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

darko · February 4, 2008, 04:19 PM

I've come across the S&W lock issue several times in this forum with people being all frazzled about them. At the risk of sounding really dumb here, what is the big deal? Has there been repeated documented mechanical failures due to the lock?
I had a 686 and a 629 back around 94-95. Sadly, I sold them both. The 686 went to my brother in law and he pulled it out of the safe this weekend where it has been collecting cobwebs since I sold it to him. It pretty much made me dead set on replacing both of those weapons but noticed that my old 686 did not have a lock.

Voyager AL · February 4, 2008, 04:23 PM

No issue with my lock. Have never even inserted the key.

HKuser · February 4, 2008, 04:32 PM

It's ugly, at least I think so. There's principal, that it's part of the S&W capitulation to Clinton. Then there's practical, there have been claims of locks self-engaging. Some of us just don't want another part that could go wrong.

ShootingNut · February 4, 2008, 04:48 PM

Same here Voyager, never used it and don't even notice it. Gun functions just fine with it, can't stand the Clinton's myself but not tying this one on them.

SN

18DAI · February 4, 2008, 05:06 PM

There is a prima facia case to be made, that there have been incidents of the lock engaging, "on it's own", during recoil. Mr Michael Bane had it happen to him, with a S&W 329. The S&W forum has a lock failure sticky, which should prove helpful to you.

The "issue" with the S&W internal lock stems around whether this is a frequent, or infrequent occurence, and whether it only occurs in light weight, unobtainium revolvers, or is it a potential problem with all of the S&W IL equipped revolvers.

The incorporation of internal locks, is also an asthetics issue. It's ugly. The frame of S&W revolvers was changed to accomodate the lock, ruining the classic lines of the S&W revolver, IMO. The "zit", where the key inserts is an eyesore. You can spot IL equipped revolvers easily on the auction boards, they are all photographed from the right side.

IMHO, the internal lock is a useless addition to the revolver. IIRC from Dr. Sominexs mechanical engineering 101 class, adding parts/complexity to a simple mechanical device, reduces reliability. So, for me, an internal lock on a revolver, precludes it's use as a self defense carry gun.

The pro lock, or S&W cheerleaders if you will, want us to believe that some person too stupid, or lazy, to secure their firearm, is going to take the time to find a small handcuff sized key, insert it in their revolver and lock it

. I find that hard to believe. The other chant is that S&W is "forced" to include the lock in their revolvers in order to sell them. BS. They sell 1911's, and M&P's with no internal locks, and even offer a choice on the M&P pistol of internal lock or no lock. A third constant refrain is that "states require the lock". No, only one state to date has an internal lock mandated by statute, Maryland.

I would advise you, that if the appearance of the "new" S&W revolvers does not offend you, and you want a "new" revolver for range only use, you will probably be well served by one of the current production S&W revolvers. If the lock does fail, and locks up your revolver, safe disassembly, and an irritating day will be the only issues. You should definitely be able to find a good deal on one, as they don't sell well around these parts, and used ones spend looooonnng amounts of time on the auction, and WTS boards.

I'm sure others will be along to give their views on the topic. Good luck with your decision! Hope this helps

Regards 18DAI.

Rigby1962 · February 4, 2008, 05:47 PM

./ \
. l
. l
. l

What he said

JB696 · February 4, 2008, 06:02 PM

It's that ugly hole in the side of the frame. Close your eyes and imagine the face of your favorite supermodel. Now imagine the same face with an open, bloody, puss oozing sore in the middle of her forehead. That's what a S&W with the lock looks like. :barf:

BillCA · February 4, 2008, 06:06 PM

I think the issue breaks down into 4 basic components.

Reliability
There are reports of the lock self-engaging (or partially so) which ties up the revolver. Bad news in a firefight, regardless of whether you have the key with you or not. As 18DAI indicated, he doesn't think lock equipped guns are viable for self-defense and refuses to use one for such. Others, like myself, disagree after putting hundreds of rounds downrange without a problem.

Politics
There are those who still hold a grudge against S&W for its capitulation to the Clinton administration add a lock, the decision for which was made by then-owner Thompkins PLC of England. In the years following, gun owners boycotted S&W for the most part, slowing sales and depressing the stock price. Thompkins PLC sold S&W to the company making the locks, Saf-T-Hammer of AZ. STH has kept the locks but is reportedly looking at expanding sales on some models by removing the lock. We can only hope...

