Ok, I just recently purchased a model 649-5 .357 Smith and Wesson revolver it was manufactured in 2008 and has the locking mechanism. I also have a model 638 Airweight and it has a lock. I notice a lot of people want the pre-lock versions of these guns and sort of dismiss the ones with locks as though its some kind of big issue but never really explain why they don't like them. Why? I've owned my 638 since 2009 and carry it everyday day. Its never given me a problem what so ever so what is the big issue with the locks? BTW I'm a new member and have enjoyed reading the forums for many years now. Thank You!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Smith and Wesson Revolver locking mechanism, whats the big deal?
- Thread starter mini14gb
- Start date
this is always fun.
to be quick about it.
people dont like the locks based on the following.
-feel its a cop out to the government, done simply to make them look proactive on safety. seriously, if you only need a hex wrench to activate it, its not good because i can be a hex wrench at any walmart....
-on super lightweight guns, can sometimes be activated from recoil. but that seems to be limited to airweight magnums.
dont look right.
to be quick about it.
people dont like the locks based on the following.
-feel its a cop out to the government, done simply to make them look proactive on safety. seriously, if you only need a hex wrench to activate it, its not good because i can be a hex wrench at any walmart....
-on super lightweight guns, can sometimes be activated from recoil. but that seems to be limited to airweight magnums.
dont look right.
223 shooter
New member
Aesthetics aside , for many long time Smith revolver shooters it is simply a solution to a non-existing problem.
I recently won an online auction for a Airweight non-lock and when it arrived it was a lock version. It is back with the seller and a non lock is on the way.
I recently won an online auction for a Airweight non-lock and when it arrived it was a lock version. It is back with the seller and a non lock is on the way.
Additionally, there are recorded instances of the locks on the Smith revolvers locking at an inopportune moment, rendering the gun useless. Michael Bane talks about it in this blog post from 2007, and Mossad Ayoob also experienced a failure, that Michael references but doesn't link.
Simply googling the string "revolver lock failure" will generate more than a million Google hits. So, should you believe everything that you read on the internet? Of course not. However, the internal lock on any handgun is a "feel-good" measure that might adversely affect the usefulness of the handgun. I have several SW revolvers, a couple of 28-2s, a 66-no dash, a Model 60 and a Model 38. All of my revolvers were built before the lock was installed. My son has a 638 with the lock and he's never experienced any trouble at all.
It's simply that we traditionalists don't like locks on our guns. For that matter I'm not a fan of scandium (whateverthehell that is) and prefer my gun to have steel or aluminum frames. But, I've got my revolvers and probably won't be buying any more Smiths, unless I get a great deal on one at a pawn shop. You can bet that if I stumble upon the deal-of-the-century, a lock will torpedo the sale.
Simply googling the string "revolver lock failure" will generate more than a million Google hits. So, should you believe everything that you read on the internet? Of course not. However, the internal lock on any handgun is a "feel-good" measure that might adversely affect the usefulness of the handgun. I have several SW revolvers, a couple of 28-2s, a 66-no dash, a Model 60 and a Model 38. All of my revolvers were built before the lock was installed. My son has a 638 with the lock and he's never experienced any trouble at all.
It's simply that we traditionalists don't like locks on our guns. For that matter I'm not a fan of scandium (whateverthehell that is) and prefer my gun to have steel or aluminum frames. But, I've got my revolvers and probably won't be buying any more Smiths, unless I get a great deal on one at a pawn shop. You can bet that if I stumble upon the deal-of-the-century, a lock will torpedo the sale.
It is one more mechanical device that has the potential to fail. IF it does fail, hopefully it is not at a very unfortunate time.
These types of locks on some semi-autos have failed to where the slide cannot be pulled back to remove an unfired cartridge from the chamber. Before it can be sent back to the factory, the unfired cartridge must be removed from the chamber. If this happens to you at a range, let the RSO know and ask if there is a gunsmith at the range.
These types of locks on some semi-autos have failed to where the slide cannot be pulled back to remove an unfired cartridge from the chamber. Before it can be sent back to the factory, the unfired cartridge must be removed from the chamber. If this happens to you at a range, let the RSO know and ask if there is a gunsmith at the range.
larryh1108
New member
I say the anti-lock crowd is also the anti-MIM crowd. Yes, you can read of lock failures and MIM failures but every line of gun can have a failure at some time. Our love of guns goes back several hundred years and putting locks on guns for no other reason than the government says we have to is fixing a problem that isn't broken. Traditionalists don't like change. Most hate plastic guns and/or aluminum frames as well as the firing pin safeties. They may or may not make a gun safer but these additions are subtractions to many gun lovers. The same can be said of the MIM controversy but that is another issue discussed many times.
@Dave T
It was a legitimate question, I have some older S&W revolvers but I just had not had a problem with MY locks. I do know many people hate lawyer devices on guns so it wasn't a difficult guess to assume that was the case with the locks. I just wanted more specific reasons than lawyer tactics which was my probable assumption. I did in fact learn something about the lock issue which was news to me and information more along the lines of what I was hoping to gain with this thread.
@PawPaw
I did in fact google specific phrases regarding the locks and was surprised by how many hits came back to this lock up issue which I had not heard of. I'm sure some of these problems were misdiagnosed but certainly a few weren't and that is not acceptable in my book.
With that said I just pulled open my 638 and ground off the locking stud rather than removing the flag piece altogether so I don't have a hole in my frame. I will be doing the same on the 649 as well.
