wild cat mccane
New member
and I'm informing, if every 5 year old couldn't pull a revolver double action trigger, it has absolutely nothing to do with safety by design.
S&W infernal lock
- Thread starter 5150
- Start date
jetinteriorguy
New member
I was merely giving a possible reason why S&W doesn't delete the lock, not advocating the use of a lock or any particular type of safety or lock on a firearm. That's always a personal choice.
They don't make them like that anymore. Tell the truth, yours are all 25 years or older, aren't they?
I'd bet 99 of 100 of us here on the revolver forum do not like the lock for whatever purpose the damned thing was intended. And I'm one that hates it too....that said, between my sons and I, we have 3 Smith's in our safes that have the Cursed IL...and none of the the Cursed IL's has yet to lock up the gun due to recoil or any other reason, BTW.
It's a useless feature I'll readily agree, and surely not a 'safety device'...but those 3 Cursed IL equipped Smith's are right up there with their predessors for accuracy and SA trigger pull. Between the three of us, my sons and I currently own 19 S&W's not counting the auto's. While the three with the Cursed IL do sport heavier DA trigger pulls, there's no denying their inherent accuracy. YMMv Rod
It's a useless feature I'll readily agree, and surely not a 'safety device'...but those 3 Cursed IL equipped Smith's are right up there with their predessors for accuracy and SA trigger pull. Between the three of us, my sons and I currently own 19 S&W's not counting the auto's. While the three with the Cursed IL do sport heavier DA trigger pulls, there's no denying their inherent accuracy. YMMv Rod
berettaprofessor
New member
a) I can't believe it took me this long to see the annual "I hate the S&W Lock thread."
b) Please, everyone, don't refer to it as the "Hillary Hole." I get nightmares from even thinking it.
b) Please, everyone, don't refer to it as the "Hillary Hole." I get nightmares from even thinking it.
wild cat mccane
New member
The S&W lock is greater than half my age.
I have heard zero first hand accounts of issues on the internet where anyone could fabricate a story to prove their hatred for it.
686 triggers are just the same as when they were 686-5.
It's all just internet nonsense.
Interestingly, I have NEVER heard of a Taurus lock EVER locking. Their physical lock is on the hammer.
I have heard zero first hand accounts of issues on the internet where anyone could fabricate a story to prove their hatred for it.
686 triggers are just the same as when they were 686-5.
It's all just internet nonsense.
Interestingly, I have NEVER heard of a Taurus lock EVER locking. Their physical lock is on the hammer.
wild cat mccane
New member
"Hillary Hole" is pretty petty and disgusting.
It's a lock.
I don't respect people who say that. Factually wrong to boot. That language confirms what people have to say about some segments of gun owners.
Yeah. Don't lock this thread just cause I said that...
It's a lock.
I don't respect people who say that. Factually wrong to boot. That language confirms what people have to say about some segments of gun owners.
Yeah. Don't lock this thread just cause I said that...
first, Taurus isn't in the same class as a S$W. next, the recoil direction/motion of the S$W is what allows [theoretically] the lock to engage itself. the Taurus lock rotates sideways to engage, their guns simply do not recoil in that direction. in both examples, the built in locks do nothing to help the gun shoot better. I've never seen a video of the lock engaging itself [no video exists anywhere], only a few people have claimed to see it happen. with all the things that can still disable a properly maintained gun, a device made solely for that purpose is not welcome.
wild cat mccane
New member
It takes an unhealthy level of suspicion to think S&W knows this happens, shooters/buyers know this happens (even at all), and S&W is the top revolver seller.
Kinda makes you wonder what side is probably wrong on this subject.
I buy zero percent that the lock changed the 686 feel at all. Pure nonsense.
Comparison videos can't show it because it is all nonsense.
The lock has zero impact on the action.
Kinda makes you wonder what side is probably wrong on this subject.
I buy zero percent that the lock changed the 686 feel at all. Pure nonsense.
Comparison videos can't show it because it is all nonsense.
The lock has zero impact on the action.
This got me thinking a bit, since I don't own one, what does the lock actually DO and not do??
So, I asked a friend, to see if he could find out. He asked the question at a local gun shop, interestingly, NOBODY knew! The owner, two counter guys and a couple of customers, ranging in age from early 30s on up, over a century and a half of experience between them and nobody knew exactly. My friend said it was rather funny, all having the same confused look on their faces.
SO, a test was needed. There was a model 36 with its key in the case. Owner said the majority of used S&W's they take in don't have the key with them).
With the hammer down, the gun can be locked and the lock prevents the hammer being cocked. The cylinder can be opened and closed. The trigger can be pulled and moves a little bit but then stops. The gun could ALSO be locked with the hammer COCKED. To me this is a bad idea, but that's just me...
No S&W allows the cylinder to be opened with the hammer cocked, that's normal. But being able to lock the gun (possibly loaded) with the hammer cocked just seems to me to be a poor idea.
SO, no, using the lock doesn't require that the gun be loaded. Still don't know why anyone would do it that way, though....
wild cat mccane
New member
What the lock does is have zero impact on the action of the trigger.
Yep. Zero.
