Is the complaint about built in locks on principle, or mechanical?

My understanding of the lock situation is that when we boycotted S&W, after the British owners forced production with the lock, and S&W stock tanked, the Brits sold S&W for a serious loss.

However, the people who bought S&W were the people who designed the lock, or very closely associated with them, and the lock stayed.

I think (not sure) S&W has changed hands since then, but the lock is still in production, despite the clear message to S&W that a good percentage of us don't like it.
 
Just sayin'...

I've only purchased one new S&W revolver and unfortunately, it has the lock.

I've picked up a bunch of used k-frames over the years, though. They're fabulous. And they're readily available at prices less than the new less desirable lockers.
 
Smith & Wesson is dead to me. If I wanted a gun just like the stainless 629 I bought in the early 80's, I'd have to buy one of their crap models, have the lock removed, the side plate filled and reground, new cylinder latch, the hammer and trigger removed, everything properly polished, and reassembled. That would be about 2 grand on top of the $900 they're already asking for these garbage, souless, scratched to hell Clinton Lockers. No thanks...I'll keep shooting my 1911's...and not the crap sort of looks like 1911's S&W churns out with their crappy external extractors. REAL 1911's. The type S&W could make if they weren't so damn lazy. Go out of business already S&W....we don't like you anymore.
 
Well, that's a pretty lame little jab you laid down...

Your creativity was on a lunch break when you didn't even think to suggest that he had a litany of Springfield 1911 pistols, which actually have a manually operated key-lock that is far more on-topic to the discussion. :p;)
 
Well, that's a pretty lame little jab you laid down...

Your creativity was on a lunch break when you didn't even think to suggest that he had a litany of Springfield 1911 pistols, which actually have a manually operated key-lock that is far more on-topic to the discussion.
__________________
Click to expand...

aren't those in the MSH which can be switched out easily enough that a novice can do it with nothing more than a small punch and a small hammer? far different than the built in locks being talked about here I think.
 
So there!

smokinggun.jpg
 
I was under the impression the locks aren't safeties as per a handgun safety. I don't think the gun will eve be carried with the "safety" on and then "unlocked" to get it into action. It's more of a storage lock. You know, "it's for the children"...
 
Can you point a "locked" gun at someone and show them the key as the reason it's not an actual threat? Just kidding, it's locked.
It's gormlessness transfered into metal form, and I can see it. It's principle.
 
aren't those in the MSH which can be switched out easily enough that a novice can do it with nothing more than a small punch and a small hammer? far different than the built in locks being talked about here I think.
Click to expand...
So... you're talking about a novice that already has on hand... ANOTHER main spring housing? Would it happen to have a main spring already installed? Will he need another spring? Mainspring cap? Cap pin? What about the retaining pin for the housing? Perhaps he can re-use those parts from the original Springfield part he disassembled, since it's "so easy that a novice could do it...", assuming that the OEM Springfield part with an on-board lock that most folks have never disassembled may or may not come apart quite so easily?

Really. :rolleyes:
 
Is the complaint about built in locks on principle, or mechanical?
Click to expand...

For me it's mostly principal. The mechanical element is simply that it is completely un-necessary so it is an added complication and cost that offends me.

I reluctantly bought a S&W with the IL because it was the only way to get a large bore revolver light enough to carry (I have a disability problem that complicates carry for me). I immediately installed "The PLUG". That added expense, over and above what ever having the bloody IL there in the first place added to the gun's cost, kind of ticked me off.

I also don't like the stupid two piece barrel. Another un-necessary complication and added cost. All these added costs made the new gun priced over $1000. I bought the one I have used and saved a couple hundred.

So, it's both mechanical and the principles enumerated above.

YMMV,
Dave
 
I have an acquaintance who had issues with his S&W lock engaging, or nearly engaging, while shooting it, making it uncertain whether he would be able to continue firing. This he said happened more frequently than he would like.

I very much would like to disable said locks on my revolvers, and may open up the side panel to see if it can be done.
 
I have an acquaintance who had issues with his S&W lock engaging, or nearly engaging, while shooting it, making it uncertain whether he would be able to continue firing. This he said happened more frequently than he would like.

I very much would like to disable said locks on my revolvers, and may open up the side panel to see if it can be done.
Click to expand...

How did he know it was the trigger lock? Either it locked up or it fired.

I have had guns where one had a weak return spring and another was new and had chambers that were not quite long enough for some ammo and no room for a crimp to layout. If the cylinder closed at all, it was reluctant to rotate.

Again his might have been a trigger lock but probably not if he was firing at all after noticing something didn't feel right.
 
I have had guns where one had a weak return spring and another was new and had chambers that were not quite long enough for some ammo and no room for a crimp to layout. If the cylinder closed at all, it was reluctant to rotate.
Click to expand...
I'll add that I've seen all sorts of problems blamed on the lock that had nothing to do with it. I wonder if that's where a lot of the malfunction stories come from.

While the possibility for issues certainly exists, I can't envision how the lock would cause bent ejector rods, chipped hands, or poor timing.
 
MJFlores wrote:


Posts: 291 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.
Click to expand...


Whew ! ... Feel better after all that ? If you read the posts you might have seen where I posted that I like the locks. You have your opinion, and it strikes me as a very strong one, but there are other opinions out here.
 
How did he know it was the trigger lock? Either it locked up or it fired.
Click to expand...
I don't know how he knows this. Neither do I know whether the lock partially engaged. Nonetheless, I find him to be credible. Learning from his experience, I would like to disable the locks on mine if I can do it correctly.
 
Last edited:
didnt the whole gunindustry admit the issues from the sw locks only happen in very specific lightweight revolvers shooting onoy the most hyper powered light weight bullets and massive speed?


the hate i believe now is simply in "im mad because the safety is in the side plate. and i have to buy a small 50 dollar kit to remove it, plus i have to take the gun apart to do so"

while those with other styles say taurus" i just turns the lock off" or "i just replaces teh hammer with one that doesnt have it"
 
I have an acquaintance who had issues with his S&W lock engaging, or nearly engaging, while shooting it, making it uncertain whether he would be able to continue firing. This he said happened more frequently than he would like.

I very much would like to disable said locks on my revolvers, and may open up the side panel to see if it can be done.

There are several Youtube videos on disabling the lock by removing the lock mechanism. If you do a search you'll find a few very well put together vids. I even read where someone makes a small plug that screws right in to fill the hole, although if it were me I'd screw in a plug and file it flush with the surface, then bead blast the entire gun to blend everything in. Point is, you can undo the lock and get rid of the ugly hole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top