S&W Lock
- Thread starter Nathan
- Start date
The Kingfish
New member
Pretty sure some of their J-frames don't have the badge of shame.
Not every model on the website has a lock. Some are like this one https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-642-no-internal-lock and clearly state that there is no internal lock. I don't think any of the M&P series have locks either.
My thoughts exactly. I am not a brand loyal fan boy to anybody. There is no rational to making something that virtually nobody wants and forcing it on the buyer. There is no legal requirement. it has to be the most stubborn, stupid, wrong headed policy in the industry today.
I would make an exception for a an X frame because there is no alternative. Given a choice, say 32mag (I doubt they make and don't care, seriously), 357 or 44. Never on your life.
When it comes to my dollar, everything matters. A gun is not a shovel. Not for me. For better or worse, its an emotional connection. I dont need a whole shed of shovels. One for each kind of dirt and every day of the week.
Last edited:
Cosmodragoon
New member
I'm happily surprised to see any new guns being offered without the accursed lock. The 642 was news to me. After looking carefully at the M&P revolvers on their site, most of them do in fact come with the lock. I couldn't tell on the Bodyguard but there is an M&P 340 without it. That makes two. 
https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/mp-340-no-internal-lock
The lock remains controversial but should it? I'd say "no" but only because I think everyone should oppose it! Can anyone actually stand up and say that having that hole and arrow carving where it is looks good? On a lot of their guns, it's a bit like having a mustache drawn on the Mona Lisa.
What's worse is that it represents very bad things to a lot of gun and gun rights enthusiasts. You know, the overactive "safety" movement, the well-organized anti-gun movement, the weight of the Executive Branch being used to apply unconstitutional pressure to American businesses, the caving of an American great to this nonsense, etc. Speaking of safety issues, there have been reports of lock malfunction. Even if it's as rare as a lightning strike, that's big in a world where we are specifically carrying for situations as rare as a lightning strike!
https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/mp-340-no-internal-lock
The lock remains controversial but should it? I'd say "no" but only because I think everyone should oppose it! Can anyone actually stand up and say that having that hole and arrow carving where it is looks good? On a lot of their guns, it's a bit like having a mustache drawn on the Mona Lisa.
What's worse is that it represents very bad things to a lot of gun and gun rights enthusiasts. You know, the overactive "safety" movement, the well-organized anti-gun movement, the weight of the Executive Branch being used to apply unconstitutional pressure to American businesses, the caving of an American great to this nonsense, etc. Speaking of safety issues, there have been reports of lock malfunction. Even if it's as rare as a lightning strike, that's big in a world where we are specifically carrying for situations as rare as a lightning strike!
The Kingfish
New member
Any particular reason you choose the year 1986 as a cut off date?
I ask because I just bought a model 65-4 that came off the line in the early to mid-90's.
carguychris
New member
buck460XVR
New member
Hard to believe this is news or a surprise to anyone with even a slight interest in S&W revolvers and has been on a gun forum since before the inception of the IL. This has been hashed over and debated more than "which gun for bear?" or "Mag vs Clip". Slow news day?
Cosmodragoon
New member
I typically buy Ruger, unless I find the right price on a pre-lock S&W in good condition. That hole has been THE deciding factor on several purchases for both my wife and I. We might only account for a handful of sales but that's a handful they lost over a hole.
carguychris
New member
The transition to MIM occurred in 1996 and the ILS was introduced in 2004.Nathan said:
IIRC the company was sold to Tomkins plc in 1986, the company later vilified for making the infamous agreement with the Clinton administration, but most complaints about slipshod S&W QA/QC seem to focus on the time when they were owned by Bangor Punta, the previous owner.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Howdy
A quick check through the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson shows that the introduction of the internal lock occurred 2000-2002, depending on the model.
A quick check through the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson shows that the introduction of the internal lock occurred 2000-2002, depending on the model.
North East Redneck
New member
I have a 2009-2010 442 with the lock. My dad bought a new 442 in 2015 or 16, no lock. So yes, on internal hammer guns they are available, even in MA....
S&W's revolvers with externally accessible hammers have the ILS (or, the 'lock').
Some of their Centennial style revolvers, having internal hammers, are often offered in models both with & without the ILS.
As it was once explained to me by someone from the company (in a class), if you can reach and thumb-cock the exposed hammer of a revolver, it's going to have an ILS (lock) in the frame.
Naturally, S&W corporate may one day decide to change their mind about this, and deviate from what's been described as being advice received from their corporate legal folks, but this isn't one of those hold your breath, things.
Some of their Centennial style revolvers, having internal hammers, are often offered in models both with & without the ILS.
As it was once explained to me by someone from the company (in a class), if you can reach and thumb-cock the exposed hammer of a revolver, it's going to have an ILS (lock) in the frame.
Naturally, S&W corporate may one day decide to change their mind about this, and deviate from what's been described as being advice received from their corporate legal folks, but this isn't one of those hold your breath, things.