The dreaded S&W lock
- Thread starter Moonclip
- Start date
- Status
dairycreek
Member
I own two S&W revos with a lock. Have shot them both a lot and have had no trouble. I did own a S&W 329 and had substantial difficulty with it having the lock slip to the locked position while shooting. I sent it back to S&W twice to have it repaired and it still malfunctioned. I don't mind the lock idea as long as it works. The idea of a malfunctioning and unreliable weapon is just not acceptable.
tinygnat219
Member
IMHO the lock really isn't a big deal. I wish Smith had done something ELSE with the lock, like not included it, but I just picked up a used 686 with a lock. It's mine for a LONG time.
P. Plainsman
Member
I own S&Ws with the ill-designed internal lock, but it bothers me, so I checked "maybe."
I avoid new S&Ws for lightweight carry revolvers, especially the air-lite Sc and Ti guns, because I fear the lock will engage and tie up the gun.
I avoid new S&Ws for lightweight guns in hard-recoiling calibers in larger frame sizes, for the same reason. Would never buy a 329PD .44 Magnum after reading TV host Michael Bane's first-hand account:
http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2007/08/s-revolver-safety-failure.html
As far as I am willing to go with the power-to-weight ratio, on S&Ws with locks, is my steel N-frame 4" Model 629 in .44 Magnum. It is a really cool gun, powerful, accurate and comfortable, yet the thought of "lock lockup" occasionally troubles me. It has never happened, in about 2,000 rounds fired. I don't shoot the ultra-stomper heavy bullet loads in the 629 [ouch!], but I do shoot lots of factory Magnum ammo (240 gr JHP @ 1250 fps).
The lock on my S&W 617 .22 LR target gun doesn't bother me at all. That is a fun/sporting revolver, not a "business" piece.
At the end of the day, the Lock is one of the big reasons I always recommend the sturdy, trustworthy, lock-free Ruger SP101 for CCW, over a current S&W .357 snubby, and I follow that advice myself.
I avoid new S&Ws for lightweight carry revolvers, especially the air-lite Sc and Ti guns, because I fear the lock will engage and tie up the gun.
I avoid new S&Ws for lightweight guns in hard-recoiling calibers in larger frame sizes, for the same reason. Would never buy a 329PD .44 Magnum after reading TV host Michael Bane's first-hand account:
http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2007/08/s-revolver-safety-failure.html
As far as I am willing to go with the power-to-weight ratio, on S&Ws with locks, is my steel N-frame 4" Model 629 in .44 Magnum. It is a really cool gun, powerful, accurate and comfortable, yet the thought of "lock lockup" occasionally troubles me. It has never happened, in about 2,000 rounds fired. I don't shoot the ultra-stomper heavy bullet loads in the 629 [ouch!], but I do shoot lots of factory Magnum ammo (240 gr JHP @ 1250 fps).
The lock on my S&W 617 .22 LR target gun doesn't bother me at all. That is a fun/sporting revolver, not a "business" piece.
At the end of the day, the Lock is one of the big reasons I always recommend the sturdy, trustworthy, lock-free Ruger SP101 for CCW, over a current S&W .357 snubby, and I follow that advice myself.
WayneConrad
Member
I would dislike a car with a useless fifth wheel even if it cost me no extra money and got the same mileage.
10-Ring
Member
I've been able to pick up a model 17 and a 19 w/o one...maybe one day, if the need arises, I'd pick one up w/ a lock, but for now, I'm lock free D
Wolfeye
Member
Personally, I don't care one way or another about integral gun locks. My impression is the politicians wanted them to protect the children, but it's education that keeps children safe, not locks.
The only time I might use an integral lock is when I put my hypothetical S&W on the airlines.
The only time I might use an integral lock is when I put my hypothetical S&W on the airlines.
jack the toad
Member
I currently own 3 Smiths with the lock. I plan not to buy another one unless it is a deal.
I hope someday S&W will offer the lock as an option.
I hope someday S&W will offer the lock as an option.
I see no reason for anyone to get emotionally upset. 
For those that like the older guns that come without locks and other improvements(?) there is a choice. As an example I would cite an auction that was held this past weekend (www.armsbid.com) that had plenty.
How about an early post-war model 27 (.357 Magnum) with a scarce and desireable 5" barrel, cased and in mint condition going for $675.00? That's a price S&W coundn't touch today, and it included a pined 1-piece barrel with deep rifling, recessed chambers, "real steel" lockwork, genuine wood stocks, and of course no lock. Add to that some fine hand craftsmanship, and a deep high-polish blue finish that isn't seen today except on guns with an over-$1000.00 MSRP.
Folks that don't care about the lock, or even like it, can download a current catalog from www.smith-wesson.com and go shopping. Any number of retailers will gladly take their order - and their money...
So everybody should be happy. I know that I am.
For those that like the older guns that come without locks and other improvements(?) there is a choice. As an example I would cite an auction that was held this past weekend (www.armsbid.com) that had plenty.
