I haven't purchased a new firearm since before 9/11. I have seen the term "pre-lock" used in various posts. Can someone concisely define what it means for a firearm to be pre-lock? Conversely, is there such a thing as a "post-lock" or "locking firearm"? Thanks for your anticipated response(s). I continue to learn a lot from this forum.
Definition of "pre-lock"
- Thread starter DMY
- Start date
BigMikey76
New member
S&W added a keyed internal locking mechanism to their revolvers. I want to say that was as early as 2002, but I'm not quite sure about the year. Pre-lock simply refers to the revolvers made before the addition of the lock.
turtlehead
New member
Also known as the Hillary hole.
BigMikey76
New member
Indeed. All Taurii have them, as well.
Certain pre-lock S&W's are very collectible due to their rarity. For example, a pre-lock 627 (8-shot .357) is extremely hard to come by and will run you north of $2,000. However, for older S&W's where most if not all were "pre-lock", the designation is irrelevant. So, the term "pre-lock" really has the most significance in terms of what a collector might be looking for in a particular S&W revolver.
Bob Wright
New member
Briefly Ruger employed a lock in the grip frame of their Blackhawk revolvers. This lock required a key to lock/unlock a device that blocked rearward travel of the hammer, and was located in the grip frame. I think this was limited to their Fiftieth Anniversary Models.
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
38superhero
New member
My Ruger 22/45 has a key lock.
Back in 2001 Smith&Wesson was bought from it's British owners, Tompkins, PLC. by the Arizona based company Saf-T-Hammer.
The company, "Saf-T-Hammer, a 3-year-old company which specializes in safety and security devices for firearms," was founded by a few former execs from S&W. It bought S&W and within a year was putting their locks in all new S&W revolvers.
You can read a bit about that here.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2001/05/14/daily1.html
The move was controversial. In 2000 S&W (then under British ownership) signed an agreement with the Clinton administration on "gun safety"...
The company, "Saf-T-Hammer, a 3-year-old company which specializes in safety and security devices for firearms," was founded by a few former execs from S&W. It bought S&W and within a year was putting their locks in all new S&W revolvers.
You can read a bit about that here.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2001/05/14/daily1.html
The move was controversial. In 2000 S&W (then under British ownership) signed an agreement with the Clinton administration on "gun safety"...
Last edited:
turtlehead
New member
Ouch. That's pretty harsh, tipoc.
And now I have to go get therapy.
I called it a Hillary Hole for years before someone on the INTERNET pointed out how it was an immature pornographic comment. It simply never occurred to me before that.
TO me (and my friends) it's a hole in the S&W that shouldn't be there, never used to be there, and the "Hillary" administration is the cause.
TO me way of thinking, even though she held no official office during that time (is First Lady a title or an office? Title, I thought), if you think she had no role in the matter, I think you've never been married.
TO me (and my friends) it's a hole in the S&W that shouldn't be there, never used to be there, and the "Hillary" administration is the cause.
TO me way of thinking, even though she held no official office during that time (is First Lady a title or an office? Title, I thought), if you think she had no role in the matter, I think you've never been married.
larryh1108
New member
I agree with 44 AMP. When Bill was president, Hillary wore the pants in that family. All Bill wanted was to play the field and smile at the cameras. Hillary was the alpha male in that relationship.
That was me that pointed it out to you a few years back 44. But as I recall you only started doing that once Mrs. Clinton was running for Pres. the first time.
I told you then as I tell you now, it ain't about Hillary. It's about showing respect for women. Or in this case the lack of it.
Also ain't it just a bit creepy to have this 68 year old women's stuff on your mind and to keep reminding folks of it?
If you want to blame Hillary or both the Clinton's for the lock keep that fantasy going. Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W and put their product (the hole) in the guns because it was profitable for them to do so and they wanted to. This was in part to avoid lawsuits and in anticipation of state by state legislation that required locks (which never really appeared). Saf-T-Hammer was under no compulsion to buy the company or to install the locks and to keep them in all these years. But that was the whole purpose of that outfit being founded...to put locks in S&Ws. Folks that blame the Clintons for that let Saf-T-Hammer and S&W off the hook. I think that's the point of the Hillary Hole stuff. It let's S&W off the hook. It blames the Democrats and anti gunners for the locks, which is always useful to some, and sidesteps what has actually occurred...locks in guns have become more common in the industry. The industry has shifted it's attitude on this from opposition to locks to seeing they can maybe avoid a potential problem, look like they are avoiding accidents and still make a profit. The industry has willingly done it. Like the slide safeties that began going into leverguns in the 1960s.
