FoghornLeghorn
New member
Aesthetics, granted.
But resale is an important factor even if you don't plan on selling. You never know what's going to happen.
So, yeah, it's an ok thing to buy the IL Smith if resale isn't an issue.
That's a big "if."
S&W lock
- Thread starter BoogieMan
- Start date
Aesthetics, granted.
But resale is an important factor even if you don't plan on selling. You never know what's going to happen.
So, yeah, it's an ok thing to buy the IL Smith if resale isn't an issue.
That's a big "if."
S&W-Keeper
New member
I fought the lock for a while,but finally broke down and bought some with the lock.I am fortunate to have a safe full of the older Smiths as back up if I have a problem.If i don't want to look at the lock I just put a piece of masking tape over it.Seriously I must have 6 or 8 with the lock,and have never had a problem.
Sheikyourbootie
New member
I have a little more than 30k rounds through my 627 without a single failure. Just got her back from Apex Tactical for it's 30k tune up...they replaced the rear sight blade that I broke while hunting, removed the end-shake, and slicked up the trigger.
The lock was removed on day one, since I had an issue with my 340 PD locking up on me at the range from the internal lock that USED to be in that weapon.
The lock was removed on day one, since I had an issue with my 340 PD locking up on me at the range from the internal lock that USED to be in that weapon.
I just bought a new S&W 686 3" with the lock. I own two other 686's - from 1984, and 1986, I bought new.
I've got about 200 rounds through the new piece. So far, I don't care for the trigger feel. It's a little "grindy" just before hammer fall. But I don't know if it's because of the internal lock, or the fact that it's a 7-shot (my others are 6-shots), or the fact that it's just new and needs to break in.
At any rate, it shoots nice and straight - I make a nice, tight little pattern at 10 yards.
I basically like the piece. But if I had my way about it, I'd rather it not have the lock. Hell, I've had it only 2 weeks and I'm not sure what I've done with the key lol.
I've got about 200 rounds through the new piece. So far, I don't care for the trigger feel. It's a little "grindy" just before hammer fall. But I don't know if it's because of the internal lock, or the fact that it's a 7-shot (my others are 6-shots), or the fact that it's just new and needs to break in.
At any rate, it shoots nice and straight - I make a nice, tight little pattern at 10 yards.
I basically like the piece. But if I had my way about it, I'd rather it not have the lock. Hell, I've had it only 2 weeks and I'm not sure what I've done with the key lol.
There are many things in life I can live without, a wind up lock on a gun is one of them. There are plenty of good pre lock S&W that I can buy and shoot, I just dont see why they will offer some guns with and others with out. As a consumer I would like to have the decision left to me, not a lawyer. Make both models and see what one sells better.
SecurityGeek
Inactive
Given today's legal climate in most areas, if I had a self-defense revolver with an internal lock I would not remove it for any reason. I would hate to go to court after using the weapon in legitimate self-defense and risk an anti-gun prosecutor making a big issue of my "removing a factory-installed safety device". While anyone in the know would see right through this BS argument, I would not trust that a randomly-chosen dozen of my fellow citizens would get it. Same would hold true on a 1911 grip safety, for example.
If you have a lock, keep it. If you don't, even better. If you're worried about the lock, buy a model without one.
If you have a lock, keep it. If you don't, even better. If you're worried about the lock, buy a model without one.
Sheikyourbootie
New member
I have two friends who are deputies that have 340pd's as backup guns (ankle rigs). They BOTH have had me remove their internal locks, after my 340pd locked up at the range. One of them was with me and watched as I took the gun apart, right there at the range... his response was, "here...get that $h!t out of my gun too."
The internal lock is NOT a "safety device"...it's a storage device. Removing parts from a defective design is no different than having your gunsmith add a longer firing pin (for reliable ignition), smoothing out a trigger, or adding all the tacti-cool crap that people like to hang all over their guns these days.
Deaf Smith
New member
I have both 642 and 340SC with the locks.
I have shot the 642 alot, and I use it for my practice gun so the 340SC is carried alot, shot seldom.
But I have maybe put 100 rounds through the 340, maybe 20 .357 magnums, and so far not one problem with either. And I use the .357 Corbon DPX 125 gr. load in it for carry.
