Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Why the Smith & Wesson "Lock" vs "Pre-lock" stigma.

What's the commonly held perception of the "lock" smith & wessons compared to the versions without the chastity belt?

Seems that the pre-locks are more sought after.

Why?

.gov intrusion.

Plus, its friggin ugly.

Because every time you complicate the mechanics of an object for a feature nobody wants, you add one more thing that can go wrong without a corresponding benefit. There are reports of locks engaging during strings of fire.

Because the damn things can lock themselves in use and under recoil.

well, that sounds safe.

Won't speak for others. For me the lock is a symbol of corrupt influence and behavior of our government under the Clinton Administration. It symbolizes how the left think tools are responsible for bad human behavior and that people shouldn't be held responsible for their bad behavior as well as accountable for it. And worse at the time the SW CEO was a limey who thought the same way. As a longtime SW fan and owner I was offended by it all.

What everyone else said.

Note to S&W: as a (somewhat prolific) consumer, have zero interest in any product with that ridiculous lock. The no-lock 642(?) and M&P however am looking at adding, however. Hint. You want to sell revolvers, or not?

I'm guessing it was providence when I was sitting at the gun shop and a guy wanted to trade in a pre-lock NIB 442 for one with a lock "because of his wife"

When the dealer gave him a price, I told the guy, lets step outside a moment....

all things considered, it was the extra parts thing that always bugged me, but that's because murphy is my constant companion.

No magazine disconnect or safety on my M&P either...

Sums it up for me.

That sums it up for me. I've owned quite a few S&W revolvers and love them, but I have not and will not own one with that damn lock.

bea175
Thanks for posting this I have one of these 642's
and I will take out the useless widget ASAP!
whelennut

Order "The Plug" from the guy over at the S&W forum. They look about as nice as you could hope for and I think they're only about $30.

And having seen numerous 29,629, and 329 revolvers that would lock themselves while being fired cured me of ever buying one with that stupid thing in the side of it.

I have a problem with a company that puts a defective gadget on a gun for litigation purposes and then puts the burden on the consumer to deactivate it and give the seller a potential litigation advantage (e.g. "It's not our fault because the consumer deactivated a safety device that could have prevented it from firing at all."). S&W probably figures that the possible expense of the gun not working when a person needs it to work is less than the expense of dealing with an argument that it made an "unsafe" gun.

I was always a fan of S&W revolvers. I carried one for the first part of my career and loved it. I subsequently owned several more. When the locks came along I sold what I had and will not buy another S&W. Let the government they design their guns for buy them.

-Z

Looking back at S&W for the last 25 years do you think they have any morals, standards or highly regarded ethics? Under control of several different companies they have: slandered Glock, then copied Glock, then the deal with the Clintons to corner the market. Not to disparage the guns, but the companies ethics are questionable.

If you watch the u tube video it looks quite simple to remove it.

It changed for the worse the classic looks and lines of the revolvers. More material had to be added to the back of the frame. Also the previous points mentioned.

A 357 PD locked up on me twice when shooting fast double action.

^^^This^^^

If any one has a source for the "plug" Please post a URL. I need to get one. I don't like locks but don't see throwing away the gun when all it takes is pulling the lock out and putting in a plug.
Thanks

It's BS, having said that I have had both pre-lock and lock. Never an issue with any. Including some that should or could have issues, 4" 629 and a scandium 357PD 41 mag. Don't really like the lock but to me it does not really matter either.

Most guns with locks are not "inclined" toward locking on themselves. BUT, that ZIT on the side is like kissing a girl with a zit on her nose. Doesn't help set the mood. Truth is the MAJORITY of guns that lock on themselves are the scandium or light weight guns with some recoil. 642, 329 etc. I know a couple of 329's that have locked up. It's a pretty sensitive issue over on S&W forum, they don't want you talking about it except for one area. Good way to get booted. Mostly, government over stepped their authority and black mailed Smith. They didn't have the guts to say no. That was during a slow time for the gun industry.

It has happened, and is widely talked about on the "net" I think that actual cases of it happening are rather rare. I would not let the issue decide as to wither or not I would buy a particular S&W however.

