Smith and Wesson internal lock
- Thread starter ATN082268
- Start date
All due to the Clinton administration to keep the feds happy. That's why all firearms sold come with either an internal lock as S&W, Taurus, Springfield, and others or they come with a cable and lock that will go through the magazine well and out the ejection port or through the barrel and out the ejection port. Older S&W revolvers without the lock will bring more money at resale.
.
If you are talking about identical models, this is correct - i.e. a pre-lock Model 627 revolver will bring about tripple what lock-models will bring. But, if you are talking about older models like the classic Model 19 (w/o lock) compared to the newer 8-round 627 (has a lock), the 627 3" fetches a higher price and tends to hold its value for good used examples.
Model12Win
Moderator
S&W has lost many sales due to the internal locks put on their new revolvers. Got to the S&W forum and just ask people how they feel about those locks. I personally would never buy a S&W with a lock on it. It is ugly, ruins the look of the guns. It is a poorly engineered design and could have been made much more discrete. The lock has also caused malfunctions on some of the lighter weight guns as well.
Their stock price says otherwise. Despite the internal locks, their stock price has more than tripled in the last 5 years. Today SWHC is trading between $21.20 and $21.45/share.
I would really like to have a 627 8-shot .357 3". The lock won't hold me back in getting one either,,,,,,price might,,,,,,,but not the lock.
Model12Win
Moderator
Please delete double post
Last edited:
I've had a few with the lock. Never had a problem with it, other than hating the hole in the side, until I bought an Airweight 642. I have had S&Ws with the lock in 357, a pair of them, 340PD and 386, and never had them lock up when firing. I had read of people having that problem, and S&W, and others denying the validity.
Well .... I bought the Airweight, immediately went into the indoor range at the LGS where I made the purchase, and within one cylinder the gun was locked up tighter than a drum. This was a lightly used piece.
I went out to the counter and the clerk took a S&W key and fiddled with the lock. Got the Airweight functioning again. I went back to the range and on the second cylinder fired it was locked up again.
I went back out to the counter ....... "It's not the lock," said the guy, 'must be something else,' if you want I'll take the sideplate off and have a look. I said do it.
When it was off, and there was nothing apparently wrong with the internals, I said do me a favor, take that damned lock out of there, and I'll never tell a soul you did. (I had my fingers crossed)
So he took the lock out and the revolver has functioned flawlessly for many rounds since. If I really want a particular model S&W, and it is only available with the lock, I will buy one, but as soon as I get it that lock is coming out.
I am 68, no kids, grandkids, and live alone. I won't worry about any legal ramifications if I get in a shooting scrape due to removing the infernal internal lock. That is my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Well .... I bought the Airweight, immediately went into the indoor range at the LGS where I made the purchase, and within one cylinder the gun was locked up tighter than a drum. This was a lightly used piece.
I went out to the counter and the clerk took a S&W key and fiddled with the lock. Got the Airweight functioning again. I went back to the range and on the second cylinder fired it was locked up again.
I went back out to the counter ....... "It's not the lock," said the guy, 'must be something else,' if you want I'll take the sideplate off and have a look. I said do it.
When it was off, and there was nothing apparently wrong with the internals, I said do me a favor, take that damned lock out of there, and I'll never tell a soul you did. (I had my fingers crossed)
So he took the lock out and the revolver has functioned flawlessly for many rounds since. If I really want a particular model S&W, and it is only available with the lock, I will buy one, but as soon as I get it that lock is coming out.
I am 68, no kids, grandkids, and live alone. I won't worry about any legal ramifications if I get in a shooting scrape due to removing the infernal internal lock. That is my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Model12Win
Moderator
S&W has a whole lineup of extremely popular semi-auto pistols, their M&P series and 1911s are well thought of and people buy lots of those. Not only that one of their pistols, the Shield, was among the top 5 selling handguns in the US during 2016. Not to mention all their AR-15 sales, the M&P-15 is one of the most common and available ARs on the market and they sell very well.
Clearly, S&W does NOT make most of their money from revolver sales, not these days. And I did not say they weren't moving revolvers. But they would be moving more of them if they got rid of the lock. Spend some time at the S&W forum and this will become abundantly clear to you.
g.willikers
New member
As easily as the lock is to remove, the issue seems to be a non-issue.
As far as the remaining "inspection hole" is concerned, there's many ways to deal with that.
Don't see the problem, other than as an excuse for forum conversation.
Now, MIM parts on the other hand.....
As far as the remaining "inspection hole" is concerned, there's many ways to deal with that.
Don't see the problem, other than as an excuse for forum conversation.
Now, MIM parts on the other hand.....
TODAY.
Today their stock price is up. Back when they introduced the lock, their stock TANKED, and the British holding company that owned S&W at the time wound up selling the company for a LOSS.
Adding the lock, to comply with the Clinton's desires (not any LAW) was seen as a betrayal of their customer base and a LOT of people stopped buying S&W revolvers to make that point. Many of us still won't buy a model with a lock, because even though making the political point is passed, we just don't like the look of it.
Ruger did it the smart way. Put in a lock, for those misguided people who wanted one, but put it where it wasn't seen, unless the owner chose to.
Look, I am more than competent to take the lock out if I I need to, and like someone said about, the hole can be easily dealt with as well. The bottom line is that S&W is the only game in town for a nice revolver. Colt makes 2 revolvers - the Single Action Army and the New Frontier - both fairly useless as defensive weapons IMHO. Ruger makes the GP100, and the LCR. The GP100 is too big for EDC and I never liked the trigger on the GP100. The LCR is a reasonable carry revolver - 5-shot .357. On the other hand, Smith and Wesson have a complete line-up of nicely made revolvers. No other gun company still makes the number and quality of revolvers that S&W makes.
No gun is perfect. The S&W Hillary hole is fixable if it causes you problems. Someone used to sell plugs for it, however I don't know if it is still available.
No gun is perfect. The S&W Hillary hole is fixable if it causes you problems. Someone used to sell plugs for it, however I don't know if it is still available.
I've had several with the lock, still have one now that I think about it. I've never used it, probably never will, but on the other hand have never really had a problem of any kind, neither physical or emotional. It's just something else on the gun. I don't even think it's any uglier than any other pin or screw in the side of the gun.
I doubt S&W has lost many sales because of the lock. For everyone who says they won't buy one, someone else steps in. They seem to sell all they make.
I doubt S&W has lost many sales because of the lock. For everyone who says they won't buy one, someone else steps in. They seem to sell all they make.
springer99
New member
IMHO, the "lock" issue is not anything to be concerned about. I own numerous S&W's, both with and without the lock and don't give any thought to them. I've never had a problem with any of mine that have the lock. Personally, although some folks remove it to install some type of aftermarket plug, I find those plugs really just call attention to themselves. Sort of warns me that "someone futzed with this gun" No thanks.
Internet rumor says that the design is flawed and can lead to in-advertent engagement, but actual, documented cases of that happening are VERY rare and appeared to be limited to a few very light-weight models. You can be certain that if it weren't so, and that it locked up a gun in the middle of an incident, our fearless legal beagles would be all over it and have S&W tied up in court for years.
Does it hurt their sales or do they use it as a tool to drive up pricing? I doubt it; some models are still sold with or without the lock but the pricing is identical which-ever way you want it. Some folks say that they'd never buy a Smith with the lock. OK, but then they just buy an older model and help drive up the cost for those that like to collect Smiths.
Hey what-ever. It does give us the chance to start a new thread about the issue every couple of weeks though. If we didn't re-hash this old turkey, what would we have to talk about.
Internet rumor says that the design is flawed and can lead to in-advertent engagement, but actual, documented cases of that happening are VERY rare and appeared to be limited to a few very light-weight models. You can be certain that if it weren't so, and that it locked up a gun in the middle of an incident, our fearless legal beagles would be all over it and have S&W tied up in court for years.
Does it hurt their sales or do they use it as a tool to drive up pricing? I doubt it; some models are still sold with or without the lock but the pricing is identical which-ever way you want it. Some folks say that they'd never buy a Smith with the lock. OK, but then they just buy an older model and help drive up the cost for those that like to collect Smiths.
Hey what-ever. It does give us the chance to start a new thread about the issue every couple of weeks though. If we didn't re-hash this old turkey, what would we have to talk about.
buck460XVR
New member
Has always seemed to be the major point against the lock. As for S&W loosing sales, while some folks trying to make the above point refuse to buy them, go to most any good gun shop and see how many S&W revolvers are on the shelf. It ain't because they aren't being made, but because S&W can't make them fast enough. This tells me the folks being put off by the lock are only a very small percentage of the market. Just as the very few problems with the lock itself have been embellished on internet gun forums, so has the idea that IL guns don't sell or sell for considerably less used than non-IL guns. Local dealer/gunsmith tells me that many of the issues folks contributed to the IL were actually other issues, such as a loose extractor rod or high primers. He has never seen a lock gun that locked itself other than those that were not properly unlocked.
