Listening to a lot of the complaints you hear about them around the web, and by the tone of them, Id say there is a lot of emotion involved.
Buy them, dont buy them, I could care less. "Facts" are, mine all shoot and work great, locks or no locks.
S&W infernal lock
- Thread starter 5150
- Start date
Buy them, dont buy them, I could care less. "Facts" are, mine all shoot and work great, locks or no locks.
My best guess would be that a lock company thinks a lock is a good idea, and that they thought the other parts of that voided agreement were not such good ideas.
Ruger has put locks and some of the other requirements of that agreement in their designs, even though Ruger was never a party agreeing to it, even before it was voided. I believe this was done as a preemptive measure anticipating the next time a demand for a built in lock comes around, and that if it does, it may be a law, not a voluntary agreement.
One of the biggest things that offends me about the S&W lock is the location. That location and the change to the cylinder latch shape for it is a "screaming in your face" aggravation every time I see it. Clearly just a matter of personal opinion, but quite a few people share that opinion.
Other gunmakers have put locks into their guns, in unobtrusive locations. Places that don't get "in your face" and are easy to ignore. I think its useless, but I don't get peeved at it they way I do with the S&W lock. Again, just personal preference.
I believe it was absolutely the Clinton administration that got the IL lock ball rolling, even though they were out of office by the time it showed up. Obviously they weren't the only people who thought it was a good idea, they were the political force that got things going in that direction.
"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." (LABNOTI) 
Looks like someone was Triggered!
. Let's not mention Hillary again, so we don't offend anyone.
"The lock never had anything to do with the Clintons."(Labnoti).
Hate to bust your bubble Labnoti, but the Clinton Administration DID have quite a bit to do with the lock (they took credit for it!), see below;
https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html
I guess we WILL continue to refer to Hillary pertaining to the lock.
Looks like someone was Triggered!
. Let's not mention Hillary again, so we don't offend anyone. "The lock never had anything to do with the Clintons."(Labnoti).
Hate to bust your bubble Labnoti, but the Clinton Administration DID have quite a bit to do with the lock (they took credit for it!), see below;
https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html
I guess we WILL continue to refer to Hillary pertaining to the lock.
Last edited:
I can’t stand the “Hillary hole” but I will still buy a S&W, other than a slightly gawdy, useless hole in the frame of the gun it isn't detrimental to it’s function.
Without sounding like a smart ***, I do wonder how many people that are concerned with it affecting the function of the revolver demand that their concealed carry guns have an external safety.
Without sounding like a smart ***, I do wonder how many people that are concerned with it affecting the function of the revolver demand that their concealed carry guns have an external safety.
Hate to bust your bubble Labnoti, but the Clinton Administration DID have quite a bit to do with the lock (they took credit for it!), see below;
https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html
I guess we WILL continue to refer to Hillary pertaining to the lock.
I refuted that in my post, but you either didn't read it or decided to ignore it.
So the White House press release was / is incorrect?? Are you stating that as fact, or as opinion?
The Clinton Administration proudly took credit for the locks, regardless of when the process started, hence the nexus between Hillary and the "hole"(lock). Certainly you are not denying that, are you? Probably not proper to refer to everyone on this forum who recognizes that well known fact as ignorant, but you are entitled to your opinion.
On a side note; The S&W's I own with locks, aside from being ugly, have never malfunctioned, always functioned flawlessly. Still hate them though.
The Clinton Administration proudly took credit for the locks, regardless of when the process started, hence the nexus between Hillary and the "hole"(lock). Certainly you are not denying that, are you? Probably not proper to refer to everyone on this forum who recognizes that well known fact as ignorant, but you are entitled to your opinion.
On a side note; The S&W's I own with locks, aside from being ugly, have never malfunctioned, always functioned flawlessly. Still hate them though.
Last edited:
As has been explained by S&W in its armorer classes, S&W's current position on the ILS (lock) is that it will remain on all revolvers that have exposed hammers (which a child or other unauthorized person might thumb cock into single action).
In some of the models with fully enclosed hammers (Centennials), the company decided to offer No-Lock versions. This apparently started when they were cleaning out their parts vault and decided to use some older not-yet-serialized 642-1 (and then 442-1) frames to make new production "-1 series" revolvers, which meant sans the ILS.
I was told that once those old/new production -1 J's quickly sold (only something like 3000 of the older 642-1 frames used), they decided to reintroduce both -1 Centennial models as an option in their standard catalog. Then a couple other models followed.
Both the ILS and No-Lock models sell well.
Of the several old and new S&W J-frames I own, only one of them (M&P 340) is equipped with the ILS ... and it's among my favorites.
I also own a later production No-Lock version of it, but the earlier produced ILS version of it has seen a fair amount of rounds (.357MAG & .38SPL) fired through it (think a few cases). I like it more than my No-Lock model, but that's probably because I used it as my "practice" gun as a revolver armorers. That means I've cut a couple new extractors, replaced the locking arm & spring and "deburred" it. It's acquired a lot of rubs, nicks, dings and wear. Shoots great and has a smooth trigger.
