S&W infernal lock

Not a fan of the ILS -- needless and ugly

Not a fan of ILS guns -- made of MIM parts and loose value

Big fan of pre - ILS guns -- tend to increase in value and no MIM parts -- what not to love?

Many pre-lock guns out there - the hunt is fun and most have better triggers than a new gun SO by the time I buy a new gun, work on it and or put new parts in it -- I COULD just buy and old gun.

Big fan of Ruger of late, they have made some fun / innovative / new revolvers that I have felt the need to add to the collection.

If smith were going to d/c the lock maybe start with the PC guns? Hard to understand a 1k plus custom shop gun with the ugly hole.

I suppose in time there MAY be an ILS smith that I just have to have -- in which case the ILS will be removed, and the lock hole plugged but the slot next to the hammer will likely still annoy me... I don't pay a premium price to be annoyed. A cheaper gun maybe a non-issue

I suspect eventually smith may turn course
 
Well, we know that Clinton is long gone. Bob Scott and his lock are not. He's still there on the board of AOBC. The interesting news from about three weeks ago is that ABOC has decided to split-off its other businesses and become S&W Brands while the divested parts will keep the name AOBC. They will have more options to raise capital without being attached to an 'evil' gun company. It's not clear if the new AOBC will have a different BoD, but current CEO James Debney will go with it, while Mark Smith will be the CEO for S&W Brands. Because the presently existing company consisting of gun manufacture will be renamed S&W Brands, I suspect it will also retain the current board of directors and therefore Bob Scott, and therefore the locks.
 
Additionally, a heavy double action is not "the" safety on the revolver.

To believe that statement, you have to literally forget the force your thumb exerts to rotate a heavy cylinder into single action.

It's like a sea of misinformation in this thing.
 
I have a 642 that I carried for years. My 642 (2003) came with the lock. I removed the lock because it bothered me that I could not see the locking flag so there was no external indicator on a 642 or any other concealed hammer DAO gun to show if the gun is locked.

I suspect someone sued S&W or the lawyers pointed out that a gun with a lock that had NO Visual indicator to show if locked or unlocked was a Lawsuit waiting to happen.
 
or the lawyers pointed out that a gun with a lock that had NO Visual indicator to show if locked or unlocked was a Lawsuit waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good explanation and much more likely than thinking S&W doesn't put the lock in DAO models because the "heavy trigger pull" doesn't "need" one...

The indicator has to be both visual and tactile, or you are setting yourself up to be sued. Imagine a situation where you need to use the gun, and cannot tell if it is locked or not until you try to shoot and it doesn't. Assume you actually have the key available, but don't use it because you think the gun is unlocked and it doesn't tell/show you differently!

Anyone remember the year that a car maker put an interlock in, so that you had to have your seatbelt fastened or the car would not start??

Anyone notice that they only did that ONCE?
 
I agree it is a valid concern that some "Centennial" models with locks give less of a visual indication of the lock state. However, S&W continues to sell a lot of Centennial (concealed hammer) models with locks.

The M&P 340, many 442 models, the 642, 642 Ladysmith, the 640, etc.

They do put the lock on many DAO models. But they do not offer "no lock" versions of anything but some DAO models.
 
The thing I really wonder about is what percentage of people actually use the lock. I doubt very many, if any people actually use the thing. Even people who don't have a problem with it being there most likely never use it. Would guess S&W is afraid to delete it for fear of a law suit. Once a safety device is part of a machines design I would think deleting it would leave a company more likely to be held accountable for any accident later on that coule have been avoided had the safety device not been eliminated. Just some thoughts.
 
@JERRYS (post #49): You may be thinking of TK Custom (tkcustom.com). They sell a lock delete plug for 50$. TK Custom offers the plugs in stainless, blue, or titanium. On the Smith & Wesson forum there's also a person who sells plastic plugs in either black or silver, and if I recall correctly they're quite a bit cheaper.

TK Custom also makes hammers, triggers, and rebound slides for smith's. I've bought a couple of the target hammers, and they're beautifully machined and high quality. TK's moon clip loading tool and de-mooning tool work great, too. You can load and unload moon clips without the risk of turning them into wavy potato chips.
 
Last edited:
wild cat mccane said:
Additionally, a heavy double action is not "the" safety on the revolver.

To believe that statement, you have to literally forget the force your thumb exerts to rotate a heavy cylinder into single action.

It's like a sea of misinformation in this thing.
Click to expand...

Not misinformation.

Even tho the lock is intended for storage, the mindset is that someone could leave the gun loaded cocked, similar to the old outside hammer long guns.

As for the use of MIM in guns from the same time period, MIM and it's quality, practicality and durability when used in appropriate parts of firearms has been proven over and over, and is why many more reputable gun makers than S&W now use the process.

Lock plugs, IMHO, are just as distracting as the hole. But then the hole itself does not bother me since I don't tend to spend a lot of time staring at it. I have some Rugers with the Billboard warning on the side which bothers me more than the Hilary hole, but even that does not stop me from buying one. It's pretty unnoticeable when looking down the sight plane of either of them, which is where I spend most of my time with them. As I mentioned before the reliability, triggers and accuracy are just as good on my post-lock models as it is on my prelocks. Nevr have my biggest boomers or my Airweight snubbies "accidently" locked up. They have been shot well enough rounds to prove themselves as dependable. Thus paying considerably more for a pre-lock in similar condition seems foolish to me. especially since a resold S&W has no warranty and those bought new have a lifetime warranty.
 
Once a safety device is part of a machines design I would think deleting it would leave a company more likely to be held accountable for any accident later on that coule have been avoided had the safety device not been eliminated. Just some thoughts.
Click to expand...