This. Plus the key hole is fugly, and S&Ws are supposed to be sexy. It's like a facial piercing on a supermodel..............just no reason for it to be there.

Yeah, we need a source for these plugs

I have a 25-13 MG 45 Colt that was OEM with the lock.
The action/cylinder rotation seized several times on me, and this was with mild loads.
I removed the lock and it's been fine since.
I didn't take careful note of the circumstances of the seizure; I just knew I was removing the lock a.s.a.p. after I got home.

b/t/w...I couldn't care less re the cosmetic hole issue.

Smiths have had this "cosmetic issue" before; here is what could be considered from their "sexy era"....a pre-war 38-44 Outdoorsman:



I think what pisses me off most about the newer guns/locks is that they've canned the Triple Lock, plate screws, pinned barrels, 5 land rifling and recessed chambers, but the lock HAS to be there? GMAFB.

Apparently the gentleman who was making them for sale has had health issues or some such. Hopefully he'll recover and resume production.

Here is more info and a how to on making your own.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/421339-plug.html

Hawkl,

AWESOME revolver you have there! And I agree with your tirade.

I have a 329PD (until the motorcycle shop is done with my bike, then it goes to them for payment) and it has the plug where the lock used to be. If I ever get another, and I hope to, "The
Plug" will go into that one as well.

How much more rugged with full power loads a 329PD would be if it had the triple lock mechanism! If ever there was a revolver that screamed for that kind of engineering and build, that would be the one.

...what has not been mentioned here is that the company who bought S&W from the British parent company was none other than...SafetyLock....the company that designed the IL for S&W in the first place...now do we understand why the majority of S&W revolvers still have The Lock...

The question becomes why Smith has over the last few years started releasing models without the IL. If there was some sort of liability involved this would have never been done... And remember this "lock" doesn't have anything to do with the safe operation of the firearm. It is a onboard "storage lock"...that is it. It isn't like removing the magazine disconnect or pinning the grip safety on a 1911.. If you shoot someone with a gun with the IL removed there would be little liability concern as all you would have to say is that the IL has proven unreliable and as this was defensive firearm you could never take that chance with your life. If however your gun was taken by a child and he shot themselves or another with a gun that the IL had been removed THEN you could have a big problem as it could be argued that if the storage lock had not been removed and used while stored as intended the child would not have been able to operate it...

I have four IL guns...and own them only because these models were never made without them...a 686-7 .38 Super, 357PD .41 Magnum, 357NG .41 Magnum and a 3" 500. The Plug has been installed in the two .41s because they are carried for personal defense. I have Plugs for the other two but have not gotten around to installing them yet and as just range guns don't worry about it too much.

This situation with the IL locking itself reminds me of the situation Remington put itself into with their 600/700 triggers. They knew there was a problem, denied there was a problem and let people die rather than do a recall. Now they have finally after 50 years done the recall. Smith has decided to gamble with the lives of their customers figuring that not many people who carry guns get into shooting, those that do only fire a couple of shots, the likelihood of it being a S&W revolver with an IL is low and lower still that it will be a gun with a defective lock...the odds are low that there will ever be a lawsuit but the fact they know it could happen and do nothing about it is unethical.

...and the sales and loyal customers they have lost has cost them millions.

Bob

a 3inch 500?
gawd, i ain't gonna think of that going off.

I wish my 500 had a four or five inch barrel instead of the eight inch

It increases the cost of the product in exchange for reduced utility of the product. In other words, it's a government program for your revolver.

Sorry folks, but I have an "Outdoorsman" on the brain ....its a 38-44 Heavy Duty. Shoots decently to the sights. Windage is pretty good, but elevation requires some fudging with sights or the bullet weight.

Any ways, my point was that the lock's cosmetics to me aren't nearly as bothersome as its use when compared to certain lamented design changes.

...my mistake...it is a 4"...1" of which is the compensator.

Bob

Don't like the IL, don't like the round-butt grip frame on N-frames, don't like the frame mounted firing pins! But I'm an old fart who just doesn't like changes made to some of my favorite guns.

Well, you asked

'Reality Check'*, Installment Number One-NO MORE LOCKS!!!

