S&W infernal lock
- Thread starter 5150
- Start date
jetinteriorguy
New member
I'm not sure, but maybe they are deleted on the lighter weight magnum snubs due to the amount of recoil causing the lock to engage inadvertently.
jglsprings
New member
deleted
I thought the same thing at first only to see the S&W website touting the 442 & 642 (and maybe others?) with no infernal lock. My 637 has a lock.
Sent from my Commodore 64 running Windoze 95
You may be on to something there. But if that's the case, I wonder what makes the DAOs so special? BTW, I like your signature line.
Sent from my Commodore 64 running Windoze 95
I have purchased 2 S&W 351 models lately, a 351C and a 351PD. The 351C is a DAO model without a exposed hammer. It has no Internal lock or hammer block. The 351PD is a DA/SA model with a exposed hammer, hammer block, and a internal lock. The hammer block missing from the 351C is a no brainer but I don’t understand why one or the other would or wouldn’t have the internal lock and the other not, makes no sense to me.
After the disaster of the public reaction and boycott of S&W due to their owners signing an agreement with the Clinton administration S&W stock tanked and the British holding company that owned S&W sold the company, for a loss.
I understand that some of the people in the group that bought S&W were the people that designed S&W's lock and so the feature was kept.
Over time, finally apparently realizing that not everyone who wanted a S&W wanted one with a lock, they began offering models without locks.
But rather than offer a lock or no lock version of everything, it was only certain models, and I have no idea why they picked the ones they did.
I understand that some of the people in the group that bought S&W were the people that designed S&W's lock and so the feature was kept.
Over time, finally apparently realizing that not everyone who wanted a S&W wanted one with a lock, they began offering models without locks.
But rather than offer a lock or no lock version of everything, it was only certain models, and I have no idea why they picked the ones they did.
buck460XVR
New member
I think in the real world, outside of gun forums, the lock only presents a real "deal breaker" in the market of DAO SD pieces. Get outside the realm of hardcore SD/HD, and the fear of a revolver locking up under the premise of the "dreaded lock" is not as great. Especially since the locks themselves have caused very few, if any, actions to lock up on their own. Since the action of a DAO is much harder for young children to operate than the cocking of the hammer and using the guns in SA, there is also less liability for the company.
JMTCs.
I was told that the revolvers that did not have locks are considered for police backup guns. I was told this by two different gun store owners a couple of years ago. I do not know if that is true.
I have 2 S&W revolvers, soon to be 3, that have “the lock”. A 327 Night Guard and a model 60 Pro. I have NEVER had the lock set itself when firing full house .357 Magnum loads. I trust these locks not to activate under fire. These are fairly light guns, especially the model 60 Pro.
I have 2 S&W revolvers, soon to be 3, that have “the lock”. A 327 Night Guard and a model 60 Pro. I have NEVER had the lock set itself when firing full house .357 Magnum loads. I trust these locks not to activate under fire. These are fairly light guns, especially the model 60 Pro.
I'm a S$W revolver fan, but the built-in-lock is a deal breaker for me. lots of unlocked guns out there on the used market. it is a device with the sole purpose is to disable the gun and a "tool" is needed to get the gun into action. this is not conducive with a self defense revolver.
I have a bunch of S&W's of various vintages, with and without the lock, and couldnt care less.
They all get shot a lot too, and I have yet to ever have one with a lock "lock up". Many of those guns are magnums too.
While they have the locks, Ive never put a key in one, let alone turned it, so maybe thats why. But I kind of doubt it.
While I do prefer the older S&W's, there are eras that have had their own issues that people swore they'd never buy them as well. I think a lot of all of this is just a bit of era/model snobbery than anything else.
Ill buy any of them if its something I want. Whatever it is, they all get the snot shot out of them, especially when new to me, so if theres going to be trouble, Ill know about it.
In all these years, and across all the various generations and models of their guns Ive owned, Ive only had two that were ever really trouble, and had to go back to Smith for repair/replacement. They were a 940 in the 90's, and just recently, a M&P15-22. Neither of those had a lock either.
They all get shot a lot too, and I have yet to ever have one with a lock "lock up". Many of those guns are magnums too.
While they have the locks, Ive never put a key in one, let alone turned it, so maybe thats why. But I kind of doubt it.
While I do prefer the older S&W's, there are eras that have had their own issues that people swore they'd never buy them as well. I think a lot of all of this is just a bit of era/model snobbery than anything else.
Ill buy any of them if its something I want. Whatever it is, they all get the snot shot out of them, especially when new to me, so if theres going to be trouble, Ill know about it.
In all these years, and across all the various generations and models of their guns Ive owned, Ive only had two that were ever really trouble, and had to go back to Smith for repair/replacement. They were a 940 in the 90's, and just recently, a M&P15-22. Neither of those had a lock either.
OK, I'm a snob. Probably stems from the era I grew up in, when the very idea of putting a lock on a loaded gun was considered UNSAFE, and the idea of a lock IN the gun was ridiculous.
One locked the gun IN something, one locked the ammo IN something, preferably a separate something. FOR STORAGE.
Then some bright fellow came up with the trigger lock, and oh, gee! Now I can load my gun, and put a lock on it, so its "safe". Blithely ignoring the fact that putting anything on or around the trigger of a loaded gun = unsafe.
And, if its not loaded, why bother with a lock???
The internal lock is mechanically safer than a trigger lock, I just object to the entire concept. If you load a gun, you do it because you believe it is possible that you might need to use it, without any advance notice.
I feel an unloaded, unlocked gun is better than a loaded locked gun. I think it would be easier for me (at least) to get some ammo in a gun I needed in a HURRY that it is to find, and then manipulate that little key. Especially if that key in on your key ring, hanging on a hook in another room.
A matter of perception and priorities, I suppose. I'm not in a situation where children or random strangers do not wander through my house unescorted without committing the criminal act of breaking and entering.
I see the requirement for a lock as a form of tyranny. In the way that tyranny is "new" and additional regulations. What one grows up with, one considers normal, and generally right, and proper. Its the way things are.
Go beyond that and its imposing extra burdens, without consent. (and to me thing includes the tyranny of the masses inherent in democracy) That's a form of tyranny. Maybe its for my own good, as THEY see it, but if I don't get to decide that, for myself, it's tyranny.
Seatbelts and helmets, even background checks are good ideas and one should use them, but I don't think they should be LAWS, because they weren't laws when I came of age, and just seem like an extra way for the govt to pick my pocket if I exercise my free will in a direction they don't approve of.
I do make a distinction between those kind of "safety" laws and the consumer protection type that prohibit people from cheating others, defective products, and so forth.
Now, if you are younger, and those laws, and an internal lock on a S&W have been a constant your entire life, you look at those as the normal, right and proper way, and think old coots like me are off our nut to have an issue with them.
Eventually those of us who remember when we had greater freedom to use our own judgement will pass, and no one will have any problems with what we've got now. I can't legally do a lot of the things my Grandfather could, and I expect my Grandson will be in a similar situation, though its likely he'll never realize it.
sorry for the rant, but locks are one of my "buttons". Not the lock, per se, that I can ignore, but the belief that they are needed and I'm somehow a danger to others if I don't have one....
The no lock models are chosen because they cannot be cocked and fired single action. They are exclusively the enclosed hammer revolvers ("Centennial"). The rationale has nothing to do with police "backup" weapons (which often have exposed hammer spurs and locks), but to do with small children. Small children have the manual hand-strength to cock and fire a revolver in single action. They typically do not have the strength to pull a double-action-only trigger on a Centennial J frame. My wife cannot pull a DAO j frame trigger either. Of course there are kids that can, but those same kids can also probably defeat the lock which is not intended for them, but for younger kids.
The lock never had anything to do with the Clintons. Bush was President when the locks first appeared, and the agreement Tomkins (former owner of S&W) had made with the Clinton admin. was declared by Saf-T-Hammer (new owner of S&W) non-binding, null and void before any lock-equipped revolver appeared.
It is not a "Hillary Hole," but it is closer to a "Paula Abdul" hole. Paula was the girlfriend at the time of the man who financed the purchase of S&W by Saf-T-Hammer, which then introduced the locks -- all long after the Clintons were completely out of the picture and the Bush administration had explicitly given S&W free reign to do whatever they want -- even make AR-15's.
There is no law, and there never was a law requiring S&W to put locks on the revolver. It is entirely a decision originating with Bob Scott - then President of Saf-T-Hammer (which changed its name to Smith & Wesson). Bob is still on the BoD of American Outdoor Brands Corporation (which is Saf-T-Hammer's current name). The best explanation for why the lock is there: The company that makes the hammer lock actually bought Smith & Wesson and owns and operates it. It is actually the lock company that makes the revolver now since 2001 (notice this is post-Clinton era).
Are the locks needed or necessary? Or does Saf-T-Hammer (AOBC) believe you must have one? No. They are easy to remove and I do not know of a single case where anyone was considered to have endangered anyone because they removed the S&W revolver's internal lock. You are free to remove it or leave it in. However, most customers could not practically install the lock on a revolver that was not made for it by the factory. It does make sense for the factory to install the lock and give the customer the option to remove it rather than not install it and leave the customer with no practical option to have one. Could they offer more options for customized orders from the factory or even more factory configurations than they already offer? Obviously, its possible, but it may not make business sense for S&W when considering the potential costs and liability.
The best thing for S&W customers or potential customers to do is to accept the lock as part of S&W's history -- to recognize it is the legacy of Saf-T-Hammer, the company that is S&W or "AOBC" today, and that there is no reason to resent it as having anything to do with the Clintons or any perceived or imagined transgression by anyone the customer might perceive as an "adversary." The lock is simply not the adversarial thing you might think it is. It is just a feature conceived by Bob Scott, and if you don't like it, it can be removed with nothing more than a flat-blade screwdriver. There's a 5 minute Youtube video that details the whole procedure. It's 5 minutes to do it while explaining the steps in thorough detail. Some people will still let this thing get them worked up and offended and they'll continue to talk about how Hillary ruined their life, all out of complete ignorance.