Appearance
S&W chose to go with Saf-T-Hammer's design which required a hole in the sideplate. Taurus has a design on the back of the hammer while Ruger hides theirs under the grip. The hole in the side is plain ugly, especially on stainless wheelguns.

Principle
The principle is that firearms are not "consumer products" in the sense of an alarm clock or desk lamp. They are more akin to a tool like a hatchet, axe, compound bow or a sword. That the government is attempting to push firearms under the regulation of the nerf-world nanny-staters at CPSC is part of the problem. That a firearm company would agree to take the first step in this direction grates against the principles of a lot of people (myself included).

Others will add their $0.02 worth, I'm sure.

Joe the Redneck · February 4, 2008, 06:07 PM

Personally, I'm PO over teh price they want for them. It like every dern fool revolver they make has a MSRP of $900!

To me, that is the best reason to buy a used one.

Joe

Mannlicher · February 4, 2008, 06:07 PM

For me, the biggest issue is that this lock requirment is another manifestation of the 'nanny state' in action.` Being a grown man, I don't need a nanny.

TNFrank · February 4, 2008, 06:20 PM

Can someone post a pic of this "lock" on the S&W guns. I've been out of revolvers until recently(got a M64-3 from a buddy) so I'm not framilliar with it. Thanks.

YukonKid · February 4, 2008, 06:20 PM

you are beating the [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] out of a long dead horse.

I dont like new smiths, they are made cheaply and the lock is stupid, the concept is. The best thing for me about revolvers is the reliablity, why put something else on that might fail.

I buy old N frames, best made smiths. I need a registered magnum, them i will be complete

CraigC · February 4, 2008, 06:29 PM

I can't add anything that hasn't already been said. I don't hold a grudge against them for the "agreement" but I detest the locks both in function and in principle. As gorgeous as those new retro N-frames are, I refuse to own a S&W with the infernal lock.

TNFrank · February 4, 2008, 06:43 PM

Ok, I googled it and saw a pick on one of the .500Mags. I'm sure you could do something to disable it so it'd not move and lock the gun up during shooting. Either way revolvers have gotten really high priced lately. I remember when you could get a decent K frame all day long for $225 to $250 in blue and $25 bucks or so more in stainless. Now it's hard to find one for under $350 and most of those are shot out. Suggested retail on the M64 that I got from my buddy is $687 bucks, more then a dang Glock goes for new. No wonder more people are going semi-auto, they're cheaper, LOL.

toybox99615 · February 4, 2008, 06:56 PM

I'll bet the old revolver crew did as much complaining about the M1911 when it first came out. Browning incorporated two complete safety systems while the revolvers had none. Not only was it going to fail becasue it had moving parts that had to function to load it, you had to have you hand in the right position to deactivate the grip safety. Some things never change.

I recently bought a Smith 45 Tactical. No lock on that one. I wonder why some models do and some models do not have the dreaded internal lock? I sure have one on my new Walthers P22. And I'm not sure if I even considered the lock issue during either purchase.

So beside all the personal beliefs I see posted on these lock failures who has any verified documentation on the failure rate. Is the failure rate more or less than the failure rate in other parts? I'd doubt its more as even S&W does not like the potential for some attorney to be able to prove the lock failed and their client is entitled to a couple of million in damages.

There is a completely different issue between liking the overall design and the related aesthetics and the imagined problems with the lock. One is completely subjective as much as blued v stainless is opionable while the other is functional as in parts failure.

CraigC · February 4, 2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

the imagined problems with the lock

Go over to S&W forum if you really think the failures are "imagined".

The bottom line is that they are totally and completely unnecessary in every way imaginable. They are a lawyer's solution to a non-existent problem.

Socrates · February 4, 2008, 07:52 PM

DON"T blame this one on lawyers, blame it on politicians, and since demorcats elected the idiots, on them.

S&@ is OWNED now by the guys that designed and sell the lock. It's a very poor design, and, mine locked up while DRY FIRING.

When you remove the lock, you have a funny sort of bind in the trigger. NOT cool either.

So, you pay WAY more money, for an inferior product, not fit for it's intended use, until you 'solve' the lock problem...

:barf:

Sarge · February 4, 2008, 08:29 PM

To the OP-

This question comes up from time to time & my thoughts on the topic are here.

TNFrank · February 4, 2008, 08:42 PM

Looks like S&W should have copied Taurus in their lock design.

toybox99615 · February 4, 2008, 09:43 PM

If the products are so inferior the market will show it by reduced sales. But so far it sure seems there is a good demand for what they are producing. I don't see gun shop ads saying overstocked in S&W come get a great deal.

There might be lots of complaints on a few sites. What is new about endless complaints on some particular weapon. I'd say 20% of the posting on all guns sites (gun related postings) seem to reflect on productions problems and poor quality control. You still find posting on how the M1 could have been better designed.

I also know the quality overall of S&W is certainly going down. On my new 45 Tactical I had the OEM sites replaced with Nolan sites. When the old sites were removed the tool marks in the site ways were really a sign of poor quality control. The same can be said of how things look in the machining on the slide where you only see it with the slide removed and inverted.

I actually prefer my older revolvers over the new semi-autos so the lock issue is moot.

In the end the post leading to Sarges Roll Call tells it all. You don't have to buy one. For now there are numerous alternatives available.

joneb · February 4, 2008, 10:12 PM

The Infernal Lock is a conspiracy contrived by bottom feeder enthusiasts, there plan is to make revolvers as unreliable as there beloved semi autos

darko · February 5, 2008, 08:48 AM

Well, after reading these replies I did some thinking last night and made a call to my bro-in-law. (To recap, I sold him my 686 pre-lock some years ago). I offered him a trade for my Ruger Blackhawk and he accepted. I was the original owner of this 686 and he had only fired it once since he bought it, so it is perfect condition and back in my loving hands

I will just have to replace my Blackhawk now, which is not a big problem as I was wanting to pick up the 45/45acp version anyway.
PS, what does the -4 signify?

BillCA · February 5, 2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Either way revolvers have gotten really high priced lately. I remember when you could get a decent K frame all day long for $225 to $250 in blue and $25 bucks or so more in stainless. Now it's hard to find one for under $350 and most of those are shot out. Suggested retail on the M64 that I got from my buddy is $687 bucks, more then a dang Glock goes for new. No wonder more people are going semi-auto, they're cheaper, LOL.

Well, that's a good apples : oranges comparison.
Back when revolvers were still in police holsters that $225-$250 investment was not "cheap". Lots of professional workers only earned between $25,000 and $40,000 a year. A new car was "expensive" if it was over $7K. I bought my first S&W 39-2 for $125, my first Model 28 for $145, both brand new and paid $125 for a single-owner M58. But I was earning a whopping $9K a year and single.

Once we went off the gold-standard for our currency, inflation/stagflation started driving prices up. Today gasoline is $3.23/gal out here, which is almost exactly 10 times what it cost me in college (at which time I griped about the "high" price of fuel).

MSRP list prices are always very high and don't reflect the true selling price. A local dealer here runs about 15% off the MSRP and has been known to take another 5% off for steady customers negotiating a deal. So I figure the dealer's profit is around 30% or more on new guns and up to 50-60% on used ones.

Around here, I see a lot of used S&W's in the $300 to $400 range and they are in very good to excellent condition.

It's a no-win situation. Everyone wants a gun made by a senior gunsmith with a perfect fit & finish, no locks, no plastic and no MIM parts for $300.

Quote:

When the old sites were removed the tool marks in the site ways were really a sign of poor quality control. The same can be said of how things look in the machining on the slide where you only see it with the slide removed and inverted.

Since the tool marks didn't impact your gun's performance, I presume they were only a cosmetic issue. Would you have paid an extra $250 for your gun to have the maker remove hidden cosmetic imperfections?

Huchahucha · February 5, 2008, 02:16 PM

I love the lock. I've tried to get Smith and Wesson to build me a revolver made completely out of locks, but they won't do it.

JB696 · February 5, 2008, 02:20 PM

I might go an extra $75 if they could make the inside look like the outside. But it wouldn't have to be polished or hand finished. Just slow down the travel speed on the CNC and make sure to have a nice sharp cutter installed. That would leave a nice smooth surface and only add about 5 minutes to the machining operations performed on each frame. Like that could ever happen.

