Playboypenguin
Moderator
What ever happened to S&W phasing out the internal locks? I have not heard any new information or seen any other sources reporting as to when and if it is going to happen.
S&W's "phasing out" of internal locks?
- Thread starter Playboypenguin
- Start date
Shadi Khalil
New member
450, I don't get. Can you explain?
No, I think he's referring to the rumor that got pretty wide circulation several months ago that S&W was going to drop the internal lock. Massad Ayoob had an article in one of the gun mags that may have been the original source, and I think it also gained some traction because S&W released a run of no-lock 642s around the same time (I got two of them). Turned out not to be the case, and it looks like the lock is here for the foreseeable future.
supergas452M
Moderator
As big a manufacturer as S&W is they just have to be PC. I cant see a major change anytime soon.
I must say however, I would never hesitate to buy a S&W gun I wanted. They make great guns and their customer service is second to none.
I must say however, I would never hesitate to buy a S&W gun I wanted. They make great guns and their customer service is second to none.
Smith & Wesson used to frequently or maybe not so frequently make special runs of some of their models to fill some large order that called for something slightly different. I currently have a Model 10, tapered or light barrel, 4", and round butt. The firing pin is frame mounted. So it's recent. However, the hammer has the cuts for the lock but there is no lock or even a hole for the key.
I have also had one, don't remember which model, that had a 4 1/4-inch barrel. I also had a blued model 10 with a 3" barrel but with an underlug like came on the Model 65LS. In fact, it was identical except for the caliber and the finish.
Actually, none of this is particularly unusual as it has been the custom for years for large distributors to have made something a little unusual like that and I imagine most all commemorative guns come about like that, only all the unusual ones I've had were more or less plain.
I have also had one, don't remember which model, that had a 4 1/4-inch barrel. I also had a blued model 10 with a 3" barrel but with an underlug like came on the Model 65LS. In fact, it was identical except for the caliber and the finish.
Actually, none of this is particularly unusual as it has been the custom for years for large distributors to have made something a little unusual like that and I imagine most all commemorative guns come about like that, only all the unusual ones I've had were more or less plain.
Ton of bad info here.
First, CA has nothing to do with the locks on Smiths. CA does not require internal locks on firearms.
Second, S&W has been independently owned since 2001.
"Our wholly owned subsidiary, Smith & Wesson Corp., was founded in 1852 by Horace Smith and Daniel B. Wesson. Mr. Wesson purchased Mr. Smith’s interest in 1873. The Wesson family sold Smith & Wesson Corp. to Bangor Punta Corp. in 1965. Lear Siegler Corporation purchased Bangor Punta in 1984, thereby gaining ownership of Smith & Wesson Corp. Forstmann Little & Co. purchased Lear Siegler in 1986 and sold Smith & Wesson Corp. shortly thereafter to Tomkins Corporation, an affiliate of UK-based Tomkins PLC. We purchased Smith & Wesson Corp. from Tomkins in May 2001 and changed our name to Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation in February 2002. We strive to build upon Smith & Wesson’s legacy as an authentic American brand known for innovation and new product design and embodying customers’ sense of heritage and independence." http://ir.smith-wesson.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=90977&p=irol-sec&control_selectgroup=Annual Filings
"Business portfolio In the early part of the year we disposed of our interests in Food Manufacturing in Europe and the USA and we sold the garden products businesses, Murray and Hayter. After the year end we also completed the exit from the Professional, Garden and Leisure segment of our business with the disposal of Smith & Wesson."http://www.tomkins.co.uk/tomk/ir/reports/2001/
First, CA has nothing to do with the locks on Smiths. CA does not require internal locks on firearms.
Second, S&W has been independently owned since 2001.
"Our wholly owned subsidiary, Smith & Wesson Corp., was founded in 1852 by Horace Smith and Daniel B. Wesson. Mr. Wesson purchased Mr. Smith’s interest in 1873. The Wesson family sold Smith & Wesson Corp. to Bangor Punta Corp. in 1965. Lear Siegler Corporation purchased Bangor Punta in 1984, thereby gaining ownership of Smith & Wesson Corp. Forstmann Little & Co. purchased Lear Siegler in 1986 and sold Smith & Wesson Corp. shortly thereafter to Tomkins Corporation, an affiliate of UK-based Tomkins PLC. We purchased Smith & Wesson Corp. from Tomkins in May 2001 and changed our name to Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation in February 2002. We strive to build upon Smith & Wesson’s legacy as an authentic American brand known for innovation and new product design and embodying customers’ sense of heritage and independence." http://ir.smith-wesson.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=90977&p=irol-sec&control_selectgroup=Annual Filings
"Business portfolio In the early part of the year we disposed of our interests in Food Manufacturing in Europe and the USA and we sold the garden products businesses, Murray and Hayter. After the year end we also completed the exit from the Professional, Garden and Leisure segment of our business with the disposal of Smith & Wesson."http://www.tomkins.co.uk/tomk/ir/reports/2001/
Last edited:
Not exactly. The page you linked to doesn't have that information. Here's the info from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_and_wesson#Acquisition_by_Saf-T-Hammer
Playboypenguin
Moderator
So I am taking it that the "exclusive" report that the locks were being phased out seems to have been in error. That really is too bad. Maybe S&W was floating the info to see what the reaction would be. 
