Smith vs other brands

[WisBorn]

There might be hundreds of threads but there have only been a handful of well documented cases of unmolested revolvers locking under recoil. Most of those cases turn out that the user was mucking about inside.

The lock is also super easy to remove and plug.

Most of mine don't have the lock but my current competition revolver has the lock. If S&W makes a configuration I like (10mm Auto, L-frame with fixed sights please) the lock is not going to stop me from buying it. I know how to deal with the lock.

I have never had a problem with the lock locking. someone told me a long time ago not to use it and it will not lock.

 

[Ernie Bass]

If there was a real problem you can bet there would be law suites and recalls.

 

[Rodfac]

and like hundreds of threads ... of the lock inadvertently actuating under heavy recoil.

I'm a member over there as well and that's not my take. Some documentation might clear up this question.

Too, in my own use, with 4 Smith's equipped with the lock, I've not had any problems. Aesthetically, I don't like the IL, but as an engineering change, it's not been a problem for me nor for many, hell, thousands of others. My guns, with that infernal lock, have been just as accurate, and reliable as the dozen other Smith's in the safe. YMMv, Rod

 

[mcb]

That's simply the s not the case. I've been a member of the S&W forum longer than I been here, and the in the discussion were it has happened (some form reputable sources in the industry and others by long term members who have no reason to make things up, it was not reported that they altered the gun in any way that would have any effect on the lock... Some of the members who reported that it happened to them were in denial and dismissed the possibility until it finally ...

The Ruger LCR and Taurus internal locks on the other hand don't seem to have the same issues.

I am not say it never happens, there are several well document cases, in light weight revolvers and/or with heavy recoiling ammo, causing the lock to malfunction and engage. In most cases is not repeatable but highly intermittent if they can get it to repeat at all. But there are not hundreds of revolvers out there doing that. There are a few dozen. For every well document case I have seen there are dozens of threads from people claiming it happened to them offering no evidence or recounting some second or third hand story they forgot half of with little evidence. Or it turns out the user was inside the side plate with a Dremel etc. Again the locks do malfunction but at no where near the rate the detractor often try to claim.

And one more time if the lock bothers you, don't buy it, but realize it is easily removed. If you are comfortable taking the side plate off a S&W revolver you can replace the entire lock mechanism with a plug in a few minutes work and minimal expense.

 

[Dibbs]

Because S&W is a standard of the industry, much like Chevrolet. They are a brand by which other brands are judged, in quality, performance, and price.

 

[mcb]

Because S&W is a standard of the industry, much like Chevrolet. They are a brand by which other brands are judged, in quality, performance, and price.

I am a S&W fanboy by most definitions but if I was buying a new S&W I would want to inspect it carefully before any money left my possession. S&W still make a great revolver despite the lock but their QC is not what it use to be. Most of them are fine but you really want to look a new one over well before buying. Of all the S&W revolvers I own only one was bought new. It did not have a lock but one of my used ones does.

 

[brutus51]

Murphy's law says no lock is best. Just bought a new Colt Cobra target, runs factory ammo fine but the chambers won't let my handloads fully seat. Got a Lee factory crimp die and the problem is gone. No key required.

 

[shoebox1.1]

Atta boy’ Brutus! The big “C” for the win!

 

[PzGren]

Why would people spend good money on a Smith revolver with the lock when they can get one from Ruger, Colt, Dan Wesson or Charter arms without one?

The old pre-lock guns do not cost much more than a new one. Why I consider spending money on those?Because at a fraction of the cost of a Korth they shoot along with them. Not that it matters much to a collector or occasional plinker.

 

[shoebox1.1]

Now I have to admit. My buddy’s LOCK 642 has an awesome trigger. Bone stock. I dunno if it’s a wendsday’s child or what but I want it lol!! Better than my charter arms. SHHHH!!!

 

[SDGlock23]

I've had some S&W's and I can't really complain about them. I've had two Taurus revolvers, which was a long time ago and they were not "bad" but they were definitely not in the same league. Personally I like Rugers the best, they may need a little love out of the box (springs and touching up the finish) but overall, I can't say I miss the S&W's.

 

[stonebuster]

No revolver feels as good in my hand as a S&W K frame and what I prefer in 38 spl. I've got two with ILs and one without and never had an issue with any of them. As for 357s I like the heavier Ruger GP100s, Speed Sixes, Dan Wesson and SP101 with no lock. I'd rather my carry piece not have an IL because I'm a firm believer in "Murphy's Law".

 

[Sistema1927]

For those who think that the recent S&W revolvers don't stack up, that has not been my experience. For example, I have recently acquired two LEO/Corrections surplus Model 64-8. One is 3", the other is 4". Both are LNIB. I bought them, not because I needed them, but because the prices were crazy low. I already have a 64 "no dash" from 1973, and other S&W J, K, L, and N frame revolvers of various calibers from most time periods of the past century.

Concerning those 64-8's:

Do they have MIM? Yes
Do they have the lock? Yes
Do they have 2 piece barrels? Yes

Do they have great triggers? Absolutely, the 3" is the best of the two, but both are very good.
Do they shoot? It is uncanny just how accurate these two guns are.

 

[.38 Special]

I think that many new S&W revolvers are quite good. It's just that many are not, in my experience, and the buyer is taking a bit of a gamble.

 

[PapaG]

My first handgun was an H and R 622. Cost less than thirty bucks. Couldn't hit anything with it. Next, a K-22. That would have been about 1958. Since then, I have never had as much respect for the action, fit, finish, or accuracy on anything else. I've had Rugers (love them), Colts (even a couple Pythons) and loved them also. All said, I'd give up all the rest of my handguns and keep my 63, 15, 19, 29, 624, 686, and 625 and never feel like I needed anything else. Bullseye spring kits, light polishing of the insides of the frame, and you have glass smooth actions.
If I was going to shoot tons of heavy stuff in 44, I'd have a Redhawk, but I have a Super Black Hawk and that takes care of that need.
Colt crapped all over us year ago when they got the big government contracts and quit making decent revolvers except custom shop so they lost my allegiance. Now, a couple of family heirloom Colts are all I have.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I've been shooting S&W lock guns for some time, from a J frame up to an X frame. I haven't had any problems, even in heavy recoil situations and with lots of muzzle rise.

As MCB points out, the lock can be disabled relatively easily, and a plug isn't that expensive. If folks like the older lockless guns, or other brands, then buy those. There's variety for a reason. It's because some folks buy the guns with locks, because it doesn't bother them.

Hearing there are problems, and hearing there are guns without a failure is all irrelevant. Either role the dice and be prepared to deal with a potential issue, or spend more on a Colt, or the same on a Ruger. It's still rolling the dice that way too.

Every brand of revolver out there has been put on a pedestal by someone, and the very same brands have been bashed and denigrated by others. I've had issues with Smiths. I've had issues with Rugers too. Never have owned a Colt, but I will. I'm sure I'll be taking a chance on them too.

I just had to send a $1900 gun back to the manufacturer for repair after one outing. $&@# happens.

 

[brutus51]

Ya get good ones and bad ones in everything that can be bought. I too have had 2k jamomatics that had to be sent back to the mother ship but that life. I have always been a Colt fan because that's what Roy, Hopalong and the Lone Ranger carried, never could find their particular models cause unlike theirs mine always seemed to run out of ammo.
Two of my Colt's a series 70 Gold Cup and a 6" Python have been in my possession for about 50 years, never been back to the factory, never had a problem with either. Both have won quite a few beer's in friendly competition with them Smith fellas.

 

[StrawHat]

...that's what Roy, Hopalong and the Lone Ranger carried, never could find their particular models cause unlike theirs mine always seemed to run out of ammo...

You have the same models. You just don’t pay your screen writers enough.

Kevin

 

[Waveski]

Why would people spend good money on a Smith revolver with the lock when they can get one from Ruger, Colt, Dan Wesson or Charter arms without one?

A) Rugers , Colts , Dan Wessons and Charter Arms are not Smith and Wesson. If you want one of those , fine , but they are not Smiths without a hole.

B) If a person wants a S&W and abhors The Hole (like me) , there are LOTS of good used Smiths available , no hole , less than new without ..... it.

 

[HiDive]

As far as I am concerned the lock makes not one bit of difference. I don't use it, I don't care about it, I don't notice it and I don't read any hidden agenda or conspiracy theory into it. I have owned old S&W's and fairly new ones and I like them all. I also like Colts and Korth's. The Kimbers seems ok but pretty much everything else does not make my list.