But I never use the locks, not even to see if they work.
Now you can this. Open the insides and take EVERYTHING out. When doing so you will notice the spring that makes the lock works. Put in a heavier one so the little lock is very hard to turn with the key. Re-assemble and shoot.
That will make it almost impossible for it to flip on (in fact very hard to turn it on even with the key.)
That way you don't disable the lock, just make it very stable under magnum loads.
Deaf
I have shot the 642 alot, and I use it for my practice gun so the 340SC is carried alot, shot seldom.
But I have maybe put 100 rounds through the 340, maybe 20 .357 magnums, and so far not one problem with either. And I use the .357 Corbon DPX 125 gr. load in it for carry.
But I never use the locks, not even to see if they work.
Now you can this. Open the insides and take EVERYTHING out. When doing so you will notice the spring that makes the lock works. Put in a heavier one so the little lock is very hard to turn with the key. Re-assemble and shoot.
That will make it almost impossible for it to flip on (in fact very hard to turn it on even with the key.)
That way you don't disable the lock, just make it very stable under magnum loads.
Deaf
WildBill45
New member
The last two revolvers I have purchased, with my 638 being the last, have locks. I don't worry much about them, but, I would rather have less parts, and anything that COULD EFFECT FIRING not needed, gone... PERIOD!
I have two of the newer S&W revolvers, the Model 21 & 22 Classics. I bought them simply because I liked them. The classic lines of these revolvers have a certain nostalgic charm. Both are tack drivers and I sure wished my Beretta 92 could hit with the same accuracy as my Smiths.
Do I like the lock? Nope, but I really love the look and feel of revolvers enough that they were worth every penny and have no regrets whatsoever about buying them and would do so again.
Do I like the lock? Nope, but I really love the look and feel of revolvers enough that they were worth every penny and have no regrets whatsoever about buying them and would do so again.
Anyone actually LIKES the lock?!
Funny how when this tread started and the moderator said to expect "rant-and-rage sessions" I thought this is going to be a fight of two groups -pro and -against. But so far we are on the page three I haven't seen one singe post stating "Yes, I have the lock and I like it. I find it useful and well worth it." Even the most experienced and calm members say something like "It doesn't bother me, there are other parts of the gun I am concerned more with."
So, is there anybody out there who would actually prefer to have a gun with a lock rather than the one without just for the sake of lock?!
Funny how when this tread started and the moderator said to expect "rant-and-rage sessions" I thought this is going to be a fight of two groups -pro and -against. But so far we are on the page three I haven't seen one singe post stating "Yes, I have the lock and I like it. I find it useful and well worth it." Even the most experienced and calm members say something like "It doesn't bother me, there are other parts of the gun I am concerned more with."
So, is there anybody out there who would actually prefer to have a gun with a lock rather than the one without just for the sake of lock?!
buck460XVR
New member
I'd rather not have the billboards on the barrels of my Rugers, but it didn't stop me from buying them. When Remington came out with the key lock on their trigger guard it did not stop me from buyin' them. Same goes for the lock on my S&Ws. Some models and calibers were not produced before the locks came out. If you want one, you take 'em with the hole. Some folks spend too much time lookin' at their guns from the side and not from the back.
Cosmodragoon
New member
I've owned and currently own S&W guns but no revolvers yet. I ordered a 686 Plus Pro a while back but who knows when it will show up. I gritted my teeth and bore the lock because in every other way, this was my ideal .357. We'll see if it ever fails but is that really the issue we've all got with it?
Of course, a locking fail could mean the difference between life and death. Even if it is less likely than being struck by lightning, it's the fact that they gave us a raincoat with an antenna in the first place. The cons should be obvious to anyone, with or without an engineering degree. In most cases, every added part or step is an added chance for failure. This is true of the assembly within a firearm which, like the frame of your house or car, hinges life and safety on structural and operational integrity. I compare the lock to taking main support beams for your house, sawing them down the middle, and reattaching them with folded hinges. So, why did they do it? What purpose does it serve? Has anyone on this forum ever used it?