The lock never had anything to do with the Clintons. Bush was President when the locks first appeared, and the agreement Tomkins (former owner of S&W) had made with the Clinton admin. was declared by Saf-T-Hammer (new owner of S&W) non-binding, null and void before any lock-equipped revolver appeared.
It is not a "Hillary Hole," but it is closer to a "Paula Abdul" hole. Paula was the girlfriend at the time of the man who financed the purchase of S&W by Saf-T-Hammer, which then introduced the locks -- all long after the Clintons were completely out of the picture and the Bush administration had explicitly given S&W free reign to do whatever they want -- even make AR-15's.
There is no law, and there never was a law requiring S&W to put locks on the revolver. It is entirely a decision originating with Bob Scott - then President of Saf-T-Hammer (which changed its name to Smith & Wesson). Bob is still on the BoD of American Outdoor Brands Corporation (which is Saf-T-Hammer's current name). The best explanation for why the lock is there: The company that makes the hammer lock actually bought Smith & Wesson and owns and operates it. It is actually the lock company that makes the revolver now since 2001 (notice this is post-Clinton era).
Are the locks needed or necessary? Or does Saf-T-Hammer (AOBC) believe you must have one? No. They are easy to remove and I do not know of a single case where anyone was considered to have endangered anyone because they removed the S&W revolver's internal lock. You are free to remove it or leave it in. However, most customers could not practically install the lock on a revolver that was not made for it by the factory. It does make sense for the factory to install the lock and give the customer the option to remove it rather than not install it and leave the customer with no practical option to have one. Could they offer more options for customized orders from the factory or even more factory configurations than they already offer? Obviously, its possible, but it may not make business sense for S&W when considering the potential costs and liability.
The best thing for S&W customers or potential customers to do is to accept the lock as part of S&W's history -- to recognize it is the legacy of Saf-T-Hammer, the company that is S&W or "AOBC" today, and that there is no reason to resent it as having anything to do with the Clintons or any perceived or imagined transgression by anyone the customer might perceive as an "adversary." The lock is simply not the adversarial thing you might think it is. It is just a feature conceived by Bob Scott, and if you don't like it, it can be removed with nothing more than a flat-blade screwdriver. There's a 5 minute Youtube video that details the whole procedure. It's 5 minutes to do it while explaining the steps in thorough detail. Some people will still let this thing get them worked up and offended and they'll continue to talk about how Hillary ruined their life, all out of complete ignorance.
I think the Clintons most certainly had something to do with the lock.
There is a March 17, 2000 White House press release announcing the Clinton Administration signing an agreement with S&W.
That press release state several things that are in the agreement, one of which is that handguns shall have a locking device. An external lock within 60 days and an internal lock within 24 months.
You are correct there is no LAW requiring an internal lock. And I don't doubt your information that no IL model S&W appeared while the Clintons were in office. But do not hold the Clinton administration blameless, to do so is denying them their place in history.
That agreement was with Tomkins, not Saf-T-Hammer, and that agreement also prohibited S&W from making AR-15's, and magazines over 10 rounds. When Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W in 2001, Bush was president. The agreement was declared non-binding. Since the Bush administration was in place before the sale happened, and the Bush administration was amenable to tossing the agreement, don't you think Saf-T-Hammer would have checked what their obligations were under the agreement before they bought S&W? Yes, yes they would have known before the purchase that they would not be bound by this extremely restrictive agreement which had many much more severe restrictions than locks.
A Bush administration official explicitly stated the administration would "do nothing" about the agreement. Saf-T-Hammer proceeded to introduce AR-15's, the M&P pistols with higher capacity double-stack magazines, and in 2002, well after the agreement was known to be a dead-deal, null and void, they introduced revolvers with the lock.
If it had anything to do with that agreement, why would Saf-T-Hammer violate every single other term in the agreement, which included "smart guns," "ballistic fingerprinting," "cutting off certain gun dealers," "gun dealer store segregations", "restrictions on multiple sales" "required safety training for purchasers" and on and on, but keep that one? And why doesn't Saf-T-Hammer apply it to their more popular Shield?
A Bush administration official explicitly stated the administration would "do nothing" about the agreement. Saf-T-Hammer proceeded to introduce AR-15's, the M&P pistols with higher capacity double-stack magazines, and in 2002, well after the agreement was known to be a dead-deal, null and void, they introduced revolvers with the lock.
If it had anything to do with that agreement, why would Saf-T-Hammer violate every single other term in the agreement, which included "smart guns," "ballistic fingerprinting," "cutting off certain gun dealers," "gun dealer store segregations", "restrictions on multiple sales" "required safety training for purchasers" and on and on, but keep that one? And why doesn't Saf-T-Hammer apply it to their more popular Shield?
Last edited: