possible stupid question: S&W locks, what is the issue?

[The Tourist]

As a consumer, you have the ultimate power we have always had. Don't buy the product.

This isn't a SW issue, it is a financial concern as with any tool or consumer product.

For example, the same debate went on with Harley and the EFI features on newer bikes. An article even appeared in their house rag, "The Enthusiast." And I can understand the hoopla. It's a corporation pounding their problems down your throat.

If you'd rather drive a Harley with a carburetor, then simply purchase one. Or get a Mikuni kit. No prob, just open your wallet.

Look, SW firearms aren't rare. If you cannot find the firearm you want, either buy from different company or patronize the secondary market.

As for that "new gun smell," if the used one you like is marred, ship it to a custom gunsmith. Heck, Gary Reeder can make a 100 year old revolver look new.

Sooner or later SW will get the hint and either drop the lock or make a prettier one. But you have an integral part in this. Quit buying stuff you don't like.

[Honedright]

Post deleted.

[Master Blaster]

Its an additional unneeded part than could fail.
There is no point to having it, because an idiot most in need of the lock will not use it. It also encourages folks to pull the trigger on some models the 642, 642, 442 etc to see if the gun is locked, since there is no flag on a concealed hammer model.

The hole in the sideplate is ugly.

[Kreyzhorse]

I prefer Smith to by-pass the lock however I did buy a Airweight that has it. Don't like it, but it doesn't bother me that much. I've never used it and have never had a problem with it. In fact, my Airweight is my main CCW piece and I have zero concern that it might lock when I need it.

[CajunBass]

I am completely amazed by all of the folks that seem to think that if it only fails once in awhile, that's acceptable. If the brakes on your car only failed once in awhile would you consider that to be acceptable?

Brakes on cars do fail once in awhile. They used to fail a lot more often but people still drove cars.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't own a S&W revolver, and don't imagine I'll ever buy one, but I don't see why any one part is any more likely to fail than any other one part. I'm sure if you asked around you would find that most every part of a Smith & Wesson revolver has failed "once in a while." (along with every other machine in the world.)

Now maybe someone knows this, I sure don't so I'm just asking. Does the lock ever fail to "unlocked" position?

[salvadore]

Both hammer blocks on my model 60s have broken in the past, one at the range that did not tie up the gun and one while dry firing which did tie up the gun. I have never had a side lock failure on either my 396 .44 spec. or the model 60 that has a side lock and don't know where the keys are. I have had thumb knuckle failure while shooting the 396.

[bikerbill]

I lost the keys to my 686+ about a week after I bought it ... been shooting it with no problems for more than a year ... but I agree with the premise that it's an unneeded example of the Nanny state we're sinking into ... if you want a lock, buy one of those cable jobbies .. don't build it into the gun ...

[Honedright]

I purchased two M640-3's several weeks ago. Didn't even know about the existence of internal locks until just a few days ago. The guns are still at the store, first one to be picked up in a few days.

I could exchange for non-lock guns such as the Ruger SP101 snubbie, but I'm beginning to think that I should just take the Smith's and shoot the hell out of them. If the locks (or any other parts) malfunction, I'll keep sending them back to the factory until either S&W gets them right or gets sick of them and changes them.

On the other hand, if the IL's don't malfunction - no issue. I suppose the chances of the lock accidentally going "on" at just the (rare) moment I might need the gun to save my life are just as great as any other part of the gun breaking at that moment. More likely they will break during practice. As long as S&W will stand behind it's product.

Yes, I hate the principle of the internal lock. It's a slap in the face to me and all responsible gun owners. I'm just not sure that avoiding these guns is the solution to the problem.

Scott

[DennisE]

No issue! Many folks live to have something to cmplain about. Dennis

[Dusty Rivers]

Ruger New Vaquero Montado's in 45LC- have a lock under the grip. You have to take the grip off to get your key into the lock, or you can drill a key hole into the grip. Ruger leaves that up to the new owner.

[RonJ]

TNFrank,
As requested, here's a pic of the S&W lock.
Someone remarked about how ugly it looks on a stainless frame. I agree, but a bit of polishing with Flitz metal polish helps a lot. I also polished the MIM hammer and trigger.
Through appx 500 rounds of 158 gr magnum loads, this model 60 has been flawless.

[Wuchak]

There are those that are philosophically opposed to a lock on the guns.

There are those that don't like the way they look.


While I agree with those two groups the reason I wouldn't buy one is the S&W lock design is fundamentally flawed. The lock should not move to engage or disengage on the same plane as recoil energy. The Taurus lock on the back of the hammer is 90 degrees to the line of recoil so it cannot, or is much less likely, to lock on its own. As a side benefit it also doesn't mess up the looks of the gun.

The most basic thing a firearm has to do is go bang when the trigger is pulled in a life or death situation. The S&W lock design which is meant to make the gun safe when stored causes the gun to fail at its primary function.