The ILS no longer bothers me.
FWIW, the last time I asked someone from S&W about the ILS remaining on ALL exposed hammer revolvers, I was told not to hold my breath of S&W corporate changing its mind to offer No-Lock models (due to advice from their legal team). Not as long as normal sales of the ILS revolvers remains within expectations and sales goals.
Never Say Never, though, as these things can change.
In some of the models with fully enclosed hammers (Centennials), the company decided to offer No-Lock versions. This apparently started when they were cleaning out their parts vault and decided to use some older not-yet-serialized 642-1 (and then 442-1) frames to make new production "-1 series" revolvers, which meant sans the ILS.
I was told that once those old/new production -1 J's quickly sold (only something like 3000 of the older 642-1 frames used), they decided to reintroduce both -1 Centennial models as an option in their standard catalog. Then a couple other models followed.
Both the ILS and No-Lock models sell well.
Of the several old and new S&W J-frames I own, only one of them (M&P 340) is equipped with the ILS ... and it's among my favorites.
I also own a later production No-Lock version of it, but the earlier produced ILS version of it has seen a fair amount of rounds (.357MAG & .38SPL) fired through it (think a few cases). I like it more than my No-Lock model, but that's probably because I used it as my "practice" gun as a revolver armorers. That means I've cut a couple new extractors, replaced the locking arm & spring and "deburred" it. It's acquired a lot of rubs, nicks, dings and wear. Shoots great and has a smooth trigger.
The ILS no longer bothers me.
FWIW, the last time I asked someone from S&W about the ILS remaining on ALL exposed hammer revolvers, I was told not to hold my breath of S&W corporate changing its mind to offer No-Lock models (due to advice from their legal team). Not as long as normal sales of the ILS revolvers remains within expectations and sales goals.
Never Say Never, though, as these things can change.
My model 637 .38 doesn't have one and my 4" model 69 44 mag does and if any safety lock was gonna be effected by recoil it would be that bad boy and it hasn't. If you have one you know what I mean. To tell the truth, I didn't even think to look for one until I read this thread. It's pretty unobtrusive. Not like the safety that Taurus put on the Rossi 92 lever guns or that monstrosity on the Heritage single actions. Those are just plain evil.
To tell the truth, I didn't even think to look for one until I read this thread. It's pretty unobtrusive. Not like the safety that Taurus put on the Rossi 92 lever guns or that monstrosity on the Heritage single actions. Those are just plain evil. So the White House press release was / is incorrect?? Are you stating that as fact, or as opinion?
The Clinton Administration proudly took credit for the locks, regardless of when the process started, hence the nexus between Hillary and the "hole"(lock). Certainly you are not denying that, are you? Probably not proper to refer to everyone on this forum who recognizes that well known fact as ignorant, but you are entitled to your opinion.
On a side note; The S&W's I own with locks, aside from being ugly, have never malfunctioned, always functioned flawlessly. Still hate them though.
That agreement was with Tomkins (former owner of S&W), not Saf-T-Hammer (the owner that introduced the locks in 2002), and that agreement also prohibited S&W from making AR-15's, and magazines over 10 rounds, it stipulated locks on all handguns and pistols, not just revolvers. It stipulated numerous very onerous restrictions on what dealers could sell, prohibitions on multiple sales, and required safety training for customers. It required smart guns and ballistic fingerprinting, and on and on.
When Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W in 2001, Bush was president, not Clinton. The agreement was immediately 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 or agreed on a price to pay Tomkins? 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. It would have been foolish of a buyer not to determine what their obligations were before they bought it. What Saf-T-Hammer determined was that they had no obligations whatsoever -- that it was non-binding AND that the Bush administration would "do nothing" about it.
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.
The reason they introduced a lock on the revolvers and not on the far more popular pistols that outsell the revolvers by a factor of more than 5 times is because Saf-T-Hammer had not invented a lock for striker-fired guns. They had invented one for revolver hammers and Bob Scott wanted it. He owed nothing to Hillary Clinton at all.
OK, I get it, the public backlash against S&W because of the owners of S&W signing the agreement with the Clinton administration causing S&W's stock to tank and Tompkins selling S&W (for a loss) had NOTHING to do with Safe-T-Hammer buying S&W and putting their lock in the revolvers...
Riiiight...
Riiiight...
Labnoti,
This was the White House Press release back on 3/17/2000;
"CLINTON ADMINISTRATION REACHES HISTORIC AGREEMENT WITH SMITH AND WESSON"
I included a link in the previous post, perhaps you missed it? The lock IS mentioned as part of the agreement. There is indeed a nexus between the Clintons and the lock.
"The lock never had anything to do with the Clintons."(Labnoti).
You are entitled to your opinion and statement... but it doesn't mean you are correct.
This was the White House Press release back on 3/17/2000;
"CLINTON ADMINISTRATION REACHES HISTORIC AGREEMENT WITH SMITH AND WESSON"
I included a link in the previous post, perhaps you missed it? The lock IS mentioned as part of the agreement. There is indeed a nexus between the Clintons and the lock.
"The lock never had anything to do with the Clintons."(Labnoti).
You are entitled to your opinion and statement... but it doesn't mean you are correct.
Last edited:
silvermane_1
New member
Exactly there 44 AMP, I think all of this "safety garbage" is unecessary as well.
Dude, I've been addressing that press release and quoting it since post #18. You're obviously not reading, but just trolling.Labnoti,
This was the White House Press release back on 3/17/2000;
"CLINTON ADMINISTRATION REACHES HISTORIC AGREEMENT WITH SMITH AND WESSON"
I included a link in the previous post, perhaps you missed it? The lock IS mentioned as part of the agreement. There is indeed a nexus between the Clintons and the lock.
"The lock never had anything to do with the Clintons."(Labnoti).
You are entitled to your opinion and statement... but it doesn't mean you are correct.
5150 said:
Heavy Triggers are often considered a passive safety because they require more effort to pull, and small children likely lack the necessary strength to pull the trigger on a stock DAO Revolver, ergo the trigger weight is likely enough that they don't feel a safety is required.
We read it, we didn't ignore it, you refuted nothing, if you're referring to the White House press release, and if you're referring to the nickname for the hole, you still refuted nothing, at best you offered an alternate nickname.
You've been addressing it, but not disputing it, or refuting it, you've simply been repeating the facts that by the time S&W put the lock in, the Clintons were no longer in office.
This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your claim that the Clintons had nothing to do with the lock.
You might make the claim that the Clintons had no direct personal involvement with he S&W lock when it appeared on the consumer level. I could accept that.
Claiming the Clintons had nothing to do with the lock is incorrect, we have historical evidence (and in their own words) that they did.
Claiming that we are not reading, ignoring, or just trolling is not correct, either.
The Clintons took public credit that, thanks to their agreement S&W pistols would have a lock. Do you dispute that?
Changes to S&W ownership, nullification of the agreement, and the Clintons being out of office before the lock physically appears only change the degree of their direct involvement. They do NOT mean the Clintons had NOTHING to do with the idea. Do you dispute that?
"Dude, I've been addressing that press release and quoting it since post #18. You're obviously not reading, but just trolling." (Labonte).
"Dude"??? Labonte, are you a millennial? Your refusal to acknowledge the facts and inference that many of us are ignorant is telling. We read your posts. We just dispute PART of it.
While Socratic Dialectic can be positive and is encouraged here, spreading half truths and ignoring facts is not. If you want to pretend that the Clintons had zero to do with the locks, fine. But please don't twist words and present your opinions and twisted version of reality as "fact", when it's clearly not. There are many people around the world who read these posts, so we strive to be accurate and truthful. If I'm wrong on something, I want to be corrected. It's how we learn. You present some good information... and some not so good. In fact... it's BS.
Calling you out on your BS is not trolling.
Do you want to rephrase and or clarify your statement pertaining to the Clintons having no connection to the lock? Don't think we dispute everything you said, only a portion of it, because its false.
This is what ruffles feathers... "The lock never had anything to do with the Clintons."(Labnoti).
"Dude"??? Labonte, are you a millennial?
Your refusal to acknowledge the facts and inference that many of us are ignorant is telling. We read your posts. We just dispute PART of it. While Socratic Dialectic can be positive and is encouraged here, spreading half truths and ignoring facts is not. If you want to pretend that the Clintons had zero to do with the locks, fine. But please don't twist words and present your opinions and twisted version of reality as "fact", when it's clearly not. There are many people around the world who read these posts, so we strive to be accurate and truthful. If I'm wrong on something, I want to be corrected. It's how we learn. You present some good information... and some not so good. In fact... it's BS.
Calling you out on your BS is not trolling.
Do you want to rephrase and or clarify your statement pertaining to the Clintons having no connection to the lock? Don't think we dispute everything you said, only a portion of it, because its false.
This is what ruffles feathers... "The lock never had anything to do with the Clintons."(Labnoti).
Last edited:
arquebus357
New member
I love the S&W revolver lockwork. The lock ruins this wonderful work of mechanical art. I worked on only one with the internal lock, if I can help it, that was my first and last experience.
Anyhow, I blame the lock on Donald Trump. He gets blamed for everything else so why not. The lock is definitely an impeachable offense !!!
Anyhow, I blame the lock on Donald Trump. He gets blamed for everything else so why not. The lock is definitely an impeachable offense !!!
Boy I sure opened up a can of worms with this thread! I can't wait for the gloves to come off and a couple of you guy lock yourselves in one of those MMA cages to settle the issue once and for all. It's sure been phun reading some of these posts.
Sent from my Commodore 64 running Windoze 95
Sent from my Commodore 64 running Windoze 95