Will Smith and Wesson ever get rid of the internal lock on their Revolvers?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by Aim1, Jan 23, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HPCadm17

    HPCadm17 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    304
    S&W has had some questionable "features" on their guns. Magazine disconnect on the old 3rd-gen semi-autos, internal locks on revolvers, manual safeties on striker-fired pistols, although at least you can buy an M&P without the safety.

    The magazine disconnect had a purpose for LE in cases where a perp grabs an officer's gun, although it's debatable whether the LEO would even be able to drop the mag every time. The manual safety can help prevent Glock Leg, but requires specific training. The internal lock on a revolver is most worthless, IMHO, as it offers no safety while carrying as it must be unlocked, and for safe storage an external lock works just as well plus offers visual evidence of condition. And there's a very small chance the internal lock can fail and cause the gun to be inoperable when it's needed most, and that cannot be remedied in the field. Fortunately these failures appear to be extremely rare, and I have never met anyone who has had it happen to them. If it was a big problem it surely would have eaten significantly into S&W sales.
     
  2. bdickens

    bdickens Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,770
    Location:
    Hockley , TX
    The internal lock is not for safety, it is for security.
     
  3. Sergei Mosin

    Sergei Mosin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,879
    Yeah, S&W's security against Clinton-era persecution. That's why a lot of us won't own one - more than the looks, more than the potential for failure, it's a symbol of compromise with the anti-gunners.
     
    Electricmo and 18DAI like this.
  4. Driftwood Johnson

    Driftwood Johnson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,039
    Location:
    Land of the Pilgrims
    I suspect part of the reason nobody noticed Ruger stopped putting in a lock is because it was well hidden under the grips. If you did not take off the grips, you did not know there was a lock.

    This is the lock that was in place in the New Vaqueros when they first came out. In order to lock or unlock the lock one had to drill a small hole in the right hand grip to insert the key into the lock. There was a countersink molded into the underside of the grip to make it easy to drill the hole. Due south of the hole for the grip screw. Ruger even told you how big a drill you needed, but I don't remember now. I never bothered to drill the hole and never used the lock. Neither did anybody I know. So the Ruger lock was so unobtrusive that if you didn't drill the hole, or remove the grips, you never knew it was there.

    pohAgVCPj.jpg




    At some point, I don't know when, Ruger did away with the lock completely. This is a New Vaquero several years newer than the one pictured above. If you look closely though, the countersink is still on the grip. No point redesigning the mold for the grips, they work fine with or without a lock.

    posspH5lj.jpg
     
    ms6852, CraigC and Bill460 like this.
  5. Bill460

    Bill460 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2019
    Messages:
    254
    Location:
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Interesting. I never knew Ruger went to a lock, let alone did away with them. Now I know why. Thanks for that.
     
  6. Bill460

    Bill460 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2019
    Messages:
    254
    Location:
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Why do you want to continue to persecute S&W today? It's not even owned by the same parent company any longer. S&W is currently owned by American Outdoor Brands, and headed by P. James Debney . It was owned by Tompkins PLC, and headed by Ed Shultz when they made the Clinton deal.

    What reason could you possibly have that makes any sense, to make Debney pay for what Shultz did years ago? Neither he or American Outdoor Brands had anything to do with the company then.

    That makes about as much sense as not buying a Ruger today, because when Bill Ruger was alive he wouldn't sell Hi-Cap magazines for the Mini -14 to civilians. Today Ruger will sell you box car loads of them. And no one with the last name of Ruger even works there any longer.
     
    Styx likes this.
  7. Sergei Mosin

    Sergei Mosin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,879
    Ruger will sell me standard capacity magazines, but S&W still won't sell me a revolver (aside from a few models) without the lock. That's the difference.
     
    Styx, CraigC, AustinTX and 2 others like this.
  8. Electricmo

    Electricmo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2020
    Messages:
    331
    Colt has never installed a lock. They won't sell you a New AR15 though. Seems every manufacturer has had its quirks.
     
    ms6852 likes this.
  9. 18DAI

    18DAI Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,061
    They just fired Debney last week. So, maybe there is hope for the future. ;)
     
  10. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,830

    Who?
     
