Does it keep you from buying a new one?

It has for me from day one. No interest despite the ability to inactivate it.

I won't buy one.

Not interested..

Plenty of S&Ws around that are lockless , I'd not buy one that has the lock.

I feel the same about leverguns that have a added safety


Mike

The only one I've bought with a lock is the new Model 69 .44 mag L Frame

They have on some (IIRC some of the bodyguard series perhaps). It doesn't keep me from one. Give me a screwdriver and I can remove the lock in about 10-15 minutes tops. I have 3 with locks. My 329pd is the only one I have bothered to render lock-less as I blamed the lock on the gun tying up, especially after reading a bunch on the internet regarding lock failures on light, hard kickers like the 329. Guess what? It wasn't the lock! My guess is the lock gets blamed for more trouble than it actually causes. In any event, it is very easy to remove and you can even get a 'plug' if the open hole bothers you.

If I had a choice I would obviously prefer no lock, but it doesn't scare me off.

S&W is already producing a number of models without the lock, the 442 being the most common I've seen. It appears some distributors are ordering them without the lock.

I traded into a 329. Otherwise, I would never intentionally fork over cash for a new S&W with a lock.

There are a ton of very nice older pre lock guns out there.

Nope.



Travis

Clint Smith would.



Travis

Do I look like I care?

The fact that they did it was enough to keep me from buying one

Just a statement of fact. Nothing more.



Travis

Better left unsaid then.

You think?



Travis

I will never get a new S&W with that lawyer lock.

Got one with.

Got one without.

Never had a problem. The lock can be handy when you need to need to put the gun aside, say to run into the post office and not leave a loaded gun in your car, or have to unload it for 5 minutes. Deciding not to ever buy an S&W revolver because they manufacture ones with locks is really going to limit your choices. Not much else out there in DA.

I bought one of the new mod 17's a couple years ago, and left it as is. I've never used the lock, and to be honest I have no idea where the keys even are. But it's a .22. The lock wouldn't necessarily keep me from buying the gun I wanted, but if it's more than a .22 I'd be removing the wart forthwith.

I don't particularly like them and would prefer they didn't have one. So far, I have been able to find the models I want in nice condition without them. If I wanted a particular model and it had one I would probably buy it anyway and likely be able to sleep at night.

Not a gun writer, but my two cents worth. I don't like Smiths with the lock. I don't like Smiths with frame mounted firing pins. I don't like Smiths with round butt grip frames. But then I'm just an old guy who likes things like they "used to be".

My most accurate Smith is a Custom shop 44 mag with the lock.I prefer the old pin on hammer Smiths for appearance.

I don't agree.

Clint Smith endorses them.



Travis

My 327PD would hang up with the lock when shot fast double action. S&W said they would put a new frame with the newer lock cut to correct the problem.

Pappy - perhaps but there are many options in handguns.

If they ever do away with the locks I might buy some stock!!

Handguns, yes, but DA revolvers not so much. Rugers are solid, but not very refined and very limited in caliber selection.

The biggest gripe I have with S&W is what they've done to Thompson Center.

So, do you just own matchlocks or have you moved up to flintlocks?

Same here. I'd also add that old S&W j,k,l,&N frames in good to great shape are out there for sale. Desirable guns are not a convenience item, you have to seek them out. Still when it gets down to forking over the cash they cost less and represent greater value than the guns with the "keyhole of treachery". These older smiths have done nothing but appreciate in value and still are but do the new ones with the keyhole? fhkk no!
Value comes in different ways and the value here is with the older S&W's to me. Magnum Man

Nothing against Smiths without locks.

Now that's a funny.

The older guns are generally finished better and are devoid of MIMed parts, which are unsightly to some and may not wear as well as forged ones. On the other hand, the new guns have been improved in other ways. In the 70's, which is when I bought my first Smiths, both S&W and Colt had QC issues that resulted in guns going out the door with serious functional problems. Some of those guns ended up in the holsters of police officers and the service departments were pretty busy. The cops had priority for service and regular folks often had to wait a bit. I had two guns from that era, a 29 and a 17 but the only trouble I had was occasional DA misfires with the .22. A new mainspring, installed locally, fixed that.

