Cheapshooter
New member
But is it not possible that the marketing department at S&W does care about it's customers. But tends to care about the new customer rather than the old customer. Again, marketing to the large growth in first time buyers.
Is the complaint about built in locks on principle, or mechanical?
- Thread starter Cheapshooter
- Start date
If I understand correctly, no one will buy any gun because all the makers are evil and don't care about anything except profits. Hmmm.
So no one will buy any new guns because S&W does that, and Ruger does this, and Colt messes up, and Taurus is no good, and Remington is evil .... Great way to keep the gun community going with all the manufacturers out of business.
Jim
So no one will buy any new guns because S&W does that, and Ruger does this, and Colt messes up, and Taurus is no good, and Remington is evil .... Great way to keep the gun community going with all the manufacturers out of business.
Jim
I'm saying that with all the problems we have fighting to keep the second amendment to any reasonable degree, S&W betrayed the consumer with the IL deal. And I am not the only one that thinks this, the boycott showed that. Despite a large portion of loyalist consumers hating the lock, they flatly refuse to do anything about it even now, long after that deal is expired and Safe-T-Hammer took over. The new shooters also would not be too broken up over the REMOVAL of internal locks, and then everyone could win. But they remain. Sure, Taurus and Ruger have locks but there is no core group that wants them removed either, and I'm against Smith on principle, not fear of mechanical failure of my locked gun.
I understand that companies need profit and are based that way, and I'm not even one of the people that thinks pharmaceutical companies are evil either, when all things are taken into account. Glock and Smith seem to be almost going out of their way to ignore large groups of their customer base, Smith with the locks and Glock with their (until recently) refusal to make single stack pistols because Gaston said "they are not military items." Its taken them 30 years to get around to our market, hopefully they'll come to be a better all around company.
I understand that companies need profit and are based that way, and I'm not even one of the people that thinks pharmaceutical companies are evil either, when all things are taken into account. Glock and Smith seem to be almost going out of their way to ignore large groups of their customer base, Smith with the locks and Glock with their (until recently) refusal to make single stack pistols because Gaston said "they are not military items." Its taken them 30 years to get around to our market, hopefully they'll come to be a better all around company.
Longlosthiker
Inactive
Really? When did this happen? I have two fairly recently manufactured Rugers, a GP100 and an SP101 and neither has an internal lock.
IMO a lot of factors play into dissatisfaction with the lock.
1. It was poorly designed and implemented if for no other reason than it mars the appearance of otherwise classic firearms. S&W is in the same discussion with Colt and Winchester as iconic American firearms. We like to shoot them, but we also like to take them out and admire the craftsmanship...tougher to do with that hole staring you in the face.
I don't feel the same way about a Glock, or a Kahr, or any number of fine firearms.
This is probably why I find the locks especially egregious on S&W's "Classic" line.
2. It represents an appeasement to those who would impose Euro style restrictions on us if they could.
3. It's an answer to a non-existent problem. I have a gun safe and a bag full of trigger locks. Why do I need an ILS especially when....
4. There is potential for failure, however rare. Now, failures happen on guns without locks, but the ILS is unnecessary to the function of the gun.
I own a HK USP Compact. It's the only firearm I own with an internal lock. I would prefer it not be there, but at least it is discrete...out of sight, out of mind.
I only own one S&W, a model 64....without a lock. I just recently purchased it, and I like it alot. It's very accurate and looks great. I'm already thinking about purchasing another S&W, probably a 686...but I'll be looking to the used market again.
Longlosthiker
Inactive
I have. No locks.
My GP100 was made in 2007 and my SP101 in 2011.
I have read that Ruger has locks on some or all of their single actions and more recently on the LCRs, but there is no lock on my GP100 or SP101.
I don't like locks on principle. Locks on guns can rinder the gun an expensive paper weight when it is really needed. I am a student of the KISS principle, and extra parts only add more chances of something mechanically going wrong at the worse possible time. No, I dislike locks on principle no matter how well designed or hid.
Take even the transfer bar. Here is a 'safety' that everyone likes because it gives 'em one more round. Load 6 instead of 5. Yet, had one of these fail when I was doing tests (luckly not in a life or death situation). Then I fired a Freedom arms last summer that I could get to not fire because of the transfer bar just the way I squeezed the trigger. The guy that owned it never had a problem with it..... Anyway, for me the less parts the better. Goes for safeties as well as locks. Not needed, leave it out.
Take even the transfer bar. Here is a 'safety' that everyone likes because it gives 'em one more round. Load 6 instead of 5. Yet, had one of these fail when I was doing tests (luckly not in a life or death situation). Then I fired a Freedom arms last summer that I could get to not fire because of the transfer bar just the way I squeezed the trigger. The guy that owned it never had a problem with it..... Anyway, for me the less parts the better. Goes for safeties as well as locks. Not needed, leave it out.
Last edited:
Longlosthiker
Inactive
I'm pretty confident the feeling is mutual.
In general I agree with this, because during a (typical) republican administration there would have been no govt decree demanding it be done.
