The dreaded S&W lock

[Moonclip]

I know, I know, beating a dead horse! I Hope I don't see a bunch of arguing and political stuff here. I'm just curious on the percentages of who will own one and who wont. I am a huge S&W DA revolver fan but I can't bring myself to own one with the lock though I own other guns with them such as Taurus.

That one at least is less obtrusive and I've never heard of a Taurus lock being defective. I have many S&W revolvers but not a single ILS model. I even pass deals on them generally. I saw a 637 with a lock in decent shape for $210 last year and I passed. I'd maybe get a 500 or a 460 but even thats debateable.

 

[Huddog]

My 642 has one because they have one. It was either buy one with a lock or search for one without. Since this is my everyday carry and I no longer have small children, they are growed up, I don't lock it.

 

[PH/CIB]

I have a 638 Bodyguard that has the built in lock. I do not like the lock and wish the gun did not have it, I probably should have bought a used gun without it. However I have never had a problem with it and I leave it unlocked. To me just the lock is just another thing that could go wrong at the worst possible time.

 

[moewadle]

We humans do not like change

and resist it mightily. Plus, there is that feeling, I think, that is prevalent to the effect, "They don't trust me to be a capable adult with my firearm so they are going to put a lock on it. Nanny state sort of stuff"

I am not a long-experienced SW person so I probably seem arrogant stating this. But I will. I tend to agree with what some fairly prominent shooter was saying in one of the columns or articles I saw in a shooting magazine. I read it on the internet. He said, referring to SW handguns, "I don't know what MIM is and I have never had trouble with the locks. If I ever do I will deal with the problem at that time." He went on to praise the SW line of products.

 

[Ceemack]

My general attitude right now is "No way!" But someday I may decide I really need an up-to-date Smith, and have to take the plunge.

In the meantime, I'll look for older Smiths that don't have the #$#%^! lock.

To me, they're like a white (or maybe a French) flag--a symbol of surrender.

Defenders of S&W say the locks have to be there to satisfy laws in certain state that require locks. Maybe. But California is the biggest state with that kind of requirement...

...and S&W's internal lock doesn't fill the requirement.

So what the heck is it for?

 

[Moonclip]

I live in CA, and none of mine have the lock! It just requires a bit of lookig for the older models. Besides new S&W revolvers are getting expensive! I'm sad I can't own the .38super S&W revolver that came out due to the lock.

I can deal with some MIM, I can deal with the firig pin being no longer on the hammer on the centerfire revolvers, but I had to draw the line somewhere!

 

[davidconatser]

The lock is a bad idea. No argument.

S&W caved to political pressure. Granted.

The lock is one more thing to fail in a weapon prized for its reliability. Unfortunate but undeniable.

But for a guy new to concealed carry and to revolvers who is not confident enough to adequately evaluate a used gun, they seem like the best available new revolvers.

The lock malfunctions seem to be predominantly with the underweight revolvers with heavy loads. The same combination that can unseat the bullet from the cartridge.

I am very pleased with my 640 and 686 and 25. I have no interest in aluminum or scandium guns. Rented one. Hated it.

I do not use the lock, but carry the key on my keyring since stoppages that have been reported often resolve with locking and then unlocking.

We all have to look at the evidence available and decide what is important to us.

I will tolerate the lock, but would pay an extra $100 for a revolver without it. Seems like something Smith should offer.

 

[Old Fuff]

I could live with the lock, simplly because I could disable it. But the current level of fit and finish, the quality of the MIM parts, the two-piece barrels with EDM cut rifling with the tube crush-fit to the frame (changing a barrel is now a factory job) and other concessions to cost saving has resulted in a product that doesn't reflect well when one examines earlier guns.

In addition to that, I don't generally buy any product that has features I don't like - at least as long as I have a choice, which I do.

My objections aren't limited to the above. I also dislike ultra-lightweight snubbies in .357 Magnum, and full-length underlugs on larger revolvers. While they have their place, the super-sized X-frames are not my cup of tea.

At this time in my life my needs in new handguns is very modest, and older production guns appear to be excellent buys. Frankly, I'm going to take advantage of this.

 

[Dienekes]

Ditto the above. My "needs" are modest, and it's amazing how useful and long-lived an old M&P or Model 10 can be.

If I did buy one I would be looking for a good foolproof way of disabling it. However I get along well without any polymer guns (have had a couple) and I think I can get through my remaining years with what's on hand.

 

[davidconatser]

If this isn't too far off topic: If you rule out new Smiths, is there any general advantage to an older Smith vs a Colt? Or is there more variation between individual guns than between makes?

I have read Jim March's "Revolver checkout" sticky a few times. Maybe it is time to look at some older guns.

 

[glockman19]

I have S&W Revolvers with locks. I only locked it once to see how it worked otherwise they will never be locked again.

 

[Old Fuff]

The older Colts are fine revolvers, but parts for them, and qualified gunsmiths to fit them are becoming few and far between. The same can be said about some S&W models, but because of the tremendous number of the more popular models that were made, the situation is better then it is with Colts.

That said, an old 1955 era Detective Special is one of my favorites, as is an old Officer's Model .38 target revolver. On the other hand the very best double-action trigger pulls will be found on pre-war "long action" Smith & Wesson's.

To window shop, go to www.armsbid.com where an outstanding collection of both makes will be auctioned, starting tomorrow (April 18, 2008).

 

[dvanblaricom]

I have not purchased any S&W items since they caved in 2000 to the gun grabbers. I loved my S&W pistols but I only have 1 left and that is because my mother willed it to me.

 

[RyanM]

I will never own any firearm that has a lock built into it. It's both another thing that can break or fail, and it's politically repugnant. Evidence of how society now revolves around the lowest common denominator.

 

[hyphen]

I think people are blowing this lock thing way out of proportion. Of all the locked Smiths out there I bet you can literally count on one hand the amount of failures that have occurred. I personally know about 7 people that altogether have purchased a total of about 14 locked Smiths and not one of them has ever had a problem with the locks.

Plus, the locks are so easily disabled/removed that I can't understand why people are so riled up about this. It has nothing to do with someone not knowing how to operate his or her own firearm. It's about keeping it non-functional for anyone else if you so want it to be. Don't like it but want a new S&W? Pull out the lockwork, throw away the key. Problem solved.

 

[Ops Officer]

I answered yes because I do own one, a Model 642 I bought for my wife. I won't buy another S&W with the ILS or not. I got passed the lawyer lock, but I discovered the trigger was difficult to use. We dry-fired it for a couple of weeks and fired it a little, but it was still too heavy and uneven. A pistolsmith reduced the pull and smoothed it as much as he could. He said he measured 14 lbs. before he started. Then there is the clear coat that bothered me. It looks so fragile that I worry I'll damage it if I clean the gun aggressively. The gun is reasonably accurate for the intended distance to target.

I have a number of pre-lock S&W handguns. My experience with the Model 642 makes me appreciate them all the more.

 

[Dismantler]

I just do not think that is that big of a deal. I had one and sold it, but that had nothing to do with the lock. If I see a used Smith (I always buy used) that has the lock, I will buy it if it fits my needs.

 

[Virginian]

IF they re-introduced a nice SIX (6) shot model 66 or 19, and all I had to worry about was the lock, I would get one. And probably make a piece to eliminate the lock.

 

[18DAI]

I purchased my last "new" S&W revolver in 2001. I have no intention of purchasing another new gun from S&W, unless, or until, they make the idiot lock optional.

In the meantime, I keep buying all the LNIB examples I can find, of the fine revolvers S&W used to make.

Oh, in addition to making a revolver useless for carry, the lock ruins the classic lines of the S&W revolver, making them ugly. TJ

 

[Evyl Robot]

In development for my lock plug, we disabled the lock on my wife's 627PC by removing the flag. That's really all there is to it. the cylinder is still in the frame, all other parts are intact.

Pull the side plate, mainspring, pluck the hammer, and pull out the flag. Reassemble. Done. Without the flag, the gun will not lock, and you don't have the hole in the side of the frame if you leave the cylinder in it. Frankly, the blank design that I'm working on is more for aesthetics than anything else, as I think the lock parts are ugly.

Keep me from buying a new Smith? It didn't keep me from buying a 29-10 or a 627-5. I've got a 586 on layaway with a lock. This is after we had to fight with the lock on the 627 at the range one day. That was just spooky enough that the wife could no longer live with it. That's a pretty small complaint on an otherwise fine piece of machinery IMHO.

 

[DawgFvr]

I own a brand-spanking-new S&W 642 w/lock. Ok...I know that S&W sold out to a lock company in 2000 and that all they do now is attach revolvers to them...and the old guard just whine about it! For that very reason...I now carry it more than any other weapon...load it with + P rounds and dare it...just dare it to fail once. Now...if,how/when it ever fails while attempting to save my life, I've told my wife to sue S&W for mucho money. Now I no longer need an insurance policy, thus saving me more money to purchase more guns. Move out...draw fire.

 

[Old Fuff]

Now...if,how/when it ever fails while attempting to save my life, I've told my wife to sue S&W for mucho money. Now I no longer need an insurance policy, thus saving me more money to purchase more guns.

Well you have a point, and maybe a solution...

But what I want to know is, what does your wife really want? You or the money...

 

[batmann]

This has been hashed over and over and over. These polls are meaningless
If you don't like the IL--DON'T BUY ONE. They are here to stay.

 

[DawgFvr]

But what I want to know is, what does your wife really want? You or the money...

well...she's the one who told me to, "move out, and draw fire".

 

[saemetric]

S&W lock

I personally don't like them from a looks standpoint and I always prefer older guns. I have noticed that in most pictures I see of S&W revolvers that the photos try to hide the lock in the picture-maybe they too don't like it.