  11. Bert W.

    Bert W. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    157
    Location:
    Mississippi
    I just remove them and fill the hole with a plug that matches the guns finish.
     
  12. Bill460

    Bill460 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2019
    Messages:
    254
    Location:
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
  13. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    8,509
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Or to rephrase, will I ever buy another new Smith & Wesson revolver?
     
  14. Electricmo

    Electricmo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2020
    Messages:
    331
  15. Bill460

    Bill460 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2019
    Messages:
    254
    Location:
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    The Python never had a lock. And judging by the way the first batch turned out, they would have been better off if they hadn't.
     
  16. Electricmo

    Electricmo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2020
    Messages:
    331
    Instead of looking for a solution we go back to bashing. I was pointing out that S&W could possibly change routes. They apparently have removed the lock on a few models so maybe more on the horizon. I would buy a new model without a lock if I liked the gun. Until then I'm regulated to old models. Sounds like S&W may have a crappy repair history from a previous thread. Maybe the fact that they got rid of the head honcho recently points to a improvement coming.
     
  17. CraigC
    • Contributing Member

    CraigC Sixgun Nut

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    20,262
    Location:
    West Tennessee
  18. Speedo66

    Speedo66 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    7,593
    Location:
    Flatlandistan
    And yet these are thesame people who print an entire safety manifesto on the barrel.

    And what has he/ they done to rectify this?
     
  19. boom boom
    • Contributing Member

    boom boom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,777
    Location:
    GA
    I suspect that the lock remains because if S&W removed it, it is possible that they would no longer be on the CA approved gun list and require expensive requalification before being allowed to be sold. The CA market is large enough that it would probably affect S&W's bottom line if their revolvers could not be sold there for a time.

    https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/search
     
    BSA1 likes this.
  20. Bill460

    Bill460 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2019
    Messages:
    254
    Location:
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    What you have to understand is Smith & Wesson is a publicly owned and traded corporation. They just simply cannot, "do whatever they want". In this type of business scenario, the customer might like to think they are right. But they don't get the privilege of calling the shots, or making any kind of demands. Instead they have a board of directors, along with shareholders who have money invested in it, to answer to.

    Unlike the privately owned company Glock. Which the companies founder Gaston Glock owns 99% of the business through a private trust, that Forbes Magazine estimates is worth over $1.5 Billion Dollars.

    Glock does not have to answer to anyone. He can do whatever he pleases with the company. S&W's lock exists because of a dangerous legal and political climate in this country. Along with a media that hates guns, loves big government controlling everything, and despises private firearms ownership.

    That controls what they do far more than a few customers who don't like or want a security lock on their new gun. Right now it is simply more of a overall business risk for them to take it off, than it is to leave it on. You and I may not like that. But unfortunately that's the way it is.
     
  21. mcb

    mcb Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,863
    Location:
    North Alabama
    Not sure if this has been mentioned yet. I believe the company that now owns S&W invented and has IP established around the Internal Lock that is integrated into the S&W revolvers. The American Outdoor Brands Corporation, owner of S&W among several other brands, started out as the company Saf-T-Hammer. They made gun locks. One of their first acquisition on the road to becoming the family of brands that is, after several name changes, American Outdoor Brands Corporation was to buy S&W. So S&W is not going to quit using the parent corporate IP. This is the reason for my much earlier comment in the thread that the lock is never going away until the some one new owns S&W.
     
  22. labnoti

    labnoti Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,892
    The revolver lock, nothing, because it was always Bob Scott's baby, and Bob Scott still runs S&W via the board. He's not President or Chairman anymore, but he's still there on the board and it's not going past him. Debney never had the power or the desire to do this.