I have two Smiths now, one a 620 L frame 7-shot .357, with the two-piece barrel, MIMed lockwork, round butt, and the dreaded keylock. It's a fine shooter, with a super crisp single action pull, and has functioned perfectly. I don't carry it much, due to the weight, but I like it very much and someday hope to get one of the Pro Shop guns in the same configuration but with the forged lockwork. I generally ignore the lock, but as noted earlier, find it useful on occasion to secure the gun short-term. The other is a 642 .38 with S&W/CT laser grips that stays with me pretty much 24/7. That one came without the lock. Both guns were purchased used, but LN. Both guns are giving me excellent service even if they're not quite as shiny as ones made in the good old days. I buy guns to shoot, not admire (well, mostly).

I can take the keylock or leave it. It's an unobtrusive, and in my experience, a well-engineered response to the current market and legal situation, and not, I think, a political statement or philosophical sell-out. I'm certainly not going to let its presence, or lack of it, deprive me of the enjoyment of the best DA revolvers on the market. I get more enjoyment out of shooting than I do out of being offended.

I will just have to live with it. I decided the day that they caved to pressure and went with the locks that I would never buy one with a lock. I see no reason to change my mind. miles

Your decision, of course, but are you also staying away from Rugers? They have locks on their .22 autos and even some single actions.

I forgot the key to my .22/45 once and when I got to the range, Boy, was I PO'd!

I did buy a Tarus .22 plinker with one, from an individual one time. I did not notice it until after I bought it. The place where the key goes was not obvious. I kept it but most likely would not have bought it, if I had noticed it at first. It had been a long time after S&W had done the deed and they were the only ones in my mind to watch for. I got educated. miles

This is a basic problem associated with lock, firearms are not doors and should not have locks.

If I encountered a functional issue with one, I would feel differently, I suppose, but that hasn't happened. I've heard of problems with the Smith lock, but nothing that was ever documented. Some of the tang-safety Winchester lever actions had issues reported by reputable folks, but I haven't heard anything lately. I really don't like those as they are ugly and look out of place.

In general, I just buy what meets my wants and needs and don't worry about the motivation of multi-national corporations. There's only room for so much ire in my poor old brain, and right now that's pretty much full of outrage over Crony Capitalism, government corruption, the climate hoax, and general lawlessness in high places.

When we get those solved, I'll have room for some important stuff.

There were most certainly documented problems with the lock as I posted earlier. S&W offered to replace the frame on my 357 PD which has a different cut that is supposed to cure the accidental locking.

This should read 357 PD

Was that related to the light weight of the gun?

Maybe, partly. The real problem was the frame cut that allowed the lock to jump upward tying the revolver up making it impossible to pull the trigger. The problem only showed up when shooting fast double action. I removed the lock and solved the problem.

I'm not saying i wouldn't buy one if the price was right , but definitely prefer their revolvers without this Pussy Lock

I have this one:



which you can't buy without a lock. So far, no problems with it. I may plug it, anyway.

When it comes to these:



I only buy ones without locks. The 5" 629 in the upper left has since gone down the road.

So basically I avoid MIM and locks as much as possible. It would have to be something unusually attractive and useful (like the Model 60 Pro above) before I tolerated these "improvements".

Yes. I actually went and BOUGHT a 6" new nickel plated 44 mag about six months ago. Always wanted one. Took it home and (the horror) I noticed the little hole. It went right back...

S&W will never remove the lock. California is the largest gun market in the US and they can't sell them there without it. Lame as hell - if I wanted something that was only offered with a lock - I'd buy it, remove it, plug it, and be okay.

Fortunately the stuff I've wanted/have has all been old Smiths. We pay a substantial premium in CA for the old ones since "pre-lock" is seen as "better" in most peoples minds and it's difficult (not impossible) to bring in a revolver from out of state.

No locks for me.

No, I won't buy a S&W with a lock. S&W revolvers have priced themselves out of the market for me and caused me to buy Ruger Revolvers. I think Ruger revolvers are a good value.