Note to manufacturers supplying the US firearms market-I will NOT buy ANY firearm with an Integral Locking System. I also won't deactivate a factory-installed lock, in order to have a gun without one. I simply don't need a new gun bad enough to put up with this nonsense anymore.

How we "got here"...

About mid-1993, the folks who manufacture firearms for the US market decided that not unlike Idi Amin, Bill Klinton was going to be President For Life, and that their only means of corporate survival was to add so-called 'safety devices' that do nothing toward correcting a real problem- the unsafe handling of firearms. We began to see idiot buttons on classic lever-action rifles, and eventually that wonderful invention we have come to know as the ‘integral lock’ (hereinafter referred to as “IL”) appeared. It manifested itself as a pimple on the port side of S&W revolvers, and soon after Taurus, Ruger and a few others began sprouting them.

Well, SO WHAT!

Now just WHY, you might ask, should we even be bothered by this? Well, how’s about I just tell you why?

Simple Logic...

There is absolutely no rational reason to have an IL on your gun. If you really want to lock up your gun, law enforcement agencies all over the country and GIVING AWAY cable locks that are 100% effective, adaptable to any gun, and do not require alteration to reliable and proven firearms design. Or you could just throw it in a safe.

Stupid and Dangerous Thinking...

The presence of IL’s also furthers the fallacy that a properly-handled gun is somehow safer WITH a lock, than without it. This is dangerous thinking in and of itself. Refer to the Four Rules.

The Cultural De-volution...

You have to be an adult to buy a handgun, and adults should not accept being treated like a child that needs training wheels. The presence of IL’s is just another step in the Oprah-fication of the American male. “We must make the world ‘safe’, don’cha know?” If this nonsense is allowed to continue it will eventually render our handguns worthless for their original purpose- Immediate, Unhindered DEFENSE in Times of Emergency! If this ‘original purpose’ requires further explanation, I’d suggest that you go read some Jeff Cooper.

Begging for Trouble...

Now here’s a MAJOR sticking point- IL’s CAN break, and render the gun useless. In fact, IL’s are simply 'one more thing to go wrong'- and as Mr. Murphy has taught me over the years, If it CAN go wrong, it WILL. Doubt it? Smith & Wesson Forum has a detailed thread on this topic, complete with excellent photos of the unnecessary crap being engineered into handguns today: Smith & Wesson Internal Lock Failures

These things are enough to convince me that IL’s are a bad idea. Thirty-three years of the continual carrying and use of handguns, often in harm’s way, have convinced me that they are worse than useless. Gun safety is BETWEEN YOUR EARS- not manifested in some key at the bottom of your sock drawer. To believe otherwise is insanity. Would having and extra ignition switch on automobiles reduce traffic fatalities, or eliminate drunk driving? Geez, people- wake up! Turn off the damn television, put down the iPod, get off MSN and start thinking for yourselves!

"The Emperor's New Clothes"...

The Emperor never likes to be told that he's parading around bare-ass naked. You’ll catch some flak from folks who contend that we should be grateful, and buy whatever the gunmakers produce. Some of them get downright annoyed when those of us who refuse to be stump-broke, share our opinion on this subject. We become ‘Lockjaws’, ‘Whiners’, Turd-Suckers’ and the like. Well, too damn bad. Some of us won't be harangued into backing up to the stump.

Follow the Money...

It should come as no surprise, but most of those trying to shove these abominations down our throats- also happen to be folks who benefit commercially from increased sales of handguns, handgun training, handgun books & articles, etc. Certain contemporary gunwriters, training gurus and of course handgun accessory makers trnd to gravitate toward the ‘Buy ‘em anyway!’ Camp. Having grown up reading Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton, Jeff Cooper & Charles Askins, I find this a little hard to swallow. These entirely credible old-school gunwriters carried handguns for more serious purposes than a trip to the range, or a canned buffalo hunt. Those boys would have called these contraptions for what they are- simply one more thing to go wrong with your life preserver.

"Po' Lil' Gunmakers"...