While this is essentially true, tis because of our court system and OMG its a GUN!!!:eek::eek:

Even tho the lock is intended for storage, the mindset is that someone could leave the gun loaded cocked, similar to the old outside hammer long guns.
Click to expand...

I don't know who's mindset that would be, other than a lawyer in court, as only a complete fool would leave any gun loaded and cocked in storage. For one thing, most of the old timers knew that leaving a gun cocked when you didn't need to, was a good way to have a gun that would not fire when you did need it. (and while this isn't true today, it was often true back then)

Personally, I don't consider a lock (requiring a separate key) to be a safety device. Other people think it is, so we will have to disagree on that point.
 
Back when the lock was officially announced I immediately went to my LGS and bought two a 6" model 629 and a 625 mountain gun in .45 Colt. both pre-locks.
Really love the Colt it's my favorite woods carry piece. These were my first S&W's as I was always a Colt fan. When I decided to retire my Python from Magnum loads I looked for a pre-lock 686 but they were scarce as hen's teeth and the ones I did find were way overpriced. Decided on a Dan Wesson 715.
A little pricey but interchangeable barrels, built like a tank, extremely accurate and no Hillary hole.
As for the Smith lock I personally would never buy a truck with a big ugly hole in it's fender.:p
 
the lock is not a safety device but rather a storage device. a safety on a firearm is something that can be disengaged immediately by the user in a life or death situation. the requirement of a tool to render a firearm operable is not a safety.
 
I guess in my mind rendering a firearm unable to be discharged to, oh say keep a young inquisitive child from accidentally shooting himself or someone else would be considered a safety device. I get though it's not a 'safety' in the sense of usability during carry. So this is how I meant it in my post.
 
I guess in my mind rendering a firearm unable to be discharged to, oh say keep a young inquisitive child from accidentally shooting himself or someone else would be considered a safety device.
Click to expand...

In that sense a gun safe, a closet with a lock and the lock on the door of your house is a "safety device". The advertisements do not call it a safety. It is a security device (intended for storage).

The biggest problem I have with gun locks is they allow people to do stupid things (such as leaving a loaded gun unattended) and still feel they are safe.

If you've got concerns, why not just UNLOAD the gun?? The whole point of a loaded weapon is instant access to a functional firearm. Got one of those guns with a lock in it? Where is it, right now? Is it loaded?? Where is the key. Right now, as you're reading this, where is the key???

Is it on you? no? ok. guess you're as safe a possible, right? I keep thinking about the a situation where you have a loaded, locked gun in your night stand, just in case...and when someone kicks in your front door or breaks a window in the middle of the night, the key is on your key ring, hanging from a hook in the kitchen....with the rest of your keys....

Not a lot of help there...

Here's another point, one about someone who would leave a loaded gun "accessible", thinking they are fine because it has a lock. They have to USE (engage) the lock or it does nothing. If you are irresponsible enough to leave a loaded gun where an inquisitive child could get it, why would I think you are responsible enough to ALWAYS have it locked???

Sure its all about what if's and we're all different some people are firm believers that the lock is a good idea. I disagree, but if you want one, fine. Just don't tell me I have to do what you do or I'm not safe.
 
I'm not sorry, but a heavy double action trigger rotates the cylinder filled with rounds and mass.

That was never a safety device or by design.

Period.

Anything else is just someone pretending "hair trigger" vs heavy trigger is a mechanically designed safety. It isn't. Otherwise, "cocking" means nothing. Additionally, a revolver always has a double action. It's either the DA trigger or the SA being pulled by the user. So no, a revolver double action weight isn't a safety. There is no way to call a double action a safety device--it's 100% required by design.

Even the Glock dingus isn't a user "safety." It is a drop safety--at 67% cocked, the mass of the gun hitting the ground can't release the striker to hit a primer in a Glock/PPQ etc because the dingus has to be depressed. It's not for safety in holstering, it's not for safety in resting one's finger on the trigger...nothing. Mechanically it is only a drop safety.

Mechanically, a double action has to rotate a cylinder in a revolver and fully cock a hammer or striker in an auto, where some partially or fully cock the striker/hammer in an auto. This is impossible in a revolver.

Spring weights can change those weights, but the weight itself is not a safety.

Any 5 year old could pull a double action trigger, revolver or auto.

Not a safety, it's mechanics.
 
Last edited:
The S&W internal lock does not require the gun to be loaded to use it.

More than 499 out of 500 5 year olds cannot pull the 14 or 15 pound double-action trigger on a Centenial J Frame. I am not claiming this makes the gun "safe" or "secure" but it is a fact.

I think it would be extremely rare to find any owner or dealer of S&W revolvers advocating the internal lock as a device useful for child safety, and I've personally never encountered anyone who uses it, ever, for any purpose. I've mentioned it before that I believe it's there because it is part of Bob Scott's legacy (former President of S&W, former President of "Saf-T-Hammer Corporation", the one who orchestrated Saf-T-Hammer's buyout of S&W, and who still sits on the board).

I wouldn't say there is no rationale behind the lock or the current-production no-lock models. The rationale is reasonable. It just doesn't consider actual customer practices. S&W is not unique in disregarding a significant amount actual customer habits in their product design.
 
More than 499 out of 500 5 year olds cannot pull the 14 or 15 pound double-action trigger on a Centenial J Frame. I am not claiming this makes the gun "safe" or "secure" but it is a fact.
Click to expand...

Where are you finding these? Mine have about an 10# smooth trigger pull. MY Model 13 and 686 are in the 6-8# range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top