By installing their lock with the design they chose S&W has asked it's customers to trade the possibility of safe storage (which could be achieved in any number of other ways as it has for the past 400 years or so) for the possibility of catastrophic failure. That's not a trade I am willing to make.

For me they can keep the lock but they need to redesign it and develop a retrofit kit for the revolvers already released.

[Cheese]

I don't get all these people saying I don't mind the lock it isn't an issue, because I never use it.

Do you always buy things you don't/won't use? If so I have some stuff to sell you!

Why pay for something you won't use? (you better believe you're paying for that stupid lock!)

Why add a part that has been proven prone to failure?

Why accept a risk of one millionth of 1% failure rate when you don't have to, on something frequently relied upon to save your bacon?

If it were an option would anybody actually choose to have it? If not, then itr is stupid

[SAWBONES]

S&W locks. They're abysmally ugly and they sometimes cause the guns to be unfireable.

The first issue is cosmetic, and not everyone is equally bothered by it, but the second issue isn't opinion or imagination, it's fact. Even if said malfunctions are uncommon or even rare, why would anyone ever willingly or happily buy a gun with a built-in "malfunction mechanism"?

[RonJ]

Sawbones, thousands of people buy defense guns with built in failure capability. They are called semi automatics. I own a few myself. Read the semi auto forums, then read the revo forums. Compare the number of reported malfunctions. The S&W lock is easy to disable if you're so inclined.

[edrice]

Originally Posted by Rigby1962

./ \
. l
. l
. l

OK arrow. I'm just wondering if this one wouldn't have been just a smidge nicer -

^
|
|
|

[edrice]

If the locks had been there all along, this discussion wouldn't even be happening and I doubt anybody would even notice.

Ed

[edrice]

Originally Posted by SAWBONES

S&W locks. They're abysmally ugly and they sometimes cause the guns to be unfireable.

They are NOT ugly! Very subjective. I consider holes gorgeous and I like mine.

None of my Smiths have ever been unfireable.

Ed

[joneb]

The internal lock is another symptom of human de-evolution, if you are not smart enough to own a gun without a lock, then you shouldn't own a gun..
How many parts make up this S&W lock ? well that's the number of more things to fail, as for me S&W can keep their lock

[Crosshair]

Sawbones, thousands of people buy defense guns with built in failure capability. They are called semi automatics.

OK, so the lock is an UNNEEDED point of failure. Much like magazine disconnects. At least you can remove the MD without affecting the looks of the gun and a MD at least has its positive uses for people who want them.

[Honedright]

So after much agonizing over this issue, I had a crazy thought that's making it easier for me to decide what to do - I haven't read another post on the subject of internal locks that makes this analogy, but I'm beginning to think of the internal lock as similar to a VIRUS.
A virus is a redundant piece of RNA/DNA that can lay dormant, sometimes for years. And then one day it manifests itself (think herpes or HIV).

Now that this thought is stuck in my mind, I feel I have no other choice than to go into the gun store where my new S&W revolvers are still waiting, and exchange them for non-lock (or non-viral) guns.


Scott

[SAWBONES]

Sawbones, thousands of people buy defense guns with built in failure capability. They are called semi automatics....The S&W lock is easy to disable if you're so inclined.

This thread isn't about the old arguments regarding "revolver vs. semiautomatic reliability". You've missed the point, or are pretending to.

Of course ANY mechanical device can malfunction, including SA and DA revolvers without "locks", and including semiautomatic pistols. I'll even buy the argument that semiautos are, on average, more malfunction-prone than revolvers, though I've experienced a number of malfunctions with DA revolvers not possessed of any lock, and I also have some semiautos that NEVER malfunction, including an HK P7M8 that's never once had any kind of hiccup, burp or other problem in over twenty years' shooting of uncounted tens of thousands of rounds, and several tuned 1911s that never malfunction.

The point is that the current S&W company has now installed into their DA revolver product line a device which is unnecessary, yet which is specifically known to cause malfunctions which disable the guns' primary function, to wit, the capability of discharging a projectile on demand.

This is a very different proposition from saying "semiautos sometimes malfunction", which is merely an argument that a particular form of sidearm is not perfectly reliable.

Putting a device onto a gun for sake of a secondary agenda (Saf-T-Hammer has a vested financial interest in placing its lock products on its gun products) when said lock product is known to sometimes cause a significant and dangerous problem is probably to be considered unethical.

And finally, why would I buy a problematic item with a dangerous and failure-prone mechanism, just because it lies within my capability to disable said mechanism? I shouldn't have to do that! Not to mention that true and full disabling makes the poor gun even uglier than it started out to be.

[mec]

this one happenend last week. Partial lock wih magnum loads. it shot fine with mid power loads then locked up twice with full power but not maximum loads. In the picture, the cylinder is still locked after firing and the trigger is all the way back. The hammer bounced to the current position.

[Cheese]

Honedright, that's the perfect analogy and a wise decision!

[Honedright]

Went in today and exchanged the Smith's for two Ruger SP101 KSP-321XL's.

I think now I'll be a happy camper!


Scott