    But if you're referring to what else S&W has done to rectify the troublesome things that Tomkins agreed to, S&W has:

    - introduced a high-capacity pistol, the M&P series and then the 2.0 etc. Remember that Tomkins had agreed not to do that.
    - introduced AR-15's. Tomkins agreed not to do that.
    - introduce numerous handguns and rifles that accept high-capacity magazines. Tomkins had agreed not to make guns that would even accept them.
    - dropped the mandate to provide loaded chamber indicators on all guns
    - dropped the mandate to provide magazine disconnects on all guns
    - dropped all work on "smart guns"
    - canceled the ban on selling to gun dealers in crime-infested areas
    - canceled the ban on selling to dealers that sell at gun shows
    - canceled the plan to do "ballistic fingerprinting" on all guns made
    - canceled the ban on selling to dealers that do not require training for purchasers
    - went back on the agreement not to make or sell "high capacity handguns" and "semi-automatic assault weapons"
    - refused to enact bans on selling to dealers that did not limit the number of guns sold to a customer over a time period
     
  23. dawei

    dawei Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    314
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    Each to their own but I will not buy an S&W® revolver with the present lock. If they must put a lock on their revolvers do it like Taurus® does which is TOTALLY unobtrusive! I do own an S&W® M&P® BODYGUARD® 38 sans lock and about to buy another.

    YMMV
     
  24. Gary W. Strange

    Gary W. Strange Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    240
    I remember as as young kid, looking at the Smith and Wesson revolvers at the gun shops and hardware stores. That was in the late 70s- 80s. I was not old enough to buy a firearm then. My dad would buy long guns for me but not a handgun. Only handgun i owned before I was 21, was a High Standard 104 supermatic citation, Dad had bought for me to shoot in school sponsored shooting matches. Back then we could carry them to school, and keep them locked up in our lockers. I lusted for just any Smith and Wesson revolver. They were a thing of beauty in my eye. I grew up reading Elmer Keith, Bill Jorden, Sheriff Jim Wilson and the likes. Their word was gossiple to me. The day I turned 21, in 1986. I bought a used Smith and Wesson model 63 and put a Colt Python on layaway. My love affair had begun. I still own the model 63 and the python. Over the years I have added more. If you look back through the years, with ever change, ever - behind the model number. Smith and Wesson revolvers have changed. Sometimes for the better but most of the time the change was to make them cheaper. From 5 screws to 4 and then finally to 3. In 82 or so the pinned barrel and reassessed chambers were gone. In the 90s the firing pin moved from the hammer to inside the frame and latter they quit using forged parts and went mim parts. If you put a 1950s S&W beside a revolver made today, it is a total different revolver. Smith and Wesson is no different from any other firearms manufacture, they had to change to keep selling. Imports and manufacturers that was making firearms from cast and now even plastic was eating their lunch. The nail in the coffin with S&W revolvers was the lock stuck on the left side. It just looks out of place and really serves no purpose. How many actually use it? Most never have. I changed the whole outline and looks of a classic revolver. Smith & Wesson could have put it somewhere else, out of sight and still could. I have owned them and I have parted ways with all but one. It is on it's way out when something comes along I can use it for a trade. There are just too many older Smith and Wesson revolvers out there to be had at a good price right now. I will never buy one with the lock on it again. I have tried to except it but just can't get used to it being there. I am not saying they are bad revolvers, it is said they are stronger and better than ever. They are just not what I come to think a Smith and Wesson revolver is. They are not the same anymore. I do wish Smith and Wesson would at least relocate the lock or better yet do away with it. Until they do I will just keep my older S&Ws.
     
    aaronu likes this.
  25. Huntolive

    Huntolive Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2012
    Messages:
    997
    Location:
    Virginia
    I agree that the locks on the modern versions
    Are Ludacris but I really don't see why people get so worked up about them.
    I wouldn't pay a lot more for a gun just because of that although I do find older Smith and Wesson's have smoother triggers but that's something real not just cosmetic.
    However I'm glad people pay a premium form because I'm probably about to sell a like new 629 - 1 it looks like it might never have been fired
    I'd love to keep it just to spoil my creature comfort treasure hoarding instincts but I just don't think I'll ever shoot it it's just so pretty
     
    Arubalover and Electricmo like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice