S&W infernal lock

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?
Click to expand...

When it's OFF...:rolleyes:

I'll agree with you, the lock mechanism (when off) has no interaction with the action parts, and so has no effect on them. Easily provable, demonstrated mechanical fact.

So the people saying the lock screws up the feel of the action are voicing their perception, not a mechanical fact.

As to those who fear the lock could "activate" at a critical moment, there were a very few verified cases of the locks going on, very early on. Since then, none, so while we feel the un-needed parts could fail and render the gun unusable, we have about 20 years of thousands of guns in use without that ever being reported, so as a practical matter I wouldn't lose sleep over it at this late date.

For me, it's a combination of the look of the device chosen and the still remembered insult it created in the eyes of many people.

Yes, I'm an old guy, who does like some things the way they were, but its my money and my choice and in a free market I'm allowed to make my own choices about what I buy, and why.

And that was part of the insult of the Clinton agreement. Not that the free market could determine what was made and sold but that they would.
 
Wonder what the corporate though process is to exclusively produce revolvers that 1/2 the world hates? I get 50% of people who post here dont care. But the other 50%, should matter to s&w? What could be easier than NOT drilling a hole and omitting a couple parts? The revolver market small enough, that S&W should be picking all the low hanging fruit.
 
The 686-4 and 686-5 were the last desireable 686s and were lock free.

The 686-6 was the first to incorporate the lock and the change in the frame. There, you are corrected! ;) Regards 18DAI
 
And since then?

About zero breakages from the MIM parts found in the 686-6 that everyone who doesn't own a 686 comments about...

Meanwhile, the new 7 shot GP100 1771 is still plagued with random factory brass rims not all fitting the chambers.
 
fourbore said:
At a minimum, smith&wesson continues to supply the revolver gun lock. That is an anti-gun political statement working against gun owners.
Click to expand...
By your reasoning, anyone who supplies a 10 round magazine is making an anti-gun political statement working against gun owners. Guns like the Sig P365 are a political statement working against gun owners.
 
How is an action lock a political statement and a CA or MA-compliant model not a political statement? If a lock on a gun is a political statement, then so is a 10 round magazine because it also caters to the whims of gun control advocates -- regardless of whether the 10 round magazine is required.

We know the S&W revolver lock is not required by any law, anywhere in the US, and it never was, ever. Similarly, SIG is not obligated by any law to limit the P365 to 10 rounds. So if they put a lock on a revolver, Fourbore considers it a political statement. Why then isn't the P365's limited capacity a political statement?
 
British-owned Tomkins was clueless about US culture and they drove S&W to the brink of bankruptcy. Saf-T-Hammer (now called AOBC) bought S&W out from Tomkins and turned it into a righteous pro-gun rights company that stands today as one of the most important American manufacturers putting unadulterated gun-tech and features in the hands of citizens. No other big manufacturer is more American or understands the foundation of US gun rights and it's gun culture better than today's Smith & Wesson.

I didn't think I would make such strong statements regarding AOBC, because frankly I just think they're mostly profit-driven and I am not a "fan boy." But seriously, who is more American, and more pro-gun rights than they are?
 
However you value it or whatever it's worth to you, there are people like Jerry Miculek that seem to be very satisfied with it from long before he was ever sponsored by them and even until now he continues to demonstrate their excellent performance, features, and capability.

I'll repeat that I'm not a fan-boy. I don't think the GP100 or Super GP-100, feature-for-feature, are really inferior in any way. People have their personal preferences, and I couldn't tell anyone else what is best for them. But I think trying to ridicule the value of revolvers like either of these as if they're just some kind of cheap, rip-off junk is totally ignorant.
 
labnoti said:
I'll repeat that I'm not a fan-boy. I don't think the GP100 or Super GP-100, feature-for-feature, are really inferior in any way. People have their personal preferences, and I couldn't tell anyone else what is best for them. But I think trying to ridicule the value of revolvers like either of these as if they're just some kind of cheap, rip-off junk is totally ignorant.
Click to expand...

^^^I totally agree. Folks shied from Ruger for years because of what Bill Ruger did too, as they saw it as bending to pressure from antigunners. Most now have put that in the past. Seems most folks have done the same thing with S&W and the lock. Still, whenever either of the topics comes up, there are a few die-hards that make a lot of noise, which is certainly their right. Thing is, while they make a lot of noise on niche forums like this, where there is little participation, the sales and use of both brands in the real world, tells the real story.
 
How is an action lock a political statement and a CA or MA-compliant model not a political statement?
Click to expand...

The same way donating to a political party is a political statement and paying taxes is not.

If a lock on a gun is a political statement, then so is a 10 round magazine because it also caters to the whims of gun control advocates -- regardless of whether the 10 round magazine is required.
Click to expand...

Putting a lock ON a gun is an individual choice. Putting a lock IN a gun, and specifically the S&W internal lock is the topic.

Many of us differentiate between complying with gun control advocates whims voluntarily, and complying with the LAW when and where those whims have become law. I think you should, as well. Apples and oranges both grow on trees that have roots in common ground but otherwise are quite different.

To accurately understand what went on (and is still going on) you have to know more than just the sound-byte headlines and talking points. As Paul Harvey used to say, you need "the rest of the story".