After S&W signed the agreement there was a strong boycott on against S&W for signing it. Once Clinton left office and Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W the the boycott ended and the locks went in. Saf-T-Hammer put the locks in the guns within a year but there was no new boycott once the locks actually appeared. So in face of the threat of locks there was a boycott, once they went in for real no boycott. So by blaming the Clinton's S&W is let off the hook but a slightly dishonest, unknowing or confused fella can still blame the Clinton's for the locks.
It's easier for some to blame Hillary than to fess up that S&W willingly led the way on locks in U.S. made handguns. It's like some avoiding Bill Ruger's role in the over 10 round magazine ban.
tipoc
I told you then as I tell you now, it ain't about Hillary. It's about showing respect for women. Or in this case the lack of it.
Also ain't it just a bit creepy to have this 68 year old women's stuff on your mind and to keep reminding folks of it?
If you want to blame Hillary or both the Clinton's for the lock keep that fantasy going. Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W and put their product (the hole) in the guns because it was profitable for them to do so and they wanted to. This was in part to avoid lawsuits and in anticipation of state by state legislation that required locks (which never really appeared). Saf-T-Hammer was under no compulsion to buy the company or to install the locks and to keep them in all these years. But that was the whole purpose of that outfit being founded...to put locks in S&Ws. Folks that blame the Clintons for that let Saf-T-Hammer and S&W off the hook. I think that's the point of the Hillary Hole stuff. It let's S&W off the hook. It blames the Democrats and anti gunners for the locks, which is always useful to some, and sidesteps what has actually occurred...locks in guns have become more common in the industry. The industry has shifted it's attitude on this from opposition to locks to seeing they can maybe avoid a potential problem, look like they are avoiding accidents and still make a profit. The industry has willingly done it. Like the slide safeties that began going into leverguns in the 1960s.
After S&W signed the agreement there was a strong boycott on against S&W for signing it. Once Clinton left office and Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W the the boycott ended and the locks went in. Saf-T-Hammer put the locks in the guns within a year but there was no new boycott once the locks actually appeared. So in face of the threat of locks there was a boycott, once they went in for real no boycott. So by blaming the Clinton's S&W is let off the hook but a slightly dishonest, unknowing or confused fella can still blame the Clinton's for the locks.
It's easier for some to blame Hillary than to fess up that S&W willingly led the way on locks in U.S. made handguns. It's like some avoiding Bill Ruger's role in the over 10 round magazine ban.
tipoc
Last edited:
turtlehead
New member
I can assure you the thought never once crossed my mind to associate the term Hillary Hole with any part of her anatomy.
But it clearly crossed yours.
Don't project your weird obsessions on me. And also, I'll be as immature as I well please.
Model12Win
Moderator
Smith n' Weston revolving belt pistols of army/navy calibre now come with a lock device, known as a Hillary hole.
I personally wouldn't have anything to do with a "Hillary Hole" if I were you.
I personally wouldn't have anything to do with a "Hillary Hole" if I were you.
You could call it the Clinton Hole, but Hillary Hole is alliterative, sounds better.
And, as I've said before, for me, it has nothing to do with anatomy.
The Clintons wanted the lock, and a number of other things. S&W was the only gunmaker to sign on. That was enough for me.
What we "knew" at the time was what we made our decisions on, and for me, its not the lock, as an idea (which I happen to think is stupid, but that's a slightly different argument), it is the placement and appearance of the lock that S&W put in.
My understanding is that the people who developed the lock formed Safe-T-Hammer, to buy S&W when their stock tanked due to the boycott. That lock is their thing, they obviously think its a good idea, and it makes complete sense that they as the new owners will put it in the revolvers.
Other gunmakers have put locks in some of their models, in unobtrusive places. S&W COULD have done that, but didn't. That is what I object to most.
I always felt that the smart thing for S&W to have done, once the agreement with the Clintons was void would have been to offer both lock and no lock versions, and let the market decide.
And, as I've said before, for me, it has nothing to do with anatomy.
The Clintons wanted the lock, and a number of other things. S&W was the only gunmaker to sign on. That was enough for me.
What we "knew" at the time was what we made our decisions on, and for me, its not the lock, as an idea (which I happen to think is stupid, but that's a slightly different argument), it is the placement and appearance of the lock that S&W put in.
My understanding is that the people who developed the lock formed Safe-T-Hammer, to buy S&W when their stock tanked due to the boycott. That lock is their thing, they obviously think its a good idea, and it makes complete sense that they as the new owners will put it in the revolvers.
Other gunmakers have put locks in some of their models, in unobtrusive places. S&W COULD have done that, but didn't. That is what I object to most.
I always felt that the smart thing for S&W to have done, once the agreement with the Clintons was void would have been to offer both lock and no lock versions, and let the market decide.
101combatvet
New member
I'm waiting for that to happen, in the mean time I'm collecting Colt Series 70 1911s.
