What's with the lock on Smith and Wessons?

[MassMark]

It's called: "smart business practices in a climate where suing people has become a hobby".... Smith and Wesson made a choice that saved them from headaches, lawsuits, legal fees and lost capital. More lost capital than those who choose not to buy them because of a small dot on the side of the frame. Oh well, more for me....

 

[DawgFvr]

Quit whining already! I, for one, am getting tired of this Lock issue. Usually the people bringing it up are those that do not even own a S&W or some smug SOB that, "will only own a pre-lock" S&W. I own one. There is no issue. I have never had a problem with the lock..as I never use the lock...I do not intend to...I just ignore it. The weapon has always fired when I pull the trigger and I suspect it always will. If you do not like locks on the S&W, then purchase another weapon without a lock...and you better do it soon, cuz the trend is going towards locks of some kind. Perhaps if there is enough disgruntled people buying other revolvers...maybe, just maybe the price will go down on those superior S&W revolvers and I can add more to my collection.

 

[mdao]

Mdao: Please share.

Quick and dirty method to completely remove lock:

• Make sure revolver is unloaded.
• Remove grips.
• Unscrew and remove side plate.
• Untighten strain screw and remove mainspring.
• Remove hammer block.
• Pull trigger half way, remove hammer assembly.
• Remove lock plate.
• Remove lock spring with pliers.
• Rest of lock removal should be self explanatory.
• Pull trigger halfway, reinstall hammer assembly.
• Reinstall mainspring and tighten strain screw.
• Reinstall hammer block.
• Reinstall side plate, screw into place.
• Reattach grips.

Really, it took me about as long to write the explanation of how to remove the lock as it took me to remove the lock on my 627.

 

[454c]

QUOTE:
***Quit whining already! I, for one, am getting tired of this Lock issue.***





And you still clicked on a thread title about locks?

 

[DawgFvr]

Yup. I try to head off the naive people, S&W bashers and those with hidden agendas in order to stop beating on this dead horse. I would, at the least, attempt to direct this topic to the legal/political area...as it really is about persuading people to not buy S&W in hopes of making them change their evil manufacturing ways. I doubt that will happen and I think that the thousands of newly purchased S&W revolvers in the hands of newer/older weapons owners should be allowed to post on here without the continual reminders of these so called "experts" about the evils of the lock and how all these revolvers, at any given moment, will fail to function at the cost of the buyer's life in a real world encounter, etc., blah, blah...blah.

 

[Radjxf]

We all appreciate your efforts Dawg, but I think I'll keep on buying nice, old mostly hand fitted guns made from real steel, without idiot locks, injection-molded metal and transfer-bar firing pins

 

[Hawk]

I only recently acquired a revolver or two but all this talk about S&W locks has piqued my curiosity sufficiently that I might have to buy one just to see what the fuss is about.

Pictures of the thing are reminiscent of what we "baby boomers" used to associate with clock-key wind-up mechanisms. I'm wondering if I could convince an anti it's a key hole for winding up the full-auto cylinder turning mechanism. Then again, it's not clear why I would want to do such a thing.

As something of a disinterested observer, I'm wondering if "Pre-lock S&W" has already reached the rare air where resides "Pre '64 Winchesters"? That'd be quite a trick given that the Winnies are over 40 years out of production while the Smith has only been gone around 5 years. While I was certainly old enough to remember "Pre '64 Winchesters" I wasn't paying any attention at the time.

Any old guys remember if there was more gnashing of teeth and rending of shirts in '64 or if the S&W lock has it beat?

 

[Deanimator]

Is there any hard documentation on these "hidden locks" on Ruger handguns?

Plenty at http://www.smith-wessonforum.com.

If the "trend" is toward internal locks, why are they OPTIONAL on S&W's hottest new item, the M&P semi-auto?

There is exactly ONE state which mandates internal locks, and the trend is NOT toward requiring them.

The ONLY apparent reason to put them on ALL revolvers besides the Model 40 is because "Safe-T-Hammer" bought S&W.

People who claim that the unencumbered mechanism can fail are absolutely correct... so then why add ANOTHER possible point of failure???

I've got a safe literally full of S&W revolvers of all types. I don't own a revolver with a lock. I never will.