It was a legitimate question, I have some older S&W revolvers but I just had not had a problem with MY locks. I do know many people hate lawyer devices on guns so it wasn't a difficult guess to assume that was the case with the locks. I just wanted more specific reasons than lawyer tactics which was my probable assumption. I did in fact learn something about the lock issue which was news to me and information more along the lines of what I was hoping to gain with this thread.
@PawPaw
I did in fact google specific phrases regarding the locks and was surprised by how many hits came back to this lock up issue which I had not heard of. I'm sure some of these problems were misdiagnosed but certainly a few weren't and that is not acceptable in my book.
With that said I just pulled open my 638 and ground off the locking stud rather than removing the flag piece altogether so I don't have a hole in my frame. I will be doing the same on the 649 as well.
I think the "lock" issue went way beyond any defects and even beyond the point that it was government dictated and an S&W cop-out. I know for a fact that one poster lied repeatedly about problems with "the lock", and that kind of thing was unfortunately common.
The anti-lock folks didn't offer rational objections, or discuss problems, they went completely off the rails, making serious threats against the company, its employees, dealers who sold the guns, and even people who bought them. (Personal note: I tried to calm one "gentleman" down and received a death threat in return.)
I don't know what rationale could possibly explain that kind of insanity. I do know that that sort of thing has been, and will be, used by the anti-gun gang to "prove" that gun owners are nuts who should be disarmed for the good of society. I think everyone needs to think before joining in that kind of wild and irresponsible posting on an internet forum.
Remember, millions of people can read what you post, and not all of them are your friends.
Jim
The anti-lock folks didn't offer rational objections, or discuss problems, they went completely off the rails, making serious threats against the company, its employees, dealers who sold the guns, and even people who bought them. (Personal note: I tried to calm one "gentleman" down and received a death threat in return.)
I don't know what rationale could possibly explain that kind of insanity. I do know that that sort of thing has been, and will be, used by the anti-gun gang to "prove" that gun owners are nuts who should be disarmed for the good of society. I think everyone needs to think before joining in that kind of wild and irresponsible posting on an internet forum.
Remember, millions of people can read what you post, and not all of them are your friends.
Jim
James K,
Wise words indeed. I personally had no problem with the locks prior to the legitimate lock up claims from reputable sources such as Massad Ayoob, which I had just discovered and have now "fixed" in both my weapons within the last hour. I personally do not think the locks look bad nor do I have a problem with the firearms industry trying to be proactive for safety. In this instance though and after doing some google searching specific terms provided me by PawPaw, I think the Smith design is not a good design.
Wise words indeed. I personally had no problem with the locks prior to the legitimate lock up claims from reputable sources such as Massad Ayoob, which I had just discovered and have now "fixed" in both my weapons within the last hour. I personally do not think the locks look bad nor do I have a problem with the firearms industry trying to be proactive for safety. In this instance though and after doing some google searching specific terms provided me by PawPaw, I think the Smith design is not a good design.
Wisdom? Not sure about that.James K,
Wise words indeed.
I don't know what rationale could possibly explain that kind of insanity. I do know that that sort of thing has been, and will be, used by the anti-gun gang to "prove" that gun owners are nuts who should be disarmed for the good of society. I think everyone needs to think before joining in that kind of wild and irresponsible posting on an internet forum.
It would take an "insane" "nut" to design such a travesty. The people who you refer to as "gun nuts" ,in most regards, are loyal, patriotic, generous, kind, men of integrity, character, solid individuals, who have revered, respected, and admired these fine weapons for many generations. Sounds like you speak in absolutes; ranking those with a differing opinion (or common sense) as possible loose cannons.
I think this should apply to you also.Remember, millions of people can read what you post, and not all of them are your friends.
Triggernosis
New member
In my opinion, if S&W would have put the lock somewhere else less obtrusive and without an arrow saying "turn this way to lock this thing", it never would have become the big deal that it is now.
The lock itself doesn't bother me at all. I've never had an issue with any of my revolvers that have it.
The reasoning behind why it's there I do think is BS. it's not like I'm going to go protest in front of S&W HQ but it does make me wonder why there is a ridiculous lock on my handgun but not on a bottle of beer or on a car ignition.
The reasoning behind why it's there I do think is BS. it's not like I'm going to go protest in front of S&W HQ but it does make me wonder why there is a ridiculous lock on my handgun but not on a bottle of beer or on a car ignition.
A safe gun does not work.
Why stop with the lock?
You can still get sued because it might work.
Better to just break the gun altogether and make it into a boat anchor.
Then throw it into the river dramatically like the movie ending cliche because you never want to touch one of those horrid guns again.
Why stop with the lock?
You can still get sued because it might work.
Better to just break the gun altogether and make it into a boat anchor.
Then throw it into the river dramatically like the movie ending cliche because you never want to touch one of those horrid guns again.
Last edited:
Too many S&Ws were built without locks to ever prompt me to own one with a lock.
Aesthetics alone prevent me from owning one, and it isn't just the lock, but the frame contour at the rear sucks these days, as do the frame mounted firing pins.
Everyone else is free to buy anything they like, of course.
Aesthetics alone prevent me from owning one, and it isn't just the lock, but the frame contour at the rear sucks these days, as do the frame mounted firing pins.
Everyone else is free to buy anything they like, of course.
It is one more mechanical device that has the potential to fail
Exactly... Any machine can fail at any given time, why up the odds of failure with more complexity?
FWIW I have personally seen an IL fail and lock up a 325PD in a half cock over a loaded chamber. The failure put two gunsmiths in personal danger trying to fix it.
aaronerman
Inactive
Doesn't bug me one bit. However, I've never used it! So why have it in the first place, I guess?