Good posts. Many echo my thoughts

Ok- maybe I missed it but what is the deal with buying or not buying with a lock?
I am primarily a rifle shooter but I have S&W's revolvers both with and without the lock and have never had a problem with any of them. Admittedly I do not shoot a lot of pistol shooting but am just more curious what the issue is with the models with a lock. Is it a real problem or an imaginary one?

drover

A mainly in the HEAD problem.Jerry Michalac seems to go just fine with the S&Ws with locks on them

Jerry doesn't quite count, as he's on the payroll.

Some are worried about functional problems which have apparently cropped up at times.

Others have philosophical issues and feel like S&W sold out to the anti-gun crowd by installing the locks. To me, that's like the guys who think the .325 WSM is disrespectful to veterans because it's an 8mm. But hey, it's a free country (kinda, sorta these days).

I've not had any trouble with mine as yet, and find it useful on occasion, so it's staying for now.

There was nothing wrong with pre-lock models just like the new mods on a MKIII VS MK II Ruger 22 semi.

The magazine safety on the .22/45 is a pain, but the biggest nuisance is the need to hold down the slide release when dropping the slide on a loaded magazine.

Off topic, but another thing I've noticed with the .22/45 is that it's very fussy about the position of the top round in the magazine. I never had an issue with the standard Mk II Target model I used to have. This one cost me an easy shot at a turkey one fall.

Any way to remove the safeties on the 22-45?

I thought you could on the SW locks...

And you can on the Rem locks....get rid of all this crap....

As my .22/45 is a plinker/hunting pistol, I've never worried too much about it as it's really just an inconvenience. The safety lock is optional and unlikely to engage accidentally. The slide-lock issue is the one that causes the most grief, but I'm not going to tamper with it. I'd rather just get the regular MkIII, which I prefer anyway.

For $250 the .22/45 is pretty hard to beat, quirks and all.

I don't ever want another ruger... reason I was asking, the poly frames with light barrels and threaded for a can, can take a trigger kit easily...

I am not aware of another 22 pistol that allows all this, light enough to add a can too without big weight issues.

Definitely an in-the-head problem with me. I just like the older models better.

Personally I have refused to buy ANY new S&W products since the sell out that occurred during the Clinton administration. That includes all handguns, rifles, shotguns and anything with the S&W logo on it.

I will purchase older firearms produced by S&W as long as NONE of my money goes to the anti-gun company who sold out all gun owners to an oppressive government.

My decision has nothing to do with the locks installed on newer models (although I don't like the locks and consider them to be another form of sell-out to the anti-gun movement).

I would likely not buy any S&W product that has a lock on it anyway. I do not purchase Ruger products with a lock either and avoid all products with unwanted added on safety features such as newer Winchester and Marlin rifles. I have traded for a few of these when the price was right, but traded them away as soon as possible.....so as to not contaminate my other guns in the gun room.

If God had intended for guns to have locks and added safeties.....he would have told Ruger, Henry, Browning and others to design them that way in the first place. Since none of those folks seemed to get that message from on high, I've got to assume even God doesn't approve of such "improvements".

Preach it Brother! Preach it!

I will not buy one with a lock. I wonder if they would improve their income stream if they left off the lock and told CA and others to GFY.
I assume Ruger revolvers are not sold in CA..

Bad assumption.

Rugers are most certainly for sale here. Again, and unfortunately, CA is the 800 pound gorilla of gun purchasing.

Exactly what % of sales are to Ca -
bc they have lost a ton of business elsewhere w the changes.

Shot 800 rounds through one at thunder ranch in 2007, revolver course (3 day course). Then again in 2010 Home and vehicle defense course (3 day course).

T'was a 44 mag.

They work fine.

BMT

I don't know exact percentages, but I have read many times that gun sales in California trump all other states (including Texas) by a fairly wide margin.

And while most of us S&W "purists" don't like the locks, I'd wager they haven't lost as much sales as we'd all like to think. The average Joe who wants a revolver as backup or for HD really has 2 options. The heavy, clunky Ruger with it's terrible trigger, and a Smith. I'd guess most don't even know what PL means.

44x800 should make your hand tender

PD - Not much on acronyms

Until I can't find what I want without a lock, pinned barrels, more than 3 screws or to a lesser degree pinned barrels, I could give two craps about Smith offerings.

Don't even bring up square butts and blueing.....

I was tired at the end of the day.

But the frangible loads required at ThunderRanch are not full power loads.

BMT