Lock in Smith and Wesson revolvers
- Thread starter charlesc
- Start date
orionengnr
New member
This has been discussed ad nauseum.
Search is your friend.
Search is your friend.
Because this has been discussed at such great length, I'll give the abridged version: The internal lock is a mechanism built into most newer (2001-date) S&W handguns which, when activated with a provided key, disables the action of the gun and prevents it from firing. While present in both revolvers and semi-automatic pistols, the revolver version seems to be the most controversial. A lock-equipped revolver can be easily recognized because of the small keyhole just above the thumbpiece.
The lock itself was born in controversy and continues to be a point of contention with many people today. A locking mechanism of some sort was part of the infamous "Agreement of 2000" that S&W under their previous owners, Tomkins PLC, entered into the Clinton Administration with though the lock that S&W actually incorporated does not technically meet the terms of the agreement since they do not use individualized keys (a key from one ILS S&W will work in any other). The lock was not actually incorporated by Tomkins, but rather by the subsequent owner, Saf-T-Hammer, to whom Tomkins sold S&W at a considerable loss due in no small part to the fallout from the Clinton agreement.
Some people continue to view the lock as the product of the Clinton Agreement and thus dislike it because they consider it a "sellout" to gun control advocates and thus resent what it represents. Still others dislike the lock because they feel that it detracts from the aesthetics of S&W handguns. Both of those views cannot really be argued because they are purely matters of personal opinion and taste.
The largest point of contention about the lock, however, is to what degree, if any, it affects the reliability of the gun. There have been a very small number of documented cases in which the lock has caused the action of the gun to seize up under recoil without being intentionally activated by the shooter. While the number of documented cases is quite small, there are many more cases of claimed "auto lock" which cannot be verified. Some claim that "auto locks" are fairly common while others, myself included, believe that they are very rare and isolated incidents and not frequent enough to be concerned with.
Another point often made by detractors of the lock is that, even if "auto lock" is exceedingly rare, the fact that it is a non-zero probability is unacceptable and therefore ILS guns should be either avoided or have their locks disabled if they are to be used for "serious" purposes like self-defense. Others, myself included, contend that the incidence of "auto lock" is, in fact, so rare that it is no more likely to cause a S&W handgun to malfunction than any of the other parts which could potentially be broken or defective.
As a final word of caution, I warn you that discussions about the ILS frequently become less-than-civil. More often than not, discussions about the lock digress to the point that childish invectives like "Safey Wesson," "Smith & Clinton," or "Hillary Hole" are thrown about and people are accused to being "apologists" for their view. That's not to say that you can't or shouldn't discuss the issue, just be aware that some who will likely join the discussion won't be reserved or polite about expressing their opinions.
The lock itself was born in controversy and continues to be a point of contention with many people today. A locking mechanism of some sort was part of the infamous "Agreement of 2000" that S&W under their previous owners, Tomkins PLC, entered into the Clinton Administration with though the lock that S&W actually incorporated does not technically meet the terms of the agreement since they do not use individualized keys (a key from one ILS S&W will work in any other). The lock was not actually incorporated by Tomkins, but rather by the subsequent owner, Saf-T-Hammer, to whom Tomkins sold S&W at a considerable loss due in no small part to the fallout from the Clinton agreement.
Some people continue to view the lock as the product of the Clinton Agreement and thus dislike it because they consider it a "sellout" to gun control advocates and thus resent what it represents. Still others dislike the lock because they feel that it detracts from the aesthetics of S&W handguns. Both of those views cannot really be argued because they are purely matters of personal opinion and taste.
The largest point of contention about the lock, however, is to what degree, if any, it affects the reliability of the gun. There have been a very small number of documented cases in which the lock has caused the action of the gun to seize up under recoil without being intentionally activated by the shooter. While the number of documented cases is quite small, there are many more cases of claimed "auto lock" which cannot be verified. Some claim that "auto locks" are fairly common while others, myself included, believe that they are very rare and isolated incidents and not frequent enough to be concerned with.
Another point often made by detractors of the lock is that, even if "auto lock" is exceedingly rare, the fact that it is a non-zero probability is unacceptable and therefore ILS guns should be either avoided or have their locks disabled if they are to be used for "serious" purposes like self-defense. Others, myself included, contend that the incidence of "auto lock" is, in fact, so rare that it is no more likely to cause a S&W handgun to malfunction than any of the other parts which could potentially be broken or defective.
As a final word of caution, I warn you that discussions about the ILS frequently become less-than-civil. More often than not, discussions about the lock digress to the point that childish invectives like "Safey Wesson," "Smith & Clinton," or "Hillary Hole" are thrown about and people are accused to being "apologists" for their view. That's not to say that you can't or shouldn't discuss the issue, just be aware that some who will likely join the discussion won't be reserved or polite about expressing their opinions.
A very good summation, Webley.
This is the camp I'm in. While I was quite bothered at the time, and still today am slightly irked about it, for me, its the combination of its history, and the "in your face" location of the lock itself that causes me the most dislike.
I'm also in the camp that thinks that a lock in a gun is foolish, and requiring one by law or govt fiat is detestable.
I do not worry about the lock and don't object to a gun with a lock (which I won't be using) in a place that's not "in your face". The only one I have which does have a lock is a New Vaquero, and I think, if you are going to put one in the gun, that's the way to do it.
The hole in the sideplate, and the reshaping of the cylinder latch make the IL S&Ws look like crap to me. Just my opinion, but its strong enough that none of my money will be going for one of those guns, as long as I can get one without.
This is the camp I'm in. While I was quite bothered at the time, and still today am slightly irked about it, for me, its the combination of its history, and the "in your face" location of the lock itself that causes me the most dislike.
I'm also in the camp that thinks that a lock in a gun is foolish, and requiring one by law or govt fiat is detestable.
I do not worry about the lock and don't object to a gun with a lock (which I won't be using) in a place that's not "in your face". The only one I have which does have a lock is a New Vaquero, and I think, if you are going to put one in the gun, that's the way to do it.
The hole in the sideplate, and the reshaping of the cylinder latch make the IL S&Ws look like crap to me. Just my opinion, but its strong enough that none of my money will be going for one of those guns, as long as I can get one without.
bedbugbilly
New member
BOTH revolvers and semi-autos can have internal locks . . .
And not to be rude . . . but can someone please bury this poor horse? It's been beaten far too many times . . . .
And not to be rude . . . but can someone please bury this poor horse? It's been beaten far too many times . . . .
Microgunner
New member
I hold no such ill feelings concerning internal gun locks.
I have never purchased or not purchased a handgun based upon an internal lock.
It just plain means nothing to me, however, I have never engaged the lock on any handgun I own so equipped.
Two handguns I can think of off the top of my head that I own and are lock equipped: S&W 340PD and Springfield Armory EMP. Both are fine handguns.
I have never purchased or not purchased a handgun based upon an internal lock.
It just plain means nothing to me, however, I have never engaged the lock on any handgun I own so equipped.
Two handguns I can think of off the top of my head that I own and are lock equipped: S&W 340PD and Springfield Armory EMP. Both are fine handguns.
The reason that the issue won't die is that, quite simply, there a some people who just like to complain about it. While I won't name names, there are a few people I can think of on this forum and others who seem to only post when they can bash current production S&W's. That being said, I should point out that the people I'm referring to haven't posted in this particular thread yet and everyone who's posted here thus far has shown an unusual degree of civility for a S&W lock thread.
I don't have a strong opinion about the gun locks, one way or another, but I do know that when I was a new gun buyer, the many gun forum lock debate threads, caused me (and probably still cause) a fair amount of "paranoia" in purchasing my first revolver. Just the thought of a self-defense gun locking up, gives me cause for concern, but with that said, I think the Internet magnifies the "possibility" of such an event many times more than is likely in reality. Kinda like Glock kabooms, low serial number Springfield receivers blowing up, MIM, etc., etc.
Last edited:
Obambulate
New member
I just think the implementation of the lock by S&W was dumb, and they've had many years to rethink this design but chose to keep it.
Rugers have a lock, but you have to remove the grips to access it. Funny how nobody ever complains about the Ruger lock. That's because it's not in a dumb place that ruins the aesthetics.
Also, if a child picks up the locked S&W, it's obvious even to a little kid where the lock is, and that it requires a key. If he picks up the locked Ruger it's not so simple. He's got a gun where none of the controls work, and no obvious way to change that.
To S&W's credit, they have made some Centennial style J-frames without the lock. It does make for a much nicer looking gun. They should at least relocate the lock.
Rugers have a lock, but you have to remove the grips to access it. Funny how nobody ever complains about the Ruger lock. That's because it's not in a dumb place that ruins the aesthetics.
Also, if a child picks up the locked S&W, it's obvious even to a little kid where the lock is, and that it requires a key. If he picks up the locked Ruger it's not so simple. He's got a gun where none of the controls work, and no obvious way to change that.
To S&W's credit, they have made some Centennial style J-frames without the lock. It does make for a much nicer looking gun. They should at least relocate the lock.
Microgunner
New member
You're not supposed to remove the grips on a Ruger revolver to use the lock, you're supposed to remove the grip to drill an access hole that then allows permanent easy access to the lock.
This gives the owner the option of a usable lock or the appearance of no lock.
This gives the owner the option of a usable lock or the appearance of no lock.
NotMeNotYou
New member
Speaking for myself, I dislike Trigger/Magazine disconnects, a seemingly much earlier attempt to render a perfectly serviceable weapon useless.
I bought a Smith & Wesson 1917 .45 ACP replica, and, although I'm not thrilled about the lock, what bothers me more after removing the sideplate is the absolute cheap look of all the cast parts Truthfully, they look like they belong in a cap pistol.
Anyway, having seen how the lock works, it's easy enough to disable it and plug the hole.
Anyway, having seen how the lock works, it's easy enough to disable it and plug the hole.