Aesthetically, it is more than just an eyesore in itself. An earlier poster hit the nail on the head when they noted the location. The ugly hole and directional printing is crammed up against an otherwise attractive moving part. Even if the above argument fails, how hard was it to put this in a discrete location?
It also must increase the cost of production as it is an extra feature. What philosophy of business says that increasing the cost of production while saddling customers with something they don't want is good?
After saying all that, it might seem silly that I've ordered one. It was months ago and I honestly wasn't thinking too deeply on the lock when I placed the order. The other thing is that I haven't seen any other current production .357 that I like better. So, we'll see how it goes.
In the mean time, there may be some positive news. I was talking with a customer service guy at S&W. He said that they are aware of customer sentiment and that future revolvers are likely to move away from the lock. He suggested I check out the 442 Moonclip with no lock that's in current production. Maybe when the gun budget recovers--if I haven't been mauled by a bear with a locked-up gun in my hand before then--I'll pick one up.
Of course, a locking fail could mean the difference between life and death. Even if it is less likely than being struck by lightning, it's the fact that they gave us a raincoat with an antenna in the first place. The cons should be obvious to anyone, with or without an engineering degree. In most cases, every added part or step is an added chance for failure. This is true of the assembly within a firearm which, like the frame of your house or car, hinges life and safety on structural and operational integrity. I compare the lock to taking main support beams for your house, sawing them down the middle, and reattaching them with folded hinges. So, why did they do it? What purpose does it serve? Has anyone on this forum ever used it?
Aesthetically, it is more than just an eyesore in itself. An earlier poster hit the nail on the head when they noted the location. The ugly hole and directional printing is crammed up against an otherwise attractive moving part. Even if the above argument fails, how hard was it to put this in a discrete location?
It also must increase the cost of production as it is an extra feature. What philosophy of business says that increasing the cost of production while saddling customers with something they don't want is good?
After saying all that, it might seem silly that I've ordered one. It was months ago and I honestly wasn't thinking too deeply on the lock when I placed the order. The other thing is that I haven't seen any other current production .357 that I like better. So, we'll see how it goes.
In the mean time, there may be some positive news. I was talking with a customer service guy at S&W. He said that they are aware of customer sentiment and that future revolvers are likely to move away from the lock. He suggested I check out the 442 Moonclip with no lock that's in current production. Maybe when the gun budget recovers--if I haven't been mauled by a bear with a locked-up gun in my hand before then--I'll pick one up.
carprivershooter
New member
no big deal
I own 3 686s with the internal lock. Do I use them? No. Do I mind the little whole in the frame? no. Will I not buy another Smith & Wesson? Yes. Just because a gun has a lock does not mean it will fail just at the exact moment you need it, hell any gun could fail at the exact moment you need it. No tool is 100% fool proof and not break. The internal lock just does not matter one way or the other. I have shoot hot load through mine rapid fire and all I got was a sore hand and shoulder.
I own 3 686s with the internal lock. Do I use them? No. Do I mind the little whole in the frame? no. Will I not buy another Smith & Wesson? Yes. Just because a gun has a lock does not mean it will fail just at the exact moment you need it, hell any gun could fail at the exact moment you need it. No tool is 100% fool proof and not break. The internal lock just does not matter one way or the other. I have shoot hot load through mine rapid fire and all I got was a sore hand and shoulder.
mlcompound
New member
I have never had a problem with a 637 airweight (when i had it). I locked it a couple times just to see how it worked. I have also never had a problem withy pre lock model 60. Although, I have had several rounds of factory ammunition fail to fire (heavy primer strike and all). Therefore, I refuse to buy any new ammunition manufactured before the date of the first round that failed. 
S&W has never admitted that the lock ever failed by locking up from recoil, but they very quietly changed the lock so it can't do what it didn't do.
I never use the lock, but then I have no small children or unauthorized persons in the house, so I see no problems. Still, I can see situations where its use would be appropriate. Oddly, it seems the heat on locks has been directed at S&W, while locks by Ruger, Taurus and others have been ignored.
Jim
I never use the lock, but then I have no small children or unauthorized persons in the house, so I see no problems. Still, I can see situations where its use would be appropriate. Oddly, it seems the heat on locks has been directed at S&W, while locks by Ruger, Taurus and others have been ignored.
Jim