S&W Locks....why?

Status
Not open for further replies.

guyfromohio

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
2,515
Location
ohio
Why does Smith and Wesson feel the need to put those stupid locks on their revolvers? Absolutely ruins them for me. My 642 has one and has never physically failed, but I'd never buy a $1000 M29 with one. Anyone have the real reason?
 
Lawyeritis but not as bad as Ruger where you have to get the grips off to get at the lock. Do they realize how hard it is to find replacement (Wood) grips?
 
oh, Lord. 'Nuther "Lock" thread" :uhoh:

There's already a long list of threads on the subject. If this one's to actually be useful, and be anything other than a rant, it'd help to read some of them and come back with a more directed, less open-ended question.
 
Was all ready to reply in an indignant and snarky manner, but I thought I'd go ahead and run a search using a few different terms. You are correct....it's been beaten to death. Not sure why my original searches came up with nothing. I find that using Google finds threads more easily on THR than the search function within the site. Nevertheless...we don't need to beat this horse further.

Smith did lose $1000 today when I walked away from a retail new 29. I'll now set out to find an alternative.

My answer to my own question.....there is no go do reason....none...it is stupid...
 
Well, apologies for my snark. Not very High Road of me. I really hate "Lock" threads, though. Not so much for how or why they start, but for what they inevitably become.

At any rate, seems you answered your own question. Good luck in your search.
 
Lawyeritis but not as bad as Ruger where you have to get the grips off to get at the lock. Do they realize how hard it is to find replacement (Wood) grips?

Actually, the Ruger lock is much better than the S&W lock, if you have to have a lock in the first place. If you don't want to use it, you will never know it is there because there is no telltale key hole. Just leave it alone. I have a couple of New Vaqueros that came with the locks, I have never used the locks in the ten years I have owned the guns. If you do want to use it you drill a hole in the grip for the key. There is even a dimple on the inside of the grip to show you where to drill the hole.
 
Last edited:
O.P.,

The internal lock can be replaced with a product called "The Plug." You simply disassemble the actions, remove the pesky internal lock parts and replace with "The Plug." The Plug fills the hole in the frame and looks nice.

As far as revolver internal lock designs go I like Taurus best.
 
Why cut off one's nose to....?

O.P.,

The internal lock can be replaced with a product called "The Plug." You simply disassemble the actions, remove the pesky internal lock parts and replace with "The Plug." The Plug fills the hole in the frame and looks nice.

As far as revolver internal lock designs go I like Taurus best.

Yup, I say, play the game. Do though, keep the internals - just in case it ever matters. They don't eat much.
Hell, for that matter, I'm far more concerned with modern low grade markings and "billboards" than I am with locks.
 
Why does Smith and Wesson feel the need to put those stupid locks on their revolvers? Absolutely ruins them for me. My 642 has one and has never physically failed, but I'd never buy a $1000 M29 with one. Anyone have the real reason?
You can get some J frames with or without the lock . I bought my 642 without .

I wish S&W could do the same for all their revolvers .
 
This is specifically why I searched for a 642-1, which is the "no-lock" variety of the 642, when I purchased one last year for primary CCW duty.

I just was not going to buy one unless it was lock-free. It's just one more thing to go wrong on what should be a supremely reliable personal defense handgun. I don't care about looks, or that 99.99% of people will never have a malfunction from the internal lock, I just didn't want one. There are other S&W revolvers currently made that I would buy at the drop of a hat... if they were made in no-lock versions as well.
 
Well, apologies for my snark. Not very High Road of me. I really hate "Lock" threads, though.
It should not be the lock threads that you hate, but why the locks are there. The stupidity of the locks is what creates the "lock threads".
 
Only one of my 23 S&W revolvers has the internal lock. It doesn’t really bother me even though I would prefer it were not there.

Not to change the subject, but all the warnings stamped into the frames and barrels of Ruger guns bother me a lot more than S&W’s locks. I guess that’s why I only have 2 Rugers.
 
Their new grips dont look good as the hogue of the prelock era. SW revolvers of the current production is a far cry of what it was .
 
I only own one S&W with the lock, it's my EDC, a 637 j frame.

I simply took the side plate off, removed the mainspring, hammer, and the cylinder release and took out the one piece that locks into the hammer. While I was in there I put in a different rebound spring and did my usual stuff.

To just remove the one piece of the lock takes about five minutes start to finish.
 
The no-lock 642 in the case with the beautiful blue 29 was what torqued me. If S&W has the choice in a .38, they're making the choice to put them in their other guns. I want them to stop making that choice. Even their PC guns have them.
 
skidder said:
Well, apologies for my snark. Not very High Road of me. I really hate "Lock" threads, though.
It should not be the lock threads that you hate, but why the locks are there. The stupidity of the locks is what creates the "lock threads".

One needs (and is entitled) to decide for themselves what they hate.

And again, it's not how or why Lock threads start that I hate, but more that they become simple gripe-fests which are neither informative nor helpful. There's a lot of bandwidth already doing that. JMO.

I'm no fan of The Lock, but they're there. That's life. They still shoot fine, so I've decided putting my energy into shooting the snot out of my gun is the better use of my time. When I want more of a looker, I'd go for pre-Lock. YMMV.
 
S&W Locks....why?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does Smith and Wesson feel the need to put those stupid locks on their revolvers? Absolutely ruins them for me. My 642 has one and has never physically failed, but I'd never buy a $1000 M29 with one. Anyone have the real reason?

Dang!, man...there's no reason to ask this question with the amount of bandwidth and hot air already devoted to it. There are bigots that will only consider older guns and there are those who just want something new to shoot. They are both right.
 
I also have a 642 with the lock. Though I don't like it either, I haven't had any trouble with it, and didn't feel like blowing the money to plug it.
I'd read about supposed cases of the lock slowly working itelf into the locked position, so maybe once or twice a year, it will occur to me to check it with the key, but it's always stayed firmly in the unlocked position, and I EDC/pocket-carry mine, so it gets a fair amount of vibration.
It's a non-issue, IMO.
 
My fears may be unfounded, but I have a concern about plugging the lock on my newer S&W revolvers. If I need to use one of my lockable guns for self defense, I would undoubtedly be facing criminal investigation and possibly prosecution. I am very familiar with the self defense laws and just recently took the UT concealed carry class taught by a trial lawyer who handles gun related crimes. So I'd like to think I'd do the right thing. Fear can mess you up though and lead to bad endings.

In the event that I were to be prosecuted, I want my revolver to be stock with all safety/storage features in tact from the manufacturers. It's one less bit of ammo an anti gun prosecuted would have to sway a jury.

"Clearly Mr. 460K is a violent and dangerous individual bent on vigilanti justice. He even disabled one of the safety features of the weapon used in the incident."

It would be a bunk piece of evidence, but anti gun folks are really good at allowing emotion and ignorance get in the way of common sense.

For that reason, I choose to leave the lock alone. I still hate them though.

In a wildly unpopular thread I started several months ago, in a sample of 488 guns reported (small sample), 5.2% of the guns reported had lock malfunctions. In a defense gun, I think that is serious. But until I actually have a malfunction myself, I'll keep buying them.

Like them or hate them, I think a good policy on a gun with a lock is to test, test, and test them again to make sure they work as they should.

I wonder if we will ever see a malfunction getting someone killed happen. And if so, will S&W be sued by the family afterward.

Off topic I suppose. Just sharing a thought.
 
My fears may be unfounded, but I have a concern about plugging the lock on my newer S&W revolvers. If I need to use one of my lockable guns for self defense, I would undoubtedly be facing criminal investigation and possibly prosecution. I am very familiar with the self defense laws and just recently took the UT concealed carry class taught by a trial lawyer who handles gun related crimes. So I'd like to think I'd do the right thing. Fear can mess you up though and lead to bad endings.

In the event that I were to be prosecuted, I want my revolver to be stock with all safety/storage features in tact from the manufacturers. It's one less bit of ammo an anti gun prosecuted would have to sway a jury.

"Clearly Mr. 460K is a violent and dangerous individual bent on vigilanti justice. He even disabled one of the safety features of the weapon used in the incident."

It would be a bunk piece of evidence, but anti gun folks are really good at allowing emotion and ignorance get in the way of common sense.

For that reason, I choose to leave the lock alone. I still hate them though.

In a wildly unpopular thread I started several months ago, in a sample of 488 guns reported (small sample), 5.2% of the guns reported had lock malfunctions. In a defense gun, I think that is serious. But until I actually have a malfunction myself, I'll keep buying them.

Like them or hate them, I think a good policy on a gun with a lock is to test, test, and test them again to make sure they work as they should.

I wonder if we will ever see a malfunction getting someone killed happen. And if so, will S&W be sued by the family afterward.

Off topic I suppose. Just sharing a thought.


Non issue. People have beaten the no modifications and ammunition legal horse to death. It's paranoia.
 
While it's easy to pick on Smith & Wesson, the truth is that most of the larger handgun manufacturers (Ruger. Taurus, FN, Glock, etc.) offer internal locks on some if not all of their products. The "real" reason is self-defense against lawsuits.

Most, if not all of the pressure to do so comes not from the company's lawyers - but from those who work for the underwriters who are responsible for the gunmaker's liability insurance.

Lets say that a child finds a loaded and unsecured gun at home. He takes it to school to show it off on the playground, and after one thing and another a second student gets shot. His parents hire a lawyer to "get justice," really meaning "vengeance," along with a lot of money of course.

Their attorney looks at the case and decides that the shooter's parents are way too poor to get much money out of; but the gun manufacturer and liability carrier have plenty. Who is he/she going to sue?

If a suit does come about the manufacturer and insurance carrier can point to the internal lock (if there is one) and claim that since they provided the lock (and instructions in the manual on how to use it) they should not be held responsible if the firearm's owner fails to use it.

Putting inexpensive locks in guns is far less costly then fighting cases in courts.

And none of the manufacturers who include them seem to be seriously lacking for sales.

Disclaimer: The Old Fuff feels he can do without any locks or other superfluous gadgets on his personal hardware, so he make a point of buying older pre-lock guns. But this is a matter of personal choice, and that isn't what the opening post was asking about.
 
My solution for all of the nation's problems is very simple - remove ALL warning labels, and all passive "safety" devices such as the accursed "lock" from all products. Then declare lawyers a pest species with no bag limit, no closed season and a $25.00 bounty for their ears and Bar card. Darwin will then thin the herd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top