 

[Gary W. Strange]

I have always like Smith and Wesson. Revolvers and automatics. I own quite a few. I own one of the elite gold side by sides they sold at one time. I like the older revolvers, without the lock. I have one now, one of the model 21s, that came out a few years back, but it will leave in a trade when something comes along. I bought a 629 classic. It was a dash 3 or 4, with the 5” barrel. I loved it. It shot like a dream and was very nicely fitted and finished. I also own a 4” 629, and love it also. It is just as good and I will only part with it, when I pass on. I foolishly sold the 629 classic to fund something else, I thought I needed more at the time. I regraded it ever since. I few years ago, I bought a 629 classic 5”, with the lock. It was not at all the same gun. The finish was milky looking, it didn’t even have the same feel, and the lock was just more than I could stand. It shot ok, worked fine. I never had a problem with it. I just didn’t like it. I kept it about 6 months and sold it. I will never own another S&W with the lock. There are just too many older ones out there. At good prices, if you look. To me prelock S&Ws are just better fitted and finished revolvers. They have a different look and feel than the new ones. I have read the new S&Ws are really better than the old ones. I am sure they are good guns. I have been into guns since I was a preteen and I remember when S&W stopped pinning the barrels and recessing the cylinders. A lot of old timers said they were finished with Smiths then. I guess the younger shooter at the time, like myself, didn’t mind them not being p&r and kept buying them. I guess that is the case with the lock revolvers to me. They are fine if you like them. I, personally don’t. To me, if you look back and study on S&W revolvers, from the turn of the century onward. From the time they started giving them model numbers, to adding a dash number after the model number. With every dash number, they have became cheaper revolvers. Some were improvements most were not. From 5 screw to 4 to 3, doing away with pinned barrels and recessed cylinders, to doing away with hammer mounted firing pins. They have become cheaper to make revolvers. Smith and Wesson has to make changes to keep them selling around the same price range as Ruger revolvers. It has been what they had to keep up. To me it is just got to be too much.

 

[StrawHat]

Anyone else remember when Bangor Punta took over snd everyone was crying about the lack of quality?

Ever since the British asked for the removal of the shroud and the third lock folks “in the know” have wanted the previous model of whatever generation revolver. I’m sure when the hammer block was introduced after the sailor was shot folks complained how it would change the trigger action. I know I prefer the long action to the modern short action (circa 1950) but I certainly learned how to shoot both. Right now I have revolvers that span nearly a century starting from 1918. They all shoot fine but the 22-4 and 625 are the accuracy champs.

Kevin

 

[FFGColorado]

Son has a S&W 686, and until now, didn't even know what the 'lock' was..Teeny hole, that doesn't need to be used ever..Doubt kid even knows where the key is.

I don't understand the angst..started 20 years ago..yes? The locks?

 

[montanaoffroader]

For me, it's more of a tie breaker rather than a deal breaker. I generally prefer the older models, but overall condition/build quality are more important to me.

If I buy one with a lock, I can always delete it if it bothers me.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

I have several S&W revolvers from the Bangor Punta era, and they are all superb. I am talking around 1974 and 1975. I cannot attest to the quality before or after that. Apparently Bangor Punta owned S&W from 1965 until 1984.

I have a bazillion S&W revolvers, made from 1859 (yes 1859) until the 1980s. As I believe I said in my earlier post, ALL manufacturing companies, including S&W, make periodic changes in their products if they expect to remain competitive in the market place. Usually these changes are to reduce the cost to manufacture the product. S&W has been doing this since the very beginning in 1857.

As I said earlier, I have no problem with MIM parts, I understand how they cut down on the cost of manufacturing. And I have no problem with the lock either. I do have a problem with S&W's quality of late though. I have exactly 2 S&W revolvers with the lock and MIM parts, a Model 686-6 that I bought brand spanky new a few years ago, and a Model 617-6 that I bought used. The 617 is OK, but I really hate the full length underlug. But the 686 had a problem. When I took it to the range the first time I could not get it to print where I pointed unless I cranked the rear sight way over to the right. And yes, I do know the proper way to shoot a revolver. Here is how far I had to crank the rear sight over to get it to print where I placed the sight picture. I have never seen a S&W revolver that needed the sight cranked over that far.






So when I got it home I took a close look at the yoke. This is what I saw. The large gap is because the barrel is canted and that is why it prints so far to the left. In the old days, a yoke that closed this far would never have left the factory. But as I said earlier, one of the ways S&W has cut the cost to manufacture is to eliminate most of the in process inspection steps. The customer is the final QC inspector. Yes, shame on me for not noticing this when I bought the revolver, but something like this should never have left the factory. That is why I will not be buying any more new S&W revolvers, there are plenty of old ones out there that were manufactured, and inspected, correctly.