You’ll also hear the excuse that the poor manufacturers are just installing IL’s because of, or in anticipation of, legislation requiring them on guns ‘approved’ for sale to the public. This is a local problem, and one that should be addressed by the folks living in those little cultural Utopias who are affected by it. None of this internal-lock nonsense has been legislated federally, or by the 40 or so free states that we have left. I have no intention of letting the political climate San Fran-Sicko dictate what I’m going to shove in my holster, or sling over my shoulder when I head off to the big piney.

Look- I hated it when Colt quit making Detective Specials, but that was Colt's choice and now they aren't selling any. So I've got a no-lock Ruger SP101 instead. When the realization sunk in that I'd never crack open a new S&W catalog with the excitement I once knew- it was a let-down for sure. I hated it when Winchester quit making lever-actions that looked & worked like the guns I grew up with. I hated it when Winchester quit making them at all- but it was a predictable result of re-making a product into something it wasn't. I treasure the pre-lock Winchester I have, and a pre-64 Model 94 is on the "GET one!" list. Heck, I could even buy an old Marlin if I didn't have any self respect. (That was a joke, Marlin-ites.)

"They Ain't Goin' Away-Might As Well Get Used to Them"...

The other argument you’ll hear from the IL-appeasement camp is that the locks are ‘Here to stay- now suck it up & buy a gun." Horse manure. The manufacturers chose this path, which means they can un-choose it, too. If we can keep Congress at bay on the topic of gun legislation (and we have for quite some time now) what makes you think we can’t influence the manufacturers of those guns? As long as people buy guns with locks in them, they will keep making them. If sales take a nose-dive when a product is changed, any manufacturer will rethink that change. That is the reality of a market-driven economy.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BUY AN IL-EQUIPPED FIREARM.

You can get all the ‘old stuff’ you need on the used market. Don't be surprised when you get a better gun for less money, by taking this approach. Personally, it won’t affect me in the least if Smith & Winfrey or Rug-ah decide to put locks in all their guns. I’ll have mine without them, and my sons & grandsons will have them when I’m done. It doesn’t disturb me in the least if you & everyone else buy them. It’s your money, to do with as you please- same as mine.

You DO however have an opportunity to influence the US firearms market. If enough potential buyers refuse to buy IL-equipped firearms- the IL will go away. How many of us will it take? I have inside skinny that Ruger based their addition of an IL to the ‘New Vaquero’ on the notion that it would cost about 17% of their market, if they ‘lost’ California sales. S&W is hoping that new customers, who don’t care about IL’s, replace us cranky old bastards in sufficient time frames and numbers to keep the company afloat. I for one think that's an exceptionally-crappy way to treat customers who have been buying and recommending their products for 30+ years. Luckily, it's not too late for me correct both of those errors.

Turning the Tide...

In any event, I figure diverting 20% of new-gun sales to the used-gun market would FLAT get their attention. ONE in five new handgun buyers opting for a classic used gun instead, is all it would take to make them feel the ground shake. If 40%, or TWO in five would do this for a year? The 'fine art' would rattle off the walls at Corporate Headquarters.

Stand By For Guilt Trip #12,788...

I can hear the howling already- "What? You're actually proposing that we withhold our business from already-embattled gun-makers who are still suffering under Clinton-era lawsuits, etc.? How will we sell gun magazines?" Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Money is the only bit we have in the horse's mouth, and it's going to take a hard pop on the reins to get it under control- and headed back in the direction we want to go.

Whether or not the gunmakers ever reverse this ridiculous trend, principle alone is reason enough for opposing them. There's also the matter of our obligation to pass at least as much FREEDOM on to the next generation, as we had for ourselves. I will personally NEVER buy an IL-equipped firearm. I’ll also not throw in with aftermarket companies or gun publications who support them. I’ll go out of my way to end the careers of politicians who attempt to legislate them.

That’s just my opinion and remember- I ain’t trying to sell you anything. If you agree, sign up in the ‘Comments’ section at the bottom of this page. Feel free to forward the URL to this blog around. If a good long list of responses result, we’ll forward it to the folks making the guns. There’s certainly no harm in being heard on the subject.

http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/2007/07/note-to-us-gun-manufacturers-no-more.html