February 4, 2008, 04:19 PM	#1
darko Senior Member Join Date: April 25, 2007 Posts: 499	possible stupid question: S&W locks, what is the issue? I've come across the S&W lock issue several times in this forum with people being all frazzled about them. At the risk of sounding really dumb here, what is the big deal? Has there been repeated documented mechanical failures due to the lock? I had a 686 and a 629 back around 94-95. Sadly, I sold them both. The 686 went to my brother in law and he pulled it out of the safe this weekend where it has been collecting cobwebs since I sold it to him. It pretty much made me dead set on replacing both of those weapons but noticed that my old 686 did not have a lock. __________________ ___________________________________________ 28:06:42:12

February 4, 2008, 05:06 PM	#5
18DAI Senior Member Join Date: September 30, 2005 Location: NC Posts: 2,156	There is a prima facia case to be made, that there have been incidents of the lock engaging, "on it's own", during recoil. Mr Michael Bane had it happen to him, with a S&W 329. The S&W forum has a lock failure sticky, which should prove helpful to you. The "issue" with the S&W internal lock stems around whether this is a frequent, or infrequent occurence, and whether it only occurs in light weight, unobtainium revolvers, or is it a potential problem with all of the S&W IL equipped revolvers. The incorporation of internal locks, is also an asthetics issue. It's ugly. The frame of S&W revolvers was changed to accomodate the lock, ruining the classic lines of the S&W revolver, IMO. The "zit", where the key inserts is an eyesore. You can spot IL equipped revolvers easily on the auction boards, they are all photographed from the right side. IMHO, the internal lock is a useless addition to the revolver. IIRC from Dr. Sominexs mechanical engineering 101 class, adding parts/complexity to a simple mechanical device, reduces reliability. So, for me, an internal lock on a revolver, precludes it's use as a self defense carry gun. The pro lock, or S&W cheerleaders if you will, want us to believe that some person too stupid, or lazy, to secure their firearm, is going to take the time to find a small handcuff sized key, insert it in their revolver and lock it . I find that hard to believe. The other chant is that S&W is "forced" to include the lock in their revolvers in order to sell them. BS. They sell 1911's, and M&P's with no internal locks, and even offer a choice on the M&P pistol of internal lock or no lock. A third constant refrain is that "states require the lock". No, only one state to date has an internal lock mandated by statute, Maryland. I would advise you, that if the appearance of the "new" S&W revolvers does not offend you, and you want a "new" revolver for range only use, you will probably be well served by one of the current production S&W revolvers. If the lock does fail, and locks up your revolver, safe disassembly, and an irritating day will be the only issues. You should definitely be able to find a good deal on one, as they don't sell well around these parts, and used ones spend looooonnng amounts of time on the auction, and WTS boards. I'm sure others will be along to give their views on the topic. Good luck with your decision! Hope this helps Regards 18DAI. __________________ S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum. Everything you need in a revolver, and nothing you don't.

February 4, 2008, 06:06 PM	#8
BillCA Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2004 Location: Silicon Valley, Ca Posts: 7,117	I think the issue breaks down into 4 basic components. Reliability There are reports of the lock self-engaging (or partially so) which ties up the revolver. Bad news in a firefight, regardless of whether you have the key with you or not. As 18DAI indicated, he doesn't think lock equipped guns are viable for self-defense and refuses to use one for such. Others, like myself, disagree after putting hundreds of rounds downrange without a problem. Politics There are those who still hold a grudge against S&W for its capitulation to the Clinton administration add a lock, the decision for which was made by then-owner Thompkins PLC of England. In the years following, gun owners boycotted S&W for the most part, slowing sales and depressing the stock price. Thompkins PLC sold S&W to the company making the locks, Saf-T-Hammer of AZ. STH has kept the locks but is reportedly looking at expanding sales on some models by removing the lock. We can only hope... Appearance S&W chose to go with Saf-T-Hammer's design which required a hole in the sideplate. Taurus has a design on the back of the hammer while Ruger hides theirs under the grip. The hole in the side is plain ugly, especially on stainless wheelguns. Principle The principle is that firearms are not "consumer products" in the sense of an alarm clock or desk lamp. They are more akin to a tool like a hatchet, axe, compound bow or a sword. That the government is attempting to push firearms under the regulation of the nerf-world nanny-staters at CPSC is part of the problem. That a firearm company would agree to take the first step in this direction grates against the principles of a lot of people (myself included). Others will add their $0.02 worth, I'm sure. __________________ BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)