This debate has been going on for many years and has yet to be settled. I doubt it ever will. Buy what you like and what you want. If the lock is that offensive to you, buy an older used model without the lifetime warranty, or settle for a Ruger. I have IL guns and non-IL guns and see no difference. Some of the models I have were never produced without the lock. I have shot tens of thousands of rounds thru IL guns from a .460 mag with heavy hunting loads to a airweight 637 with +p loads and have never had a lock engage itself. The hole or the small change in the frame never draws my eye, nor do I notice it even when my ILs and non-ILs are sitting side by side. Others feel differently and I respect that. But folks only need to justify their choices to themselves, not argue it to others.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Howdy
I really don't have a problem with the lock. I actually have two Smiths that have the lock in them. I simply have a problem with current quality and I don't much care for MIM parts.
I am a collector. Not even slightly interested in what S&W is producing today. My oldest S&W revolver was made in 1863.
No 2, Old Army, Tip Up, 32 Rim Fire.
I really don't have a problem with the lock. I actually have two Smiths that have the lock in them. I simply have a problem with current quality and I don't much care for MIM parts.
I am a collector. Not even slightly interested in what S&W is producing today. My oldest S&W revolver was made in 1863.
No 2, Old Army, Tip Up, 32 Rim Fire.
The S&W "lock" has had more lies told about it than about anything I know. Millions of people have NOT been killed because the lock jammed the gun. Tens of thousands of corpses are NOT littering the streets because their defense S&W's failed. Millions of guns have NOT been shipped back to S&W because the locks broke, jammed the guns, or caused the guns to blow up.
The fact is that a small number of lunatics decided that S&W had "betrayed" them and took revenge by spreading lies on the internet. I have heard all the stories, from blown up guns littering police ranges to S&W paying billions of dollars in compensation for "slaughtering" its customers. A few of the "concerned citizens" reportedly tried to blackmail S&W, demanding millions of dollars to "keep quiet" about S&W's "murder guns." The threat of legal action stopped that pretty quickly.
Sorry, but I own and fire S&W's with the "lock" and the last time I checked I am still alive.
Jim
The fact is that a small number of lunatics decided that S&W had "betrayed" them and took revenge by spreading lies on the internet. I have heard all the stories, from blown up guns littering police ranges to S&W paying billions of dollars in compensation for "slaughtering" its customers. A few of the "concerned citizens" reportedly tried to blackmail S&W, demanding millions of dollars to "keep quiet" about S&W's "murder guns." The threat of legal action stopped that pretty quickly.
Sorry, but I own and fire S&W's with the "lock" and the last time I checked I am still alive.
Jim
I have a new S&W and consider the lock a non issue. I could defeat the lock and if I lacked the confidence it would be an easy wait while it got done by a gunsmith. That would be foolish waste of money in my view. I would not purchase a used S&W, if I knew it was messed with. I dont want idiot owned gun. The integrity of the whole weapon would be suspect in my view.
The mechanics I did find objectionable, was the transfer bar. I really like the idea of a transfer bar for safety. The S&W implementation was a surprise. I guess it works. Little tricky to line up on re-assembly. Actually a full strip down and clean of the S&W is quite an experience. The Redhawk is easier to get apart enough for a good cleaning.
It is too bad we live in a world where newbies have to visit the web and have someone tell them what to buy. I guess, in the old days we had magazines that pimped for the sponsors. The web is more democratic.
BTW, my S&W came with a cable lock and the internal key lock - both.
I would not completely dismiss the possibility that Smith hoped some states would jump on this idea and ban all guns that lack an internal lock and give them a big sales advantage.
The mechanics I did find objectionable, was the transfer bar. I really like the idea of a transfer bar for safety. The S&W implementation was a surprise. I guess it works. Little tricky to line up on re-assembly. Actually a full strip down and clean of the S&W is quite an experience. The Redhawk is easier to get apart enough for a good cleaning.
It is too bad we live in a world where newbies have to visit the web and have someone tell them what to buy. I guess, in the old days we had magazines that pimped for the sponsors. The web is more democratic.
BTW, my S&W came with a cable lock and the internal key lock - both.
I would not completely dismiss the possibility that Smith hoped some states would jump on this idea and ban all guns that lack an internal lock and give them a big sales advantage.