On another board, Mas Ayoob stated that attributing the rumor of the locks demise to him, was incorrect. IIRC someone read about S&W dropping the lock in a Wikipedia entry and ran with it.
I would not count on the IL being around for good. The S&W fanboys also chanted that the two piece barrel was, "an improvement, and here to stay".
Well, S&W just announced this week that they are dropping the two piece barrel on the model 64 and model 67, and returning to one piece barrel construction. Perhaps the other "innovations" will be discarded as well.
Be nice to see a new construction S&W worth owning. Regards 18DAI.
I would not count on the IL being around for good. The S&W fanboys also chanted that the two piece barrel was, "an improvement, and here to stay".
Well, S&W just announced this week that they are dropping the two piece barrel on the model 64 and model 67, and returning to one piece barrel construction. Perhaps the other "innovations" will be discarded as well.
Be nice to see a new construction S&W worth owning. Regards 18DAI.
azsixshooter
New member
I'd love to get a nice S&W .357 snub, but the only means I have to protest their forcing of the hillary holes on us is to not give S&W any of my business until the locks become an optional feature permanently, exactly as they should be if even kept at all.
After all they carp on about how reliable the guns are anyway, why don't they force them on cops? Because they're feeding us a load of crap and I guess in their minds cops' lives are more important than private citizens' lives.
If less people supported S&W they would be forced to abandon this BS policy of gun-control-by-proxy (ensuring private citizen's receive lower quality firearms, the locks are the tip of that iceberg) or face going out of business. Who cares if they went out of business? I would think other companies would absorb their talent pool and their firearms would get better because of it. And the anti's would lose a partner in the war on armed citizens.
If I didn't feel so angry towards S&W for forcing this crap on us I would buy one with the lock, have it removed and fill in the ugly hole with some steel bedding compound or something like that. But I'm not giving them any money for anything at all and I wish more people would boycott them until they show some loyalty to freedom-loving people. I just recently read a chapter in "To Ride, Shoot Straight and Speak The Truth" where Col. Cooper expressed his disgust in the attempts at making a weapon so safe that it becomes useless. I immediately thought of the infernal lock.
If there is anything that gets me riled up it's this division among gun-owners over the infernal lock issue. I don't see why anyone would support S&W even if they don't care about the lock or even want one. The issue is freedom of CHOICE and S&W obviously doesn't want to provide private citizens with it. I'm shocked that more gun-owners don't fight this tooth and nail. If we want to encourage S&W to lose the lock then we need to stop giving them any business at all.
And educate all these new shooters on why it's even an issue at all, many of them don't know any better and accept what they are force-fed.
After all they carp on about how reliable the guns are anyway, why don't they force them on cops? Because they're feeding us a load of crap and I guess in their minds cops' lives are more important than private citizens' lives.
If less people supported S&W they would be forced to abandon this BS policy of gun-control-by-proxy (ensuring private citizen's receive lower quality firearms, the locks are the tip of that iceberg) or face going out of business. Who cares if they went out of business? I would think other companies would absorb their talent pool and their firearms would get better because of it. And the anti's would lose a partner in the war on armed citizens.
If I didn't feel so angry towards S&W for forcing this crap on us I would buy one with the lock, have it removed and fill in the ugly hole with some steel bedding compound or something like that. But I'm not giving them any money for anything at all and I wish more people would boycott them until they show some loyalty to freedom-loving people. I just recently read a chapter in "To Ride, Shoot Straight and Speak The Truth" where Col. Cooper expressed his disgust in the attempts at making a weapon so safe that it becomes useless. I immediately thought of the infernal lock.
If there is anything that gets me riled up it's this division among gun-owners over the infernal lock issue. I don't see why anyone would support S&W even if they don't care about the lock or even want one. The issue is freedom of CHOICE and S&W obviously doesn't want to provide private citizens with it. I'm shocked that more gun-owners don't fight this tooth and nail. If we want to encourage S&W to lose the lock then we need to stop giving them any business at all.
And educate all these new shooters on why it's even an issue at all, many of them don't know any better and accept what they are force-fed.
Innovative !! Regards 18DAI.Are the locks part of the deal that S&W made with the devil, uh, that is, the Clinton administration? Make "safer" guns, tell people how dangerous your products are, keep closer track of who the guns are being sold to than the law requires, and we won't try to sue you into oblivion? The "agreement" was still in place during the Bush years, but they chose to not enforce it.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
That is actually a big misconception. The internal locks came about as a result of gun buyers boycotting S&W to the point that they were sold to a company the added the locks. The deal with the Clinton administration did not require internal locks. This is a case of gun owners shooting themselves in the foot . The actual agreement dealt mainly with background checks and "including" locks with all guns (and some mention of developing a gun that could only be fired by it's owner which never saw the light of day). Building them into the guns in the manner they were was the bright idea of Safe-T-Lock.
Last edited:
azredhawk44
Moderator
+1. How is the S&W 2 piece barrel any different than a DW barrel? Genuinely curious.
I never understood this gripe that shooters have to S&W changes. I like the cosmetics of recessed cylinders, but never understood the barrel fetish. 'Splain Plz.