Smith and Wesson revolver without lock

No internal lock.

Currently in production.

And reasonably priced.
Click to expand...

Yea. It's called a Colt Python. And that's from a lifetime Smith & Wesson guy.

enhance


At MSRP of 1500.00 it's a little higher priced than your stated preferred high price but it fits everything else. I actually paid $1700.00 for the last one I bought, but I think they're the best D/A revolver I've ever owned, and I don't even know how many I have owned over the years. I'm up to over 1,000 rounds with no problems that couldn't be taken care of with a few seconds work with a screwdriver, and that was only on one of the three I've got.

The trigger, out of the box is without a doubt the best I've handled. It just begs to be fired in double action. Normally I do most of my revolver shooting in single action but I don't think I've fired a single shot in single action from any of the three.

Like I said, I've always been a S&W guy, and I'm somewhat surprised to say it but Colt has them beat right now.
 
Last edited:
The lock hasn't been a problem on any of my newer S&Ws but there are alot of other defects and S&W doesn't exactly bend over backwards to repair them. I would suggest you find an older S&W pre-lock. There are a lot of them out there that are in very good condition. I did buy a new 642 w/o the lock a few years ago, only thing wrong with it is that it had a super-extra-hellaciously heavy main spring in it. i installed a new standard spring in it and it's good to go. The other 5 or 6 new S&W guns all have defects. The ones I've straightened out shoot well tho. I probably won't buy any more new S&W guns.
 
It is not only the lock, all the other subtle changes that S&W have made over the yaers.
All in the name of cost savings. But the cost of their revolvers has not gone down!

It seems that S&W is spending all the R&D on autoloaders that are selling like
hotcakes!
 
Don't let "days of old quality" warp reality.

The trigger and hammer are no less functional because of their metal change. Number of triggers or hammers breaking? none. So that they changed them? So what really.

If the hammer and trigger change of the S&W revolvers are an issue, the GP100 is by that definition is functionally junk being as it's cast metal all but the cylinder and barrel.

"Hand fitting" of any older revolver is the reality that parts weren't made to today's tighter tolerances. So if the metal isn't breaking in today's parts, the revolvers of today are technically created more in spec than a revolver that had to be hand fit of later years.

Also, "hand fitting" gets a mystic instead of just calling it adjusting.

The Hole is tiny. I don't know why anyone would say it's unattractive. My young eyes don't even notice it. How people who talk about their eyesight being less than my young eyes see it? okay....

What makes the revolver function without end shake and lock up has not changed.

But, the revolvers of earlier years were just SOOO much better :D

Get what you want. Just if you are reading into things you've read about the changes, most is just nonsense. A 686 of today is just as great as a 686 of yester years.
 
Last edited:
FYI, the lock is 30 years old.
Click to expand...

So?? a 30 year old insult is no less offensive because it is still being used 30 years later.

The Hole is tiny. I don't know why anyone would say it's unattractive.
Click to expand...

If you honestly don't know why, you need to do some research...

I really don't like the lock. Mainly because it doesn't look good and, more importantly, just useless junk which can break and cause a malfunction.
Click to expand...

30 years old. How many breaks have there been online? like 4?
Click to expand...

During the first few years after the lock was put in, people watched pretty closely, and there were a handful of verified instances of the lock "self activating". About 5, nation wide. Since then, nothing reported that I know of. Mechanically, the S&W lock has not proven to be a concern.

Lets be clear about this, for me (and a lot of other people) its not about the lock as an idea (one I happen to disagree with), nor is it about the idea that a lock could malfunction (which has proven to be a non-issue), its about GUN CONTROL, and the S&W lock being a constant "in your face" reminder.

The Clinton administration came up with a gun control package that included the lock, and a LOT of other things as well, including severe restrictions on sales outlets and practices. Also at this time there was a lot of noise from the Mayors of major US cities, about how they were going to sue gunmakers for the "cost of gun violence" in their cities.

The Clintons offered gunmakers a deal. They told gunmakers that if they would accept the administration's package, they would be exempted from being sued. This was a LIE, it was not something within the legal authority of the Clinton's to promise. Most Americans recognized this....

Out of all the people making guns in the US, the only one to accept the Clinton deal was S&W. And, to be fair, it wasn't exactly S&W, it was the people who owned S&W that accepted the deal, a British holding company Thompkins LTD.

The location of the lock, the change done to the look of the gun (particularly the change to the cylinder latch) was seen as a slap in the face to a significant segment of S&Ws customer base. Forget all the red herring arguments about safety, they're BS. The lock got put in to appease gun control advocates, in the belief that would CYA S&W.

NO other company did that. Or, more precisely, did it the way S&W did. Ruger put a lock in some of their models, on their own, without accepting the Clinton "deal" and all the BS that went with that. Ruger put their lock in an unobtrusive location. Somewhere it was out of sight and out of mind, if that's what the owner desired. (and, we did desire that) Another company (Taurus?) also put in a lock, and also in a not so obvious spot, again, without signing on to the Clinton "deal"

But S&W put it "right in your face" and by doing that, S&W was seen as "selling out to the Clintons" (and gun control in general).

There was a boycott. Lots of people stopped buying S&Ws, and even more refused (and to this day still do refuse) to buy one of the S&Ws with that lock in it.

S&W lost sales. Their stock "tanked". They lost MONEY, and they knew why.
The British owners sold S&W for a multimillion dollar LOSS.

The irony of the situation was that the group that came up with the money to buy S&W included the people who invented the S&W lock to begin with, and since they thought it a swell idea, they kept it, and (some) S&Ws still have it today. ALL they kept from the Clinton deal was the lock, none of the other parts of the deal were kept, and that "deal", never being law of any kind, disappeared with the end of the Clinton administration.

And the "big stick" the Clintons tried to use, the threat of endless lawsuits from the nations mayors? Never happened, either.

IIRC, Congress passed a law preventing that. Something about "Lawful commerce in firearms"....

So, for those of us who lived through those time, its not just a hole in a S&W its a reminder of govt overreach, gun control, shady deals, and one you cannot help but see every time you see the left side of the gun.

30+ years down the road doesn't change history one bit. It just means there's another generation of buyers who don't know WHY it's an insult. TO them, its "always been there" so its normal, right, and proper.

but, really, it isn't any of those....and some of us remember...
 
I have lock equipped s&w and no locks

To be truthful, I have both lock equipped and no lock Smith’s. I prefer the no lock. The model 617 I purchased had the lock, so I bought a Hilary hole plug kit and removed the lock. It’s not too bad to install even for an amateur like me. I do like the 10 shot capacity on the 617.
My older model K22 model 17-3 and model 357 magnum 19-5 have very nice factory triggers with no locks.
Nothing in today’s S&W revolver world is low cost but I suppose you pay for what you receive.
You might want to look for an older model 10. My model 10-10 bull barrel was a police trade in without an internal lock. I think I paid $289 for it about 10 years ago. It’s a fine shooter too, though sights are fixed. Doubt you’ll find a sub $300 s&w revolver today.
If you can’t find a decent used one, then buy new with lock and a Hilary hole plug kit. Of course you will void the s&w warranty when you remove the lock, but you can always reinstall the lock prior to warranty work.
Two bits.....

P.s. here’s what I call the Hilary hole plug kit.
https://www.originalprecision.com/slug-install.html
 
Last edited:
Again, in my experience the lock has not been a problem other than appearance. 686- timing issue and a skirtch on 3 chambers. 625, warped extractor, rear of bbl has a dish in it (wider gap), 629, trigger hangs at beginning of the pