S&W Locks....why?

[short barrel]

Why do we hate the locks? I'm asking because I don't know, not to be sarcastic. Does the lock hinder the action in someway? Or do we hate it just because we don't think they're necessary? I'm getting ready to buy a new Model 60--I'm wondering if the lock makes it less desirable.

 

[Comrade Mike]

Why do we hate the locks? I'm asking because I don't know, not to be sarcastic. Does the lock hinder the action in someway? Or do we hate it just because we don't think they're necessary? I'm getting ready to buy a new Model 60--I'm wondering if the lock makes it less desirable.

It's one more component to fail in the system and its an unneeded burden in a system that already has several built in safety features. Any responsible gun owner should never need a "lock" as the gun cannot be fired without the trigger pulled.

Generations of children have been raised in homes with "no lock" firearms to no tragic end. Responsible gun education and ownership should preclude any need for a lawyer lock.

 

[Old Fuff]

I'm getting ready to buy a new Model 60--I'm wondering if the lock makes it less desirable.

Yes and no. It does to some people on general principals, others however don't give a hoot. Personally I prefer to shop around for an older gun where the lock is a moot point - because they're isn't one; there is more human skill rather then automation in the manufacture; and often I can find an excellent or better example for less money then a new one.

However you may feel differently, and hesitate to "go used." If so, buy the new gun and don't look back. In theory the lock is a liability, in practice much less so - like getting hit by lightning on the gulf course.

 

[Radagast]

Paul7:
The online shooting community boycotted S&W after it signed the Clinton settlement, which went much further than stated in the Wiki article linked above.
See this old post for info:
http://www.gunowners.org/a032100.htm

Several major companies such as Sig & Glock were ready to sign as well and the deal was an existential threat to the 2nd amendment.

Every S&W thread was derailed with calls to boycott.
Many shooters dumped their S&Ws on the 2nd hand market, creating a glut of good 2nd hand guns, preventing the sale of new guns.
Some stocking dealers packed up their stock and returned it to S&W.
People who purchased S&Ws, new or old, were labeled traitors.
The boycott was close enough to total that S&W, who at the time were highly reliant on the civilian market (Glock was ascendent in the LEO market), laid off workers and was rapidly going broke.
At one point we had a S&W factory employee on the forums, arguing for their jobs. The response was "S&W Delenda Est".

Eventually the British owners of S&W saw the value of their investment fall from 160 million to near nothing. They sold it on a part payment scheme for 30 million to Saf-T-Hammer, the company that designed the locks. Which is why the locks remain, apart from any state based laws.
Saf-T-Hammer changed its name to S&W holdings and appointed a former armed robber as president. The company could not survive a boycott by gun owners, it easily survived the bad publicity of being run by a guy who spent 16 years in jail.
The other manufacturers understood and refused to sign on to the Clinton agreement, or the similar deal being pushed in NYS by Elliot Spitzer.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Saf-t-hammer...

I have never heard of this "company" before or since learning of there dealings with S&W years ago. Upon further research, I have found virtually no information about this company or anything they they produced.

It just seems odd to me that S&W was bought out by them. S&W is a household name, saf-t-hammer? Not so much.

 

[ugaarguy]

Radagast, the S&W internal lock was designed in house by a S&W engineer. Said engineer is a personal friend of my mine. Unfortunately I can't go into further details.

 

[goon]

You can disable any double action revolver simply by snapping a padlock on to the triggerguard behind the trigger. You are not firing it with a padlock on it - the trigger can't be pulled far enough.

There's no need for an internal lock. It's one more thing to fail. Like others, I'll pay a premium for no-lock guns. Thankfully, they're at least making a few J-frame .38's without those damned stupid locks.

 

[Radagast]

ugaarguy:
I will accept your word on that. The (dis)information I posted above was the accepted data back in 2000/2001.

Cooldill:
Saf-T-Hammer changed their name to S&W Holdings straight after the purchase, IIRC.

If they didn't design the lock, then their being chosen to buy out S&W seems.. odd.

 

[tipoc]

On S&W and the locks it's important to keep the time-line in order. While the Clinton administration was pushing for internal locks and a number of companies, including S&W, were flowing in that direction, Clinton left office in in January 2001. In May of 2001 Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W. No locks appeared on S&W revolvers till 2002.

Clinton was out of office and S&W had new ownership. The agreement had no force making them to produce a gun with a lock in it. So why did they? Because they wanted to and believed it would be profitable.

Here is a May 14, 2001 article from the Phoenix Business Journal which covered the buy out. Reading both pages is interesting.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2001/05/14/daily1.html

Saf-T-Hammer Corp. is not only bringing the firearms giant Smith & Wesson name back to the U.S. with today's purchase of the firm, but also to Arizona -- a state once synonymous with guns and shootouts.
Scottsdale-based Saf-T-Hammer said it will be incorporating its safety features in Smith & Wesson fireams, including the .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum made famous by Clint Eastwood.
As part of its acquisition of the firearms company, Saf-T-Hammer will be changing its name to the Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., according to Saf-T-Hammer chairman Mitchell Saltz.

Saf-T-Hammer was a three year old company at that point.

One reason why the acquisition went through is that Saf-T-Hammer's president, Bob Scott, formerly was vice president of business development at Smith & Wesson, according to Saltz.
"He knew the operation hands-on without spending a whole year learning it," Saltz said.

So the President of Saf-T-Hammer was a vice President at S&W while it was owned by the British firm Thomkins. He also had deep roots in the firearms industry.

Saltz also credited a local team, brought together by investment firm Hunter Wise Financial, for helping move along the deal from start to completion in approximately four months.
That team included Hunter Wise investment bankers, Bank of the Southwest in Tempe, lawyers from Gammage & Burnham PLC and the local branch of Marsh USA Inc., handling the insurance.
"It took quite a big of creativity and due diligence to pull it off," said Gary Pryor, managing director at Hunter Wise, which happens to be in the same building as Saf-T-Hammer. He said that they were able to save time since all the advisors could meet regularly face-to-face at Saf-T-Hammer's offices.

So a group of investment bankers and finance guys get together with a former Vice-President of business development at S&W and some "security guys" and form a company to sell locks for guns and other safety devices. This was at a time when it looked like locks could become, if not mandatory, at least more common. With locks companies could avoid harassing lawsuits. They thought they can make money in such a climate.

They knew S&W was in financial trouble. Who didn't? They knew "Gun Safety" was and would be an issue.

When the time came they pulled together a plan to buy S&W and they did. They celebrated the famous firm being back in American hands! Then they put their locks in the guns.

There was some political push. There was some concern about lawsuits. But Clinton and Thompkins were gone before the first lock went in. Mostly it was money, a business opportunity.

That's why S&W put locks in the guns and still has them.

A bit on Bob Scott from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/profile/robert-scott-3/

Robert L. Scott has served as a director of our company since December 1999. Mr. Scott is the Chairman of the National Shooting Sports Foundation and a Governor of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Institute. Mr. Scott served as a consultant to our company from May 2004 until February 2006; President of our company from December 1999 until September 2002; Chairman of our wholly owned subsidiary, Smith & Wesson Corp., from January 2003 through December 2003; and President of Smith & Wesson Corp. from May 2001 until December 2002. From December 1989 to December 1999, Mr. Scott served as Vice President of Sales and Marketing and later as Vice President of Business Development of Smith & Wesson Corp. prior to its acquisition by our company. Prior to joining Smith & Wesson Corp., Mr. Scott was employed for eight years in senior positions with Berkley & Company and Tasco Sales Inc., two leading companies in the outdoor industry. Mr. Scott previously served as a director and a member of the Compensation Committee of OPT Holdings, a private company marketing hunting accessories.

tipoc

 

[CraigC]

There are bigots that will only consider older guns...

This thread might have a future without the namecalling.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

WHY?
IMO Clinton blackmail and a British company who didn't care about what an American icon's guns looked like. (ugly hole in the side)

 

[rcmodel]

It is not called an Ugly hole.

It is properly called a 'Hillary Hole' in proper gun terminology used by S&W collectors.

But, same difference I guess?

Rc

 

[Radagast]

Tipoc:
Thank you for that info. The deal makes sense now.

 

[guyfromohio]

I've put thousands of rounds through my 642 and the lock has never failed. However, I have NEVER used the lock and I think it ruins the look.