S&W lock

B

BoogieMan

New member
I have one like most of you do. To me its only been a little bit of an eye sore. Is there a issue with them? Can they be removed? Ant reason to remove? Im just curious as so many mention the pre-lock revolvers.
 
First of all, most of us don't have them. The people I shoot with and converse with about S&W revolvers refuse to buy one of the later Smiths.

Yes they can be removed and I'm told there is a plug available somewhere on the internet to fill up the un-sightly hole. Then you have a hole with a plug in it on the side of your frame.

There have been claims that the ultra-light guns with the plug have locked up when maximum loads are fired through them. Those that say this are immediately doubted by those who don't mind the lock and defend S&W for having the bloody things in the first place. Since I've never owned one of them I can't say for sure, one way or the other.

Dave
 
That should start off one of those frothing-at-the-mouth, rant-and-rage sessions once again. Hang on for a bumpy ride.

Jim
 
Don't buy the new revolvers, JUNK! You're gonna' spend the same getting the good old stuff anyway! Buying a new Smith with MIM parts and locks is treasonous!
 
The lock isn't my favorite, but I do own a Smith & Wesson 637. I've never engaged the lock and I've never had any issues with it.

While I don't discount every story about them locking up unexpectedly, I do believe that it is very, very rare.

They can be removed and you can buy a plug to fill the hole that is left.

Personally, if you like the gun, buy it. You'll likely never have any problems with it.
 
Another argument for older Smith revolvers. I've never bought a new one, and every one I've bought has been superb. Still have two as my only handguns, one 1990 and one 1966. Trust both implicitly.
 
I own a lock gun, 460xvr. So far I have only fired about 40 rnds through it. But if it doesnt lock up on full house 460 loads I dont know what it would take. Being as I am new to the whole revolver thing I am no expert.
I was just wondering what the whole lock issue was. Seems as though its a purist thing to me. Which is fine.
 
Lordy.

I'll be contrary. My own Lock-infested 686 has 70k+ hard round through it, and The Lock's been a non-issue. Get what you like - but whatever you get, shoot it a bunch if you want to become a shooter.
 
I have a 642 with the lock. No problems so far, but I'm sure based on the Internet that it will lay in wait until that one time I need the gun and will then choose to self-lock.
 
Never had a problem with the lock, but I do the decreasing quality, unfortunately the 500 magnum is new, so there's not one built like the old ones, fortunately I have the first model, they could put a stronger spring in them if they insist on keeping them,
 
My biggest complaint is the location. Taurus and Ruger gave it a little more thought. The person who dropped the hole in the side of the Smith definitely revealed to us his passion for revolvers.
 
They offer the 642, 442, and a few other models new with no-lock. If you have the choice, get one without the lock. But there's no reason to say don't buy ANY new Smith when they give you the option.
 
I have owned a couple of them I do not like them but never had a problem with them. I have shot at least 1000+ rds in all of them.

I have thought about having the locks taken out but "If it isn't broke don't fix it" comes to mind.

I just haven't found another revolver I like better and feel more secure with a new revolver then an old one.
 
Have one on my 686+ The "Hillary Hole" doesn't bother me as I don't see it when I'm shooting.

Hell, I don't even know where the key is to the thing.
 
I consider the IL to be ugly and unnecessary. So far I have avoided owning one with the lock. I did purchase a S&W 351c of recent vintage, which was very nicely made and has no IL. I would consider more new Smiths if they would discontinue the lock.
 
I think it is much ado about nothing. A few reported cases out of hundreds of thousands of guns and people go nuts. Just because there is a possibility of something happening it does not mean it is likely. If we all lived our lives preparing for the unlikely simply because it is possible, we would all wear helmets to protect us against meteors. Heck, many people do not have fire extinguishers and there is a much great chance of fire than a lock not working on your gun. :)

Most of you are probably not old enough to remember the outcry when Glocks first hit the U.S. market. They were considered plastic guns that would break, the plastic would crack and could not work right because they did not have a lot of parts. There were stories of them exploding due to an early problem with the use of reloaded .40 cal ammo. They were devil guns and you had to be crazy to buy one. Heck, I did not buy one until 2 years ago because all polymer guns had left such a negative image in my head from the early days. To this day, most of my guns are all metal. I am sure that in the future, locks will be a non issue too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top