and short on real firearms experience.

In my view, getting emotionally upset over the S&W internal lock is foolish because (1.) it is easily done away with, and (2.) there are a lot of older no-lock Smith & Wesson’s – as well as other makes – that can keep at least one or two generations supplied with very fine wheelguns.

I have no love for the lock either, but given the other options that are available I don’t loose any sleep over it.

 

[BADUNAME13]

mim "Ya can't work on em..." UNTRUE!
mim parts are better to modify then the old case hardened parts. The old stuff was very soft under the hard surface.
The MIM parts are very uniform and you don't worry about getting a uniform outside finish if you do something like polish and radius the trigger or cut down the hammer.
The SA hammer notch is easier to polish on the MIM part. Better surface.

Tell that to THIS GUY:
http://www.clementscustomguns.com/smithwessonrevolvers.html

I cannot do action work on newer guns with MIM parts. If the back of the trigger has cavities cast in it, then the gun is a MIM gun and not suitable.

I think if you'll check his background... you'll find out he's 'slightly credable'

I have never believed that those locks are totally foolproof, but the "anti-lock" folks are just not credible.

I know a retired State Police Firearms instructor who has stated to me that he has had it happen to him.

Also, there was a LONG thread of posts of them happening on the S&W forums...

 

[EmGeeGeorge]

Just buy a Nagant revolver... virtually indestructable, guaranteed to go bang, as long as you can pull the trigger.

And no pesky lock.

 

[RevGuy]

My dealer told me today that he could order a J frame for me without the IL. However, after checking, he learned only the light weight J's are available without the IL. If you want 642, no problem. But a 36 or 60, no soap.