February 4, 2008, 06:07 PM	#10
Mannlicher Senior Member Join Date: July 8, 2001 Location: North Central Florida & Miami Posts: 3,209	For me, the biggest issue is that this lock requirment is another manifestation of the 'nanny state' in action.` Being a grown man, I don't need a nanny. __________________ Nemo Me Impune Lacesset "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.".........Ronald Reagan

February 4, 2008, 06:20 PM	#12
YukonKid Senior Member Join Date: November 29, 2007 Location: NW Posts: 744	you are beating the [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] out of a long dead horse. I dont like new smiths, they are made cheaply and the lock is stupid, the concept is. The best thing for me about revolvers is the reliablity, why put something else on that might fail. I buy old N frames, best made smiths. I need a registered magnum, them i will be complete __________________ This is ten percent luck, twenty percent skill Fifteen percent concentrated power of will Five percent pleasure, fifty percent pain And a hundred percent reason to remember the name!

February 4, 2008, 04:23 PM	#2
Voyager AL Senior Member Join Date: January 18, 2006 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 221	No issue with my lock. Have never even inserted the key.

February 4, 2008, 04:32 PM	#3
HKuser Senior Member Join Date: January 24, 2008 Location: PA Posts: 625	It's ugly, at least I think so. There's principal, that it's part of the S&W capitulation to Clinton. Then there's practical, there have been claims of locks self-engaging. Some of us just don't want another part that could go wrong.

February 4, 2008, 04:48 PM	#4
ShootingNut Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2006 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 1,475	Same here Voyager, never used it and don't even notice it. Gun functions just fine with it, can't stand the Clinton's myself but not tying this one on them. SN

February 4, 2008, 05:47 PM	#6
Rigby1962 Senior Member Join Date: June 26, 2007 Posts: 264	./ \ . l . l . l What he said

February 4, 2008, 06:02 PM	#7
JB696 Senior Member Join Date: September 17, 2005 Posts: 136	It's that ugly hole in the side of the frame. Close your eyes and imagine the face of your favorite supermodel. Now imagine the same face with an open, bloody, puss oozing sore in the middle of her forehead. That's what a S&W with the lock looks like. :barf:

February 4, 2008, 06:07 PM	#9
Joe the Redneck Senior Member Join Date: December 19, 1998 Location: New port richey FL us Posts: 473	Personally, I'm PO over teh price they want for them. It like every dern fool revolver they make has a MSRP of $900! To me, that is the best reason to buy a used one. Joe

February 4, 2008, 06:20 PM	#11
TNFrank Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2007 Location: Crossville, TN., U.S.A. Posts: 490	Can someone post a pic of this "lock" on the S&W guns. I've been out of revolvers until recently(got a M64-3 from a buddy) so I'm not framilliar with it. Thanks.

February 4, 2008, 06:29 PM	#13
CraigC Junior member Join Date: November 28, 2001 Location: West Tennessee Posts: 4,300	I can't add anything that hasn't already been said. I don't hold a grudge against them for the "agreement" but I detest the locks both in function and in principle. As gorgeous as those new retro N-frames are, I refuse to own a S&W with the infernal lock.

February 4, 2008, 06:43 PM	#14
TNFrank Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2007 Location: Crossville, TN., U.S.A. Posts: 490	Ok, I googled it and saw a pick on one of the .500Mags. I'm sure you could do something to disable it so it'd not move and lock the gun up during shooting. Either way revolvers have gotten really high priced lately. I remember when you could get a decent K frame all day long for $225 to $250 in blue and $25 bucks or so more in stainless. Now it's hard to find one for under $350 and most of those are shot out. Suggested retail on the M64 that I got from my buddy is $687 bucks, more then a dang Glock goes for new. No wonder more people are going semi-auto, they're cheaper, LOL.

February 4, 2008, 06:56 PM	#15
toybox99615 Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 2007 Location: Kodiak Alaska Posts: 767	not a new issue I'll bet the old revolver crew did as much complaining about the M1911 when it first came out. Browning incorporated two complete safety systems while the revolvers had none. Not only was it going to fail becasue it had moving parts that had to function to load it, you had to have you hand in the right position to deactivate the grip safety. Some things never change. I recently bought a Smith 45 Tactical. No lock on that one. I wonder why some models do and some models do not have the dreaded internal lock? I sure have one on my new Walthers P22. And I'm not sure if I even considered the lock issue during either purchase. So beside all the personal beliefs I see posted on these lock failures who has any verified documentation on the failure rate. Is the failure rate more or less than the failure rate in other parts? I'd doubt its more as even S&W does not like the potential for some attorney to be able to prove the lock failed and their client is entitled to a couple of million in damages. There is a completely different issue between liking the overall design and the related aesthetics and the imagined problems with the lock. One is completely subjective as much as blued v stainless is opionable while the other is functional as in parts failure.

February 4, 2008, 07:52 PM	#17
Socrates Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 5,866	DON"T blame this one on lawyers, blame it on politicians, and since demorcats elected the idiots, on them. S&@ is OWNED now by the guys that designed and sell the lock. It's a very poor design, and, mine locked up while DRY FIRING. When you remove the lock, you have a funny sort of bind in the trigger. NOT cool either. So, you pay WAY more money, for an inferior product, not fit for it's intended use, until you 'solve' the lock problem... :barf:

February 4, 2008, 08:29 PM	#18
Sarge Senior Member Join Date: May 12, 2002 Location: MO Posts: 5,457	To the OP- This question comes up from time to time & my thoughts on the topic are here. __________________ People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice.

February 4, 2008, 08:42 PM	#19
TNFrank Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2007 Location: Crossville, TN., U.S.A. Posts: 490	Looks like S&W should have copied Taurus in their lock design.

February 4, 2008, 09:43 PM	#20
toybox99615 Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 2007 Location: Kodiak Alaska Posts: 767	bad products don't sell well If the products are so inferior the market will show it by reduced sales. But so far it sure seems there is a good demand for what they are producing. I don't see gun shop ads saying overstocked in S&W come get a great deal. There might be lots of complaints on a few sites. What is new about endless complaints on some particular weapon. I'd say 20% of the posting on all guns sites (gun related postings) seem to reflect on productions problems and poor quality control. You still find posting on how the M1 could have been better designed. I also know the quality overall of S&W is certainly going down. On my new 45 Tactical I had the OEM sites replaced with Nolan sites. When the old sites were removed the tool marks in the site ways were really a sign of poor quality control. The same can be said of how things look in the machining on the slide where you only see it with the slide removed and inverted. I actually prefer my older revolvers over the new semi-autos so the lock issue is moot. In the end the post leading to Sarges Roll Call tells it all. You don't have to buy one. For now there are numerous alternatives available.

February 4, 2008, 10:12 PM	#21
joneb Senior Member Join Date: December 10, 2005 Location: Central , OR Posts: 1,888	The Infernal Lock is a conspiracy contrived by bottom feeder enthusiasts, there plan is to make revolvers as unreliable as there beloved semi autos

February 5, 2008, 08:48 AM	#22
darko Senior Member Join Date: April 25, 2007 Posts: 499	Well, after reading these replies I did some thinking last night and made a call to my bro-in-law. (To recap, I sold him my 686 pre-lock some years ago). I offered him a trade for my Ruger Blackhawk and he accepted. I was the original owner of this 686 and he had only fired it once since he bought it, so it is perfect condition and back in my loving hands I will just have to replace my Blackhawk now, which is not a big problem as I was wanting to pick up the 45/45acp version anyway. PS, what does the -4 signify? __________________ ___________________________________________ 28:06:42:12

February 5, 2008, 02:16 PM	#24
Huchahucha Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2006 Posts: 154	I love the lock. I've tried to get Smith and Wesson to build me a revolver made completely out of locks, but they won't do it.

February 5, 2008, 02:20 PM	#25
JB696 Senior Member Join Date: September 17, 2005 Posts: 136	I might go an extra $75 if they could make the inside look like the outside. But it wouldn't have to be polished or hand finished. Just slow down the travel speed on the CNC and make sure to have a nice sharp cutter installed. That would leave a nice smooth surface and only add about 5 minutes to the machining operations performed on each frame. Like that could ever happen.