10 round mags existed long, long before there was any kind of push for magazine capacity laws. Bill Ruger got vilified over his statement (taken out of context) about 10 round mags. People thought it a betrayal, that he was advocating for a 10rnd limit, and was in favor of banning higher capacity. Ruger didn't sell higher capacity mags to civilians, at that time, because it was Bill Ruger's choice. The connection is understandable, but not correct.

Ruger did advocate for the 10 rnd limit, yes, to protect his own business, so no it wasn't entirely from the goodness of his heart on principle alone. But the rest of the story has been forgotten, or deliberately ignored.

Congress WAS going to pass a magazine limit. 20 was too high a number to be acceptable to Congress. 10 might pass, and what was under discussion at the time was whether the limit should be 10, 8, 7, or 6 rounds. So yes, Ruger gave his opinion that 10 was "enough". And ok IF Bill Ruger is responsible for the 10rnd limit, he is equally responsible for that limit not being LESS than 10 rnds.

S&W's lock on the other hand is a different matter. There was no law looming. What was "looming" was a lawsuit by the mayors of several big cities against gun makers for the "violence their products cause". I doubt you'll find it in any historical record, but what was reported at the time and believed by many, was that the Clinton's promised gunmakers that signing on to their demands would prevent them being sued by the big city mayors. AND they also promised preference in future purchases. (something that they did not have the legal authority to enforce).

This deal was offered to all the big gun makers. ONLY S&W took it. Ruger did not. Colt did not. Remington did not. Winchester, Marlin, Browning, Sig, FN Walther, add them up, NONE of the other gunmakers doing business in the US accepted the Clinton deal. ONLY S&W. You can say Tompkins got tricked, but whether they were hoodwinked or entered into the agreement with joy in their hearts about it, the result was the same.

We felt betrayed. And S&W felt our wrath.

Note the better "business sense" that Ruger displayed at that time. They rejected the Clinton agreement, but as a cya move designed some up coming
models to include the features required in the Clinton agreement, an internal lock, an additional "hidden" serial number, a loaded chamber indicator, etc.

This so that they would have something that could be sold IF the agreement's demands ever became actual law. This was NOT seen as a betrayal, it was just smart business.

so, I'd say that if you comply with the law, choose to make your product compliant with the most restrictive laws where you hope to sell your product, its not a political statement.

Choosing to comply with gun control zealot's demands when those demands are NOT law, is a political statement, as far as I'm concerned.

It's complex, and it involves people's perceptions, as well as the facts. For those of us who lived through it, we understand. Those of you who have come along later have a difficult time understanding it the way we do.

Some do get it, and some of you just don't barking get it at all.
 
BTW, Ruger has a built in lock under the grip panel of many of their revolvers. I imagine a drop of green locktite would prevent it from being used since no one has made an aftermarket main spring block for the LCR guns.
 
Ruger has a built in lock under the grip panel of many of their revolvers.
Click to expand...

The one I had required drilling a hole through the grip panel to be able to use it (without taking the grip off)

I'd think putting locktite on it would be unnecessary.

IF the lock activates itself, the gun is DEFECTIVE and needs to go back to Ruger.

The point where the Ruger lock is relevant to the S&W lock is its location. Ruger's lock proves that a built in lock can be discrete. There for the people who want one, and invisible and easily ignored for the people who don't want one.

Its not "in your face" every time you pick up the gun. I also don't care for S&W moving the firing pin off the hammer, but that's a different thing, to me, because that change was not driven by a gun control agreement, so seeing that doesn't bring back the memories that the lock hole does.

I put rubber grips on my SA revolvers, despite some feeling that ruins the look. I've been known to put scopes on lever rifles. Some don't care for that, either. I've even converted milsurp rifles into sporters, back when they weren't "valuable pieces of history" but just common, and nearly as cheap as dirt. All those and some others are MY choice. So is not buying a S&W with that hideous un-needed hole in the side.

IF you feel differently, go for it. It's still a free enough country you can have your own opinion about some things....for now, anyway...:rolleyes:

Personally, I'd like S&W to offer lock and no lock versions and let the buying public decide for themselves which they prefer. Seems straightforward to me.
 
Look at the view count and the post cost, and yet there is almost little to no documentation of the lock "activating" without the user.

I just plunked down 660 for a new 686. I have zero concern about the lock. The keyhole is tiny.

What is more ugly than a hole in the revolver? How about S&W's child like neutron proton atom logo on the light weights.

This is more passionate politics than a discussion about a mechanical device.
 
"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." (Wildcat)

Is this forum now a place to advocate for Political Correctness?? :D
Who cares what others chose to call the lock, especially when there IS a well established connection between S&W and the Clintons? The topic was the lock, NOT what your political affiliation is, or beliefs advocating PC culture and "bad words".
Are we supposed to all start using non binary pronouns as well? :rolleyes:

"Excuse me sir, but I'm liberal."(Wildcat)

Believe and vote however you wish (:rolleyes:), but remember... this IS a gun forum.

"About zero breakages from the MIM parts found in the 686-6 that everyone who doesn't own a 686 comments about..."

I agree, that was well stated. I have several new S&W's ... ZERO issues with MIM parts or the damn lock. :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top