Yep. Zero.
wild cat mccane
New member
Knowing that the S&W lock has no play with the 686 action and is 20 years old, you'll start to see how uniformed people can be about this subject while sounding like experts.
A prejudiced comment that might have an ounce of truth, I think revolvers tend to draw an older crowd that is specifically attuned to a world outlook that everything was better in the past--like always. Fine. MIM parts aren't as good as sold steel. In practice is that true? Have you ever heard of a 686 MIM trigger breaking? no. Do these MIM parts change the feel of the 686 action? That would be impossible. So no.
Perfect example of people repeating this at glocktalk today:
https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/s-w-686-vs-gp-100-unfluted-cylinder.1800894/
A prejudiced comment that might have an ounce of truth, I think revolvers tend to draw an older crowd that is specifically attuned to a world outlook that everything was better in the past--like always. Fine. MIM parts aren't as good as sold steel. In practice is that true? Have you ever heard of a 686 MIM trigger breaking? no. Do these MIM parts change the feel of the 686 action? That would be impossible. So no.
Perfect example of people repeating this at glocktalk today:
https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/s-w-686-vs-gp-100-unfluted-cylinder.1800894/
Last edited:
S&W went out of business in 2001 as far as I'm concerned. The last new S&W I purchased was a Performance Center pre lock 586-5 L-comp. In 2000.
Even if they didn't have the idiot lock, their designs are ugly and their QA/QC horrendous. Hell, they can't even put the barrels on straight anymore.
I've bought my last S&W and could care less what the current company calling itself s&w makes or does. And I'm not alone in that sentiment, based on customers comments that come into the shop I work in.
Regards 18DAI
Even if they didn't have the idiot lock, their designs are ugly and their QA/QC horrendous. Hell, they can't even put the barrels on straight anymore.
I've bought my last S&W and could care less what the current company calling itself s&w makes or does. And I'm not alone in that sentiment, based on customers comments that come into the shop I work in.
Regards 18DAISad but true. I have first hand experience as a recent revolver purchase. That lemon got me doing some research. I learned about BOTH the company lack of quality and selling out to gun control politics. I could think about buying from a company with a quality products on the wrong side of my politics. I might support a maker selling low quality crap if they were using the money to support my 2nd A rights. But s&W is wrong on both.S&W went out of business in 2001 as far as I'm concerned. The last new S&W I purchased was a Performance Center pre lock 586-5 L-comp. In 2000.
Even if they didn't have the idiot lock, their designs are ugly and their QA/QC horrendous. Hell, they can't even put the barrels on straight anymore.
I've bought my last S&W and could care less what the current company calling itself s&w makes or does. And I'm not alone in that sentiment, based on customers comments that come into the shop I work in.
It is tough now, because Ruger quality has dropped. While never a premier builder they were a good solid value. I am glad I got mine. Feeling bad for the current buyers. As stated there are a lot of great used guns. And revolvers are out of favor. That maybe the only hope. Lot of good older product out there. Used Smiths bring good money, used Rugers remain a great value. Colt was never a fair value option in my book. The only company I would endorse today is the Uberti replica revolvers.
Tomkins sold out to gun control. How did the current S&W or "AOBC" do so? I'm not being argumentative. If they did, I want to know about it. What I see is they immediately started producing high-capacity M&P pistols, added AR-15's to their product line, added their best-selling Shield to sell millions of pistols to civilian concealed carriers, and besides that, they betrayed all the dealer/retail-level controls that Tomkins had apparently agreed to. Have they transgressed somewhere?
9ballbilly
New member
I don't begrudge anyone their feelings or opinions.
I personally wouldn't own a S&W with the internal lock. Partly because being a mechanical device it canfail, and failing at the wrong time could be bad. Mostly though, I just don't like the way they look. I wouldn't buy a Winchester rifle with the receiver safety either.
I personally wouldn't own a S&W with the internal lock. Partly because being a mechanical device it canfail, and failing at the wrong time could be bad. Mostly though, I just don't like the way they look. I wouldn't buy a Winchester rifle with the receiver safety either.
At a minimum, smith&wesson continues to supply the revolver gun lock. That is an anti-gun political statement working against gun owners. And eventually the demogods will get control and this can be an easy regulation to require locks using S&W as an example of how easy it works. Ruger put a lock on some revolvers and a remnant cast is visable under the grips. Ruger is not forcing an unwanted feature on the market or encouraging the libs to act against us. Big difference.
wild cat mccane
New member
Excuse me sir, but I'm liberal. I would also put my handgun collection and gun knowledge against most.
Noticed how no one has corrected me when I said the S&W lock doesn't have any interaction with the action and therefore can't hurt the mechanical action quality from the 686-4 to the current 686? Cause I know what I'm talking about. I also was the first to say this thread was a sea of wrong information.
If you want to know what hurts the gun community, it's tribalism WITHIN the gun community against responsible people on both political sides.
Yeah. Serious.
Noticed how no one has corrected me when I said the S&W lock doesn't have any interaction with the action and therefore can't hurt the mechanical action quality from the 686-4 to the current 686? Cause I know what I'm talking about. I also was the first to say this thread was a sea of wrong information.
If you want to know what hurts the gun community, it's tribalism WITHIN the gun community against responsible people on both political sides.
Yeah. Serious.