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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm debating on selling a Smith I just brought over the lock. It's the first and only Smith that I purchased that had one. I just might go with Colts and the Kimber K6S for now on. It's not just the lock that bugs me, but rather the fact that S&W knows their customer base does not like them. They still keep them there anyway, and refuse to remove it. The fact that they do not care about what their customers want coupled with the amount of QC and CS complaints, I'm really trying to get away from their firearms. At the very least they could release a lock and no-lock version similar to how they release a CA, MA, thumb safety, and no thumb safety version of their semiauto pistols, but like I said, they do not care about their customers. The fact that all the pictures of their revolvers that appear on their website are of the side without the lock on it says a lot.

Yes, people are still reporting that the lock has failed with magnum loads. Just about all of them said they didn't like the lock, but didn't think it was a big deal before it happened to them.
 
People have to realize that this has nothing to do with who "likes" or "doesn't like" the lock. They, (S&W), did it strictly to help avoid lawsuits and legal repercussions. The lock is a product of the world we now live in.... Not because Smith & Wesson, "no longer cares about their customers". That's pure nonsense. They care about their company, along with keeping it financially viable.

People don't like child proof caps either. I don't have kids, and never "liked" or needed them. But it's only until recently, that older people with arthritic hands were complaining to the point they couldn't get the damn caps off their medication, were they then given a choice.

S&W can't do that with their revolvers. Because unlike medication, they have no ability to control who's hands their guns get into once they are sold and resold. Guns can last several lifetimes. Most medications are gone in 30 days. Hence the legal ramifications, and why we have the lock with no choice in the matter. Without that lock lawyers were under the LEGAL opinion that S&W could be sued into oblivion under the right conditions. Would that have been better?

Don't forget, that lock costs S&W money to produce and install. Believe me, they would much rather pocket that cost in profit... As would their stockholders. Also, gun companies don't have the deep pockets the tobacco or liquor industry does. Many of these companies like Colt and Remington, who have been around for well over a century, are currently on the verge of going broke. And many are in bankruptcy as we speak. Several are gone all together. While others are changing ownership faster than a bad used car. All while trying desperately to stay afloat.

The fact of the matter is, it's hard to make money today in the gun business. The liberal Democrats want every gun companies head on a stick. And they want them held liable for everything, except if the owner falls down the stairs because they were drunk. And you have a legal system that is packed solid with desperate, money hungry, over zealous lawyers. Who would love nothing better than the slightest chance to sue them out of business. And a citizenry full of greedy people who are all chomping at the bit for a chance at a big settlement.

Add it all up, and you're lucky you can still buy guns today..... Let alone one without a lock. If you want to place blame here, don't be blaming Smith & Wesson. Rather, blame the condition of this nation. From well over 60 years of communist indoctrination in our public school system. That has done nothing, except produced a generation of self entitled, jealous, snot nosed brats.
 
jdavis123 said:
S&W does offer a few j-frame models without the internal lock.
Click to expand...
That's what I was going to say. When I ordered my 642, my friendly local FFL pulled up his S&W ordering page and said "With lock or without?" I almost had the answer out of my mouth when I realized from the smirk on his face that he really didn't need me to answer the question; he had already ordered the no-lock.
 
Bill460 said:
People have to realize that this has nothing to do with who "likes" or "doesn't like" the lock. They, (S&W), did it strictly to help avoid lawsuits and legal repercussions. The lock is a product of the world we now live in.... Not because Smith & Wesson, "no longer cares about their customers". That's pure nonsense. They care about their company, along with keeping it financially viable.

People don't like child proof caps either. I don't have kids, and never "liked" or needed them. But it's only until recently, that older people with arthritic hands were complaining to the point they couldn't get the damn caps off their medication, were they then given a choice.

S&W can't do that with their revolvers. Because unlike medication, they have no ability to control who's hands their guns get into once they are sold and resold. Guns can last several lifetimes. Most medications are gone in 30 days. Hence the legal ramifications, and why we have the lock with no choice in the matter. Without that lock lawyers were under the LEGAL opinion that S&W could be sued into oblivion under the right conditions. Would that have been better?

Don't forget, that lock costs S&W money to produce and install. Believe me, they would much rather pocket that cost in profit... As would their stockholders. Also, gun companies don't have the deep pockets the tobacco or liquor industry does. Many of these companies like Colt and Remington, who have been around for well over a century, are currently on the verge of going broke. And many are in bankruptcy as we speak. Several are gone all together. While others are changing ownership faster than a bad used car. All while trying desperately to stay afloat.