Republicans tend to focus on other things. (there are exceptions)
IF S&W had decided to put in the lock, ALL ON THEIR OWN, we would still gripe, but it would be a much different matter.
For me, it is a matter of principle. Two slightly different ones.
First is the general idea that a lock on (in) a gun is a good idea. Its not. It is a red herring, a foolish idea that at best, does nothing positive that cannot be done as well, or better by other means. And at worst can result in failure of the gun to work properly.
Second is the residual anger at the way in which the S&W lock came about. It is the tyranny of the few, masquerading as concern for safety.
Tough for me to stick to that, because I'm only interested in Smith & Wesson revolvers for the most part.
With the S&W, I have no worries (at all, in any way, whatsoever) about a mechanical failure related to the internal lock. None, zip, zero, zilch.
I like Smith & Wesson revolvers from -MY- formative years in shooting (mid to late 1980s) and I love the guns earlier than those also.
I did not care for the changes S&W made over time. Hate the horrific looking Hogue grip. Admit that the cylinder stop just makes perfectly good sense, but it doesn't look the same. Prefer the hammer-mounted firing pin. Not a fan of the ugly MIM pieces. I don't believe the double action trigger in -ANY- of their new (non-Perf Center) revolvers is acceptable. At all. I hate that double action system they are currently using.
So when I see a lock on the side of a Smith & Wesson, it may as well be a flashing red beacon in the middle of a dark night simply telling me from a distance "don't waste your time or energy, this gun is not for you."
I owned a 3"-inch Model 60 in .357 Mag for a short time, it was the only ILS-equipped S&W I ever owned. I did like that revolver... it was accurate, it seemed to ooze craftsmanship and quality and the on-board lock -NEVER- gave me any hassles. I ended up selling it because, as it turns out, I just have no use or love for J-frames. But the lock on that one didn't bother me. I took the gun in trade, I wouldn't have chased it down specifically. I thought it was a darn good revolver... but not for me.
Strikes me as principle. I have never had any problems with my S&W with the lock.
Actually I like the lock. I can lock the revolver when I leave the range. If I forget to put it in the gun cabinate locked up and my grandson drop by unexpected I do not fear a senior moment, as the revolvers are safe.
Actually I like the lock. I can lock the revolver when I leave the range. If I forget to put it in the gun cabinate locked up and my grandson drop by unexpected I do not fear a senior moment, as the revolvers are safe.
Last edited:
For me the lock on S&W revolvers is just the final nail in the coffin. They're ugly and detract from the look of the gun. So ugly, that even S&W tries to avoid showing you the lock side (left side) in catalogs and on their website.
NOBODY that I've ever heard of uses the lock...and I mean nobody. Nobody on this forum, and nobody "out there". There isn't a group of people shouting "we love the locks"...but there's an enormous group of people voicing their distaste for the lock, and yet S&W yet again chooses to ignore their customer base and put in a feature wanted by nobody.
This is absolutely political, and was since the 90's. No customer wants the lock, but S&W does so they keep it in all models just so they can say..look, we care about safety...we even have a lock on our revolvers. That's political pandering and nothing more.
Lets not forget that S&W puts the worlds crappiest finish on their new guns. Heck, they dont even attempt to try to finish the trigger or hammer (that would take effort after all). You can place a hard used 20 year old Smith net to a brand new one at any gun shop the the old one will look worlds nicer.
So..Smith doesn't listen to their customer, employes locks to appease the anti gun crowd, and makes ugly and unappealing revolvers now with quality issues. No Thanks... I'll never own a S&W again, they're junk and can go out of business as far as I'm concerned. They've already turned their back on the only group of people who support them through their purchases.
NOBODY that I've ever heard of uses the lock...and I mean nobody. Nobody on this forum, and nobody "out there". There isn't a group of people shouting "we love the locks"...but there's an enormous group of people voicing their distaste for the lock, and yet S&W yet again chooses to ignore their customer base and put in a feature wanted by nobody.
This is absolutely political, and was since the 90's. No customer wants the lock, but S&W does so they keep it in all models just so they can say..look, we care about safety...we even have a lock on our revolvers. That's political pandering and nothing more.
Lets not forget that S&W puts the worlds crappiest finish on their new guns. Heck, they dont even attempt to try to finish the trigger or hammer (that would take effort after all). You can place a hard used 20 year old Smith net to a brand new one at any gun shop the the old one will look worlds nicer.
So..Smith doesn't listen to their customer, employes locks to appease the anti gun crowd, and makes ugly and unappealing revolvers now with quality issues. No Thanks... I'll never own a S&W again, they're junk and can go out of business as far as I'm concerned. They've already turned their back on the only group of people who support them through their purchases.
MJF, there are a few new revolvers made by S&W without built in locks. granted they are very few, but maybe theyre trying to sneak them back in.....
im not brand loyal, make a gun I don't like for 15 years and loose me as a customer.... turn around and make one I do and I will buy it.
im not brand loyal, make a gun I don't like for 15 years and loose me as a customer.... turn around and make one I do and I will buy it.