 

[454c]

QUOTE:
***Yup. I try to head off the naive people, S&W bashers and those with hidden agendas in order to stop beating on this dead horse. I would, at the least, attempt to direct this topic to the legal/political area...as it really is about persuading people to not buy S&W in hopes of making them change their evil manufacturing ways. I doubt that will happen and I think that the thousands of newly purchased S&W revolvers in the hands of newer/older weapons owners should be allowed to post on here without the continual reminders of these so called "experts" about the evils of the lock and how all these revolvers, at any given moment, will fail to function at the cost of the buyer's life in a real world encounter, etc., blah, blah...blah.***



FACT - ALL mechanical devices fail.
FACT - Internal locks are mechanical devices.
FACT - Internal locks are NOT necessary for the gun to function.
FACT - Internal locks increase the odds of failure.

You say the no lock crowd are naive, bashers, those with hidden agendas and in an earlier post that they were non- owners and smug sob.

I say they are people who accept facts and spread the truth. I fail to see how hiding facts from fellow shooters can be helpful.

Like I said earlier, it's facts vs. emotion.

 

[RevolvingCylinder]

I have a friend who just bought a new Ruger .44....and it's a very nice gun. He was seriously looking at Smith's also and used the lock as his excuse for not buying the 629. But........I know him well enough to know, it was the price difference and not the lock that was the major factor in his decision.

Maybe he likes a modern design that won't beat itself to death on hot rounds that the revolver should be able to handle. So much for Ruger being the "cheap POS". That "cheap bastard" saved a whole $90 on a clearly "inferior" revolver.

I love my Model 29 and the N-frame but I can't deny that the S&W has its flaws. Not to mention that S&W's quality has been on the decline while Rugers remain excellent. New S&W revolvers are merely 2nd rate replicas of real S&W revolvers.

 

[DawgFvr]

So...go and purchase Taurus revolvers if that makes you feel better...leave the new S&W revolvers to us. I have a friend who has a friend who knows somebody that believes in Ghosts. I don't. Ghosts = post lock failures. Until I see one or experience one, I say it is all Hogwash. After firing beau coup rounds thorugh my new Lock S&W, I have had no problems. Now...as stated before: Quit whining. Move out and draw fire.

 

[Nails]

I'm more of a Glock guy than anything but I do own a 442 that I carry sometimes. My wife owns a 642 that she carries all the time. Both have locks. My 442 has just over a thousand rounds thru it and I believe my wifes has a little under that.

I don't really have much of an opinion on the dang locks one way or another but I do have a question I've wanted to ask folks for a while now.

I've heard quite a few people say that the lock can engage under recoil. However looking at it I can't imagine how that would be possilbe. The unlocked position for the lock is back toward the butt of the gun. Recoil drives the gun backwards. So the recoil is driving the lock back toward the unlocked position.

So how in holy heck could the recoil engage the lock? I'm honestly not trying to argue and I'm about as far away from a physics professor that one can get, but I just don't see how recoil could make the lock go in the opposite direction from the force being exerted on it.

 

[buck460XVR]

Quote:
I have a friend who just bought a new Ruger .44....and it's a very nice gun. He was seriously looking at Smith's also and used the lock as his excuse for not buying the 629. But........I know him well enough to know, it was the price difference and not the lock that was the major factor in his decision.

Maybe he likes a modern design that won't beat itself to death on hot rounds that the revolver should be able to handle. So much for Ruger being the "cheap POS". That "cheap bastard" saved a whole $90 on a clearly "inferior" revolver.

RevolvingCylinder....don't know where in my post you read where I called the Ruger "inferior" or a "cheap POS". If you look again you see my exact words were "...and its a very nice gun." The part about my friend being a "cheap Bastard" you are correct about.

BTW...I owned a "old Model" Super Blackhawk, years ago myself. Had no problem with it except the way it fit my hand. Believe I paid around $150 for it brand new.

 

[RevolvingCylinder]

It sounded like you were putting down the Ruger as a "cheap" alternative. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. When you consider a new Redhawk(particularly that new 4" model) you don't save a lot. I personally like them both(new Rugers and older S&W).

 

[Man With A Gun]

Easily removed.

Open side plate, use Dremal Tool on the strange protruding stud just under the unlocking bar ( the thumb piece is on the outside of this bar ) Grind that sucker off and throw away the key.

Hope this helps.

 

[Tberger688]

failures

Hello, in reality I like both S&W and Rugers, however I did have a problem with my Smith. The little “flag” that locks the S&W on the new guns is held down (unlocked) buy a little spring. If you take something with a small point you can raise the flag and when it is released it will snap down to its unlocked position by this spring. Well something happened to my spring and now I can engage the lock by turning the gun upside down and shaking it. Now if I raise the flag it will no longer snap down.

I believe this is what S&W means when they say they “replaced the spring” when guns are returned for a lock failure? It just a range gun so it’s not a big deal so I'll just get it fixed.

 

[DAdams]

When the locks are gone the ILM will be a collectors item.

 

[sw686plus]

My only two weapons are both 4 inch, one a S&W686+ and a Ruger GP100.

Both are great, Rugers are definitely not inferior to S&W's. GP100s in fact are probably the strongest .357's you can buy today.

However, after info from the S&W site I did elect to have my lock removed. Maybe it will fail, maybe not. I decided to never take the chance. The gun still functions perfectly, I can use compressed air to blow out the little hole left in the frame, and have already studied enough on the legal stuff to know that the folks saying lawyers will jump all over having the lock removed are not accurate. In a true self defense shooting the removed lock will never be an issue.

 

[454c]

QUOTE:
***Until I see one or experience one, I say it is all Hogwash. ***




So let me see if I understand your line of reasoning correctly. If someone doesn't see or experience something, then it simply can not exist or happen?

 

[Sundles]

Putting another mechanical device on the gun wont make it any safer. The only safety is between the ears.

Not only does it cost more to make and install more parts on the new S&W revolvers, but that "safety" is a liability should you really need the gun to go bang.

The only reason those safetys exist is because of pure lawyering, period.

 

[Stainz]

As any engineer knows, a MTBF (mean time between failure) analysis of any component in a device pre-supposes that component is both necessary and functional in said device's operation. Simply stated, the lock is neither functional in the normal operation nor necessary for that operation. Certainly, a catastrophic failure can occur... from a dropped firearm, for example. Sudden impact damage, from falls off counter heights to concrete floors, will cause damage to other firearm components, not to mention an accidental discharge possibility from a primer's cup being too high - or it's anvil being loose. Poor maintenance will rust through many items - with carbon steel going long before MIM parts. BTW, MIM parts are more durable - and much more uniform in construction (ie, less hand fitting required) - and definitely are a cost savings - as is SS!

But, when it is all over, it is a highly personal decision. I have had miserable luck with S&W's from the Bangor Punta era - SS or blued - and will avoid them. I have had miserable luck over the last three years with EVERY new Ruger - yet I still buy them (The generally can be fixed at my home... but my new 5.5" .45 SS Redhawk had to go 'home' for some r&r.). My new S&W's take a little break-in - replacement of the grips and springs for the 'fun' guns, PD types just get cleaned after the break-in. Again - buy what you want... but don't flatter yourself by thinking your promises to avoid lock-equipped will impress S&W to the point it effects a change. That little Spaniard on his burro, shouting at windmills, was more effective!

Highly opinionated...

Stainz

PS Ever found a real dud round? Do you still buy or reload ammo??

 

[WJR]

Stainz,

You put it well. It is a highly personal decision. I respect others decision to buy Smiths with locks, just as I expect other to respect my decision not to buy Smiths with locks.

I will not buy a Smith with a lock. The whole M&P hypocrisy makes me sick. If only an elite unit wanted to use Smith revolvers without the lock and order them in high numbers, we would see no-lock new smiths in a heartbeat.

Thanks,

WJR

 

[orionengnr]

QUOTE:
***Until I see one or experience one, I say it is all Hogwash. ***

So let me see if I understand your line of reasoning correctly. If someone doesn't see or experience something, then it simply can not exist or happen?

Wow, a fool could follow that logic train forever. Right off the edge of this flat earth.

I've never seen Pluto, so it must not exist.
I've never had cancer either, so it must not exist.
I've never seen Bin Laden, or even Ted Kennedy, for that matter.
Must all be hogwash.

Wow. Just... frickin'.... wow.

 

[ugaarguy]

New S&W WITHOUT LOCK

I've posted this in the 642 club already, but S&W apparently has listened. A recent issue of The Shotgun News ran a feature on new firearms shown at the SHOT show. The article had a few paragraphs about the Model 40 that S&W will be rolling out this year in their classic series. They specifically noted that it was shown without an internal lock at SHOT, and that the S&W reps confirmed it would be sold to consumers as such.

For it to be such a non issue S&W certainly is making a significant change. Note the previous classic series reissues did have the internal lock.

 

[454c]

QUOTE:
***but don't flatter yourself by thinking your promises to avoid lock-equipped will impress S&W to the point it effects a change. ***



On the other hand, blindly buying everything that comes down the line never changed much either. Can you imagine what type of guns we would be stuck with if we never questioned or refused to buy what was offered? The market is customer influenced, not manu. dictated.