The fact of the matter is, it's hard to make money today in the gun business. The liberal Democrats want every gun companies head on a stick. And they want them held liable for everything, except if the owner falls down the stairs because they were drunk. And you have a legal system that is packed solid with desperate, money hungry, over zealous lawyers. Who would love nothing better than the slightest chance to sue them out of business. And a citizenry full of greedy people who are all chomping at the bit for a chance at a big settlement.

Add it all up, and you're lucky you can still buy guns today..... Let alone one without a lock. If you want to place blame here, don't be blaming Smith & Wesson. Rather, blame the condition of this nation. From well over 60 years of communist indoctrination in our public school system. That has done nothing, except produced a generation of self entitled, jealous, snot nosed brats.
Click to expand...
I'm not buying that rationale.

  1. They already manufacturer particular models with and with out the lock.
    @toivo and others have already pointed this FACT out. If they can do with with some models, then they can do it with all models. They've been doing it, and they're still in business.

  2. Taurus has recently removed models interal lock from some their revolver models, and are still in business.
    Contridicts your theory again. If S&W can't do it because of lawsuits and "this is the world we live in", then how did Taurus just do it last year? Taurus also removed the internal lock on their current line of simiautos. Heck, I almost forgot. I beleive the some Ruger revolvers also had internal lock, but they removed it.

  3. Ruger, Colt, and Kimber do not have interal locks.
    How is it that all other manufacturers are getting away with manufacturering lockless pistols and revolvers?

  4. None of the popular semiauto pistols on the market have an interal lock.
    Matter of fact, having an interal lock on firearms and rifles is extremely rare in today's word, and is something mostly specific to some S&W revolvers.

  5. There are documented cases and I've seen several owners allege that the lock failed under heavy recoil.
    IMHO, that's a lawsuit I'd be more worried about then anything else. At the very least, they could have changed/upgraded the lock design, and possibly moved the lock under the grip.

With all that said, your logic and rationale is flawed.
 
Last edited:
Styx said:
I'm not buying that rationale, your logic and rationale is flawed.
Click to expand...

First off, it's not "my logic". And it doesn't matter if you think it's "flawed" or not. It's reality. Are you actually foolish enough to believe S&W is keeping the locks on their guns, so they can pi$$ off their customer base more, and sell fewer guns in the process? S&W doesn't want locks on their guns any more than you do. Stop looking at only the side of this that you want to see and believe. You're like the guy who's wife cheats on him for 6 months straight, and then believes she's sorry only after she got caught.
 
2qqqq22
Bill460 said:
First off, it's not "my logic". And it doesn't matter if you think it's "flawed" or not. It's reality. Are you actually foolish enough to believe S&W is keeping the locks on their guns, so they can pi$$ off their customer base more, and sell fewer guns in the process? S&W doesn't want locks on their guns any more than you do. Stop looking at only the side of this that you want to see and believe. You're like the guy who's wife cheats on him for 6 months straight, and then believes she's sorry only after she got caught.
Click to expand...
It is your logic and your opinion on why they have not removed the lock. They have not released any statements either way, so yes, it's our opinions. Your best guest does not make any sense for all the reasons I laid out. You saying it's because they're worried about lawsuits, but that narrative makes zero sense because they already offer revolvers without the lock. They litterally already offer two versions of several revolvers with and without the lock. That directly contridicts your hypothesis and reasons you are giving.

Next, thing that directly contridicts what you are saying about them being used out pf business if they remove the lock is the, again, they already offer revolvers without the lock and haven't been sued for it. Two, two of the biggest firearm companies in the US which is Ruger and Taurus had internal locks on their firearms that they listened to customers and removed.
 
So.... If my logic is so "flawed", let's hear yours. Why do you think they have and keep the locks? If it's not for legal or safety reasons, and it's obviously costing them more money to have them, than it is not to have them. Why then? Do you honestly think they trying to pi$$ off their customers, so they will purchase their competitors products?

And remember, Taurus is a foreign owned company. Good luck trying to sue them as a citizen.
 
Bill460 said:
So.... If my logic is so "flawed", let's hear yours. Why do you think they have and keep the locks? If it's not for legal or safety reasons, and it's obviously costing them more money to have them, than it is not to have them. Why then? Do you honestly think they trying to pi$$ off their customers, so they will purchase their competitors products?

And remember, Taurus is a foreign owned company. Good luck trying to sue them as a citizen.
Click to expand...
Taurus has been sued by citizens. It was hightly publicized. Other than that, you conveniently left out the point that Ruger, an American company, also has removed interal locks from their revolvers. Going back to Taurus, they can very well be sued in American courts without a problem. Most recently, Sig Sauer has even been sued by a civilian who alleged his P320 went off without pulling the trigger. Just a few years back, Rossi, which is owned by Taurus, was sued in American courts for not having drop safe revolvers.

This is my opinion but I feel like the "for legal reasons" narritive does not fit for reasons I have given. Even if it's for legal reasons, I feel that it's a well know concern of their customers that the lock can malfunction. I feel that they could have at the very least addressed that issue and concern with a new design, but they have not. Yes, I agree that it does not happen often, but it does happen. That possibility on a defensive firearm is not acceptable. @Steve Milbocker just stated it happened to him, and just a couple of days ago on a different forum, two members said it happened to them too. I've heard that it happened to a lot of people. Maybe not a lot in comparison to the number of guns they put out, but it's still way to many.

Next, there's nothing stopping them from following the same exact model that they've been following with regards to releasing a version with the lock and without the lock. They know it's an issue for their customers, and I feel like they aren't addressing it or being transparent about it. They seem to be ignoring it.
 
Last edited:
I’m in the same boat as the OP, I’m in the market for a 44 magnum I will not consider a S&W with a lock. In the used market it is not hard to find a nice pre lock S&W, so long as that’s the case I want be buying a locked model.

as to the question will they ever do away with it, I think it’s quite possible, and at that point we will wish they hadn’t because the “upgrade” will be worse..... think bullet button for a revolver, who knows
 
Styx said:
......... there's nothing stopping them from following the same exact model that they've been following with regards to releasing a version with the lock and without the lock. They know it's an issue for their customers, and I feel like they aren't addressing it or being transparent about it. They seem to be ignoring it.
Click to expand...

So.... They know it's an issue, but you think they're not being forthcoming about it, or else ignoring it. And you base this on what fact? The fact of the matter is gun companies work with political opponents through lobbyists all the time. Much the same as the NRA does. Unfortunately "Sleeping with the enemy", has become a necessary evil in Washington. They certainly are not going to make any or all of that public. S&W tried that once with Clinton, and we all saw how that went. They're not about to make the same mistake twice.

And I highly doubt they're ignoring anything. Keeping the lock in place may very well be part of a much bigger overall political picture, and / or deal that S&W doesn't particularly think blabbing about, to the entire free world would be advantageous. S&W is no different than any other gun company. They are simply trying to survive, and earn a profit. They are one of the few who are actually doing it.

I can all but guarantee you, keeping that lock on their guns is part of that survival plan. One way or another. And just because they aren't talking about it doesn't mean they're, "ignoring it"... Or their customers. No business ignores what they're customers want. If they do they don't stay in business for long. S&W has been in business for the last 164 years. So between getting sued, and / or being forced out of business politically, or else simply trying to appease people who don't like guns, we have the lock.

And it doesn't matter in the least what Ruger, or anyone else does or doesn't do. The fact is Smith & Wesson has been putting locks on their revolvers since 2001, over 20 years ago. And they're still here. Customer b!tching and whining and all. This isn't some vast conspiracy by S&W against their customer base, to try and pi$$ them off, and send them to do business elsewhere. If it is, they've failed miserably at it.

Regardless of how vivid your imagination might be, it's simply business. Nothing more or less. And one thing people always seem to do with business decisions, is disagree with them. I'm assuming that's why people like you and me are all multi millionaire businessmen. And not armchair quarterbacks.
 
Bill460 said:
So.... They know it's an issue, but you think they're not being forthcoming about it, or else ignoring it. And you base this on what fact? The fact of the matter is gun companies work with political opponents through lobbyists all the time. Much the same as the NRA does. Unfortunately "Sleeping with the enemy", has become a necessary evil in Washington. They certainly are not going to make any or all of that public. S&W tried that once with Clinton, and we all saw how that went. They're not about to make the same mistake twice.

And I highly doubt they're ignoring anything. Keeping the lock in place may very well be part of a much bigger overall political picture, and / or deal that S&W doesn't particularly think blabbing about, to the entire free world would be advantageous. S&W is no different than any other gun company. They are simply trying to survive, and earn a profit. They are one of the few who are actually doing it.

I can all but guarantee you, keeping that lock on their guns is part of that survival plan. One way or another. And just because they aren't talking about it doesn't mean they're, "ignoring it"... Or their customers. No business ignores what they're customers want. If they do they don't stay in business for long. S&W has been in business for the last 164 years. So between getting sued, and / or being forced out of business politically, or else simply trying to appease people who don't like guns, we have the lock.

And it doesn't matter in the least what Ruger, or anyone else does or doesn't do. The fact is Smith & Wesson has been putting locks on their revolvers since 2001, over 20 years ago. And they're still here. Customer b!tching and whining and all. This isn't some vast conspiracy by S&W against their customer base, to try and pi$$ them off, and send them to do business elsewhere. If it is, they've failed miserably at it.

Regardless of how vivid your imagination might be, it's simply business. Nothing more or less. And one thing people always seem to do with business decisions, is disagree with them. I'm assuming that's why people like you and me are all multi millionaire businessmen. And not armchair quarterbacks.
Click to expand...
Businesses have and do ignore what customers want. S&W is doing it (IMHO), and so have others. They do not have much competition in the revolver market. Until recently, it was basically the option of owning a S&W or a Ruger revolver. Even then, no one else really offered the array of calibers, sizes, and configurations that S&W offers. Most buyers hate the lock, but they don't have to many other options to go with. In the end, it's my opinion that S&W still has the lock because people are still begrudgingly buying their revolvers regaurdless.

Yet again, not offering models without the internal lock can not logically have anything to do with a survival plan or avioding lawsuits as they started manufacturering and still until this day manufacturer some models without locks. They started doing that years AFTER they started implementing the internal lock system.

Feel like I'm repeating myself, you are completely ignoring points that I've made that clearly refute some of the points you are making, we're going around in circles, and the tone of your responses is about to lead to the thread being closed... I'm going to shut up about it now.

We can agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
I have not read all the posts since my first post quite some time ago to this thread. Has anyone mentioned the fact that the company (Saf-T-Hammer Corporation) that designed the internal lock in S&W revolver (along wit a fair number of other gun locks) purchased S&W in 2001? Seems unlikely that the lock will go away since the company that now owns S&W designed the lock.
 
Last edited:
I did not know that, and it’s good that you pointed it out. That’s one more reason that I do not I think the locks will ever go away.

Another reason is the vulnerability to liability is greater if the locks are discontinued then if they had never been put on.

I believe they’re here to stay.

And for what it’s worth, for me the internal locks are a dealbreaker. Never owned one, never will.
 
S&W might drop the lock when the lock no longer satisfies the “safe storage” requirements of some future law.
 
Styx said:
Feel like I'm repeating myself, you are completely ignoring points that I've made that clearly refute some of the points you are making, we're going around in circles, and the tone of your responses is about to lead to the thread being closed...
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring you, anymore than S&W is. You just refuse to accept the fact they have a valid reason for doing what they are. People have been whining about the lock for the last 20 years. They've heard them. They just are not telling anyone why they are keeping it. And because of that, you want to believe they are somehow torturing you as a customer. When they have no reason to do so.
 
For what little it's worth I prefer my S&W without the lock. Most of my S&W were bought used but the one S&W revolver I bought new was a S&W 442 and I sought out and paid slightly more for the lock-less version (one of the few revolvers S&W still makes without the lock). But my current USPSA revolver, a 627 PC has the lock and I have run that revolver very hard in competition and it has not let me down. The lock never crosses my mind except when I trip on threads like this. In the future I will continue to seek S&W revolvers without the lock but if I find one in the specific configuration I am seeking and it has the internal lock I will still buy it assuming the price is right. The lock is easy enough removed if it ever bothers me enough to go to that extra effort.
 
You know after reading a lot of this I have to say the lock doesn’t bother me THAT much. I wouldn’t mind the lock if I was buying a non-magnum or a self defense revolver.
On something like a range toy it wouldn’t bother me. Unfortunately for S&W most of what I’d want are magnum’s or self defense guns... with the possible exception of a governor for a snake gun.

The used S&W market is just to large. In my mind, maybe better put, “to me” for the guns I want S&W’s main competitor right now is pre 90’s S&W’s
 
I understand why S&W implemented the lock and frankly felt betrayed when all that happened. S&W paid for their decisions to the point their stock was dramatically devalued and the small company that provided their internal locking system was able to buy them out.

To me, the lock is a symbol of S&W leadership of the day kowtowing to the Clintons. I am sure the lock is reliable for the most part. Even if it were 100% reliable it bothers me to even see it. Stupid Hillary hole.

As for why S&W keeps the lock, I don't know. S&W does not see fit to even explain it to me. So I see fit not to own any modern S&W products.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Smith and Wesson Internal Lock Questions.
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
MrBorland
MrBorland
BSA1
  • Locked
Taurus Internal Lock
Replies
6
Views
3K
Old Fuff
O
I
  • Locked
Smith & Wesson Internal Locks
Replies
2
Views
860
MrBorland
MrBorland
O
  • Locked
Smith & Wesson producing non-lock 642's!
Replies
0
Views
412
outerlimit
O
X
  • Locked
Smith & Wesson 642 with or without lock?
Replies
2
Views
654
jt1
J
Back
Top