How about an early post-war model 27 (.357 Magnum) with a scarce and desireable 5" barrel, cased and in mint condition going for $675.00? That's a price S&W coundn't touch today, and it included a pined 1-piece barrel with deep rifling, recessed chambers, "real steel" lockwork, genuine wood stocks, and of course no lock. Add to that some fine hand craftsmanship, and a deep high-polish blue finish that isn't seen today except on guns with an over-$1000.00 MSRP.
Folks that don't care about the lock, or even like it, can download a current catalog from www.smith-wesson.com and go shopping. Any number of retailers will gladly take their order - and their money...
So everybody should be happy. I know that I am.
I put "No" but have to admit that I have bought one with the lock. I was going to disable the lock if the gun worked out but had to send it in to S&W for repairs because of something I did (Not s&w's fault.) It came back with a substandard barrel and was inaccurate.
Contrary to my earlier experiences with customer's service there, it seemed to me on this occasion that the service reps were unable to communicate effectively with the gunsmiths and provide a coherent answer to my routine questions. The seemingly obfuscatory response to the lock malfuctions puts me off too.
Some recent s&w's function very well and have been highly accurate but like Old Fuff, the accumulated burdon of recent changes have pretty much killed my interest in the line.
Contrary to my earlier experiences with customer's service there, it seemed to me on this occasion that the service reps were unable to communicate effectively with the gunsmiths and provide a coherent answer to my routine questions. The seemingly obfuscatory response to the lock malfuctions puts me off too.
Some recent s&w's function very well and have been highly accurate but like Old Fuff, the accumulated burdon of recent changes have pretty much killed my interest in the line.
Hawk
Member
Did you get that 27?
I'm jealous.
I never stood a chance - was getting slapped around by Java. The machine at work took it fine but that didn't help with the 27.
jjohnson
Member
No. Never.
Well, having been a shooter for over four decades now and not liking extra mechanical junk that doesn't add function
, I'm voting "no" with my dollars.
Before S&W caved in to their lawyers
, they made some pretty fine handguns. In fact, they made a LOT of pretty fine handguns. I figure that for the rest of my natural lifetime, I can get very nice USED S&W handguns from the "pre-lock" years to satisfy my needs.
I won't own one unless somebody gives me one (feel free, fellas, I will send you my address if you DO want to donate). I can still get a new Taurus or something if I really want that S&W feel in a revolver, way easier still if I want to skip the new M&P or something in an auto.
Well, having been a shooter for over four decades now and not liking extra mechanical junk that doesn't add function
, I'm voting "no" with my dollars.Before S&W caved in to their lawyers
, they made some pretty fine handguns. In fact, they made a LOT of pretty fine handguns. I figure that for the rest of my natural lifetime, I can get very nice USED S&W handguns from the "pre-lock" years to satisfy my needs.I won't own one unless somebody gives me one (feel free, fellas, I will send you my address if you DO want to donate). I can still get a new Taurus or something if I really want that S&W feel in a revolver, way easier still if I want to skip the new M&P or something in an auto.
shooter429
Member
I said yes, because I do in some all steel, but I prefer pre lock guns
I will not own another airlight in a magnum caliber as I had actual experience with the ILIF on my 329 with heavy loads. I have not had an ILIF on any all-steel magnum, but I still do not like that I always have to carry a key "just in case." Once bitten...
S&W should not have caved, and they should not continue with the poorly engineered locks. No safety, not even an internal lock takes the place of responsible handling and storage, which, if done correctly, makes internal locks moot and unnecessary, IMHO. If they must provide a lock, why not just a cable lock like the ones Ruger ships with their guns?
Shooter429
I will not own another airlight in a magnum caliber as I had actual experience with the ILIF on my 329 with heavy loads. I have not had an ILIF on any all-steel magnum, but I still do not like that I always have to carry a key "just in case." Once bitten...
S&W should not have caved, and they should not continue with the poorly engineered locks. No safety, not even an internal lock takes the place of responsible handling and storage, which, if done correctly, makes internal locks moot and unnecessary, IMHO. If they must provide a lock, why not just a cable lock like the ones Ruger ships with their guns?
Shooter429
In defense of Smith & Wesson - The current owners didn't fold, a former owner in the U.K. did.
But when the company was sold to the present owners, who bought it for a fraction of its value, they had to agree to assume the "agreement."
What is called an agreement really wasn't. It was an out-of-court settlement, and as such was in effect a court order. That's a lot different then a simple agreement. If the current owners hadn't done what they did, when they did it, there would not be a Smith & Wesson company today.
But when the company was sold to the present owners, who bought it for a fraction of its value, they had to agree to assume the "agreement."
What is called an agreement really wasn't. It was an out-of-court settlement, and as such was in effect a court order. That's a lot different then a simple agreement. If the current owners hadn't done what they did, when they did it, there would not be a Smith & Wesson company today.
Hawk
Member
If neither of us could bid on it due to Java machinations, I submit it wasn't really a 675.00 firearm. We won't know until it sells or the next auction.
I don't have a lot of faith in the pre-lock S&Ws staying anywhere near reasonable for long. The 675.00 sure wouldn't have held if not relying on what I used to call "stupid Internet Explorer tricks". I'd hazard a guess that if either you or I had pre-bid 800.00, neither of us would have won - somebody would have gone 805.00 sure as I'm a foot high.
As soon as pre-lock S&Ws get "stupid high" I expect the "never gonna buy a lock" club stops getting new members.
Jim Supica ia a partner in the auction. He is the co-author or Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson, that is the standard "bible" of S&W collectors. I have known Jim for years and done business with him at both www.armchairgunclub.com and www.armsbid.com.
I know him to be a totally honest person in his dealings. I won't know for sure until the final results are posted to confirm what the real price was, but I'd bet it was $675.00.
On the other hand I'm sure there would have been higher bids if the software had worked, and the fact it didn't probably cost Jim a considerable amount of money over the total number of lots auctioned. When things slow down I'll take the issue up with him, and hope things are better at the next auction. This was the first time they tried proxibid, and it obviously didn't work.
Incidentally, I spotted a number of non-Smith & Wesson lots that also sold for much less then I would have expected. I just picked the Model 27 as an example. Would have I bid it up? Darn right!
And I think you are probably right in thinking that in a few years we will be looking at today's highest prices and thinking, "boy those were the good ol' days."
The only thing on our side is a continuing shift in buyer interest toward automatic pistols in place of any revolvers.
I know him to be a totally honest person in his dealings. I won't know for sure until the final results are posted to confirm what the real price was, but I'd bet it was $675.00.
On the other hand I'm sure there would have been higher bids if the software had worked, and the fact it didn't probably cost Jim a considerable amount of money over the total number of lots auctioned. When things slow down I'll take the issue up with him, and hope things are better at the next auction. This was the first time they tried proxibid, and it obviously didn't work.
Incidentally, I spotted a number of non-Smith & Wesson lots that also sold for much less then I would have expected. I just picked the Model 27 as an example. Would have I bid it up? Darn right!
And I think you are probably right in thinking that in a few years we will be looking at today's highest prices and thinking, "boy those were the good ol' days."
The only thing on our side is a continuing shift in buyer interest toward automatic pistols in place of any revolvers.
CajunBass
Member
.
No, you misunderstood my question. Obviously if the lock fails to the "lock" position it's a bad thing. However the lock has two positons. Locked and unlocked. Has it ever failed to the unlocked position, where you would be unable to lock it if you wanted to. The gun might, probably would function fine, but might be unlocked when the owner thought it was locked.
No, you misunderstood my question. Obviously if the lock fails to the "lock" position it's a bad thing. However the lock has two positons. Locked and unlocked. Has it ever failed to the unlocked position, where you would be unable to lock it if you wanted to. The gun might, probably would function fine, but might be unlocked when the owner thought it was locked.
W.E.G.
Member
Make no mistake.
I will NEVER buy one of those lock-guns.
NEVER.
I will NEVER buy one of those lock-guns.
NEVER.
Bellevance
Member
I own two with the lock, a 617 and a 686, and several more Smiths without the lock. The lock doesn't really bother me, apart from its ugliness, and mostly I just ignore it. It's foolish, probably, and ineffectual, but it's not going away any time soon, and I have enough confidence in S&W overall (despite the documented failures) not to worry about its locking up when I really really need it to go boom. That said, my need-to-go-boom guns are my 19-3 and my 10-5.
Given the choice, I'm much more interested in adding pre-lock Smiths to my small collection than any with the lock--again, because I don't like the hole in the frame--but I'd happily pick up another 617 (4-inch) with the lock if the deal were appealing.
Given the choice, I'm much more interested in adding pre-lock Smiths to my small collection than any with the lock--again, because I don't like the hole in the frame--but I'd happily pick up another 617 (4-inch) with the lock if the deal were appealing.
Hawk
Member
That's all I was driving at: the thing would've gone for more if the Java app wasn't acting up - I would have seen to it personally.
It appears you would have as well.
That might have been interesting.
At any rate, up until last Saturday, there wasn't anything my machine wouldn't run - that Java thing is just too delicate. Looks like it needs IE too, but I'm not sure of that. More good news: there's no obvious way of getting it set up until it's too late. A dummy auction a day or two ahead of the real thing would be nice, if you're going to be talking to him...
I have several Smith revolvers. My favorite is the 19-3. I have a 17-3, and a nice 18-4 as well as some 28's and and 25-5, and other models. I own B]ONE[[/B] Smith with a hole in the side. It is a 25-13(I think it is a 13). I'm selling it as soon as I have the time to dig it out of storage and post it.
There is something about that hole that just irritates me.
There is something about that hole that just irritates me.
Hawk
Member
I hereby swear and affirm that I will absolutely, positively, not bid against the Old Fuff when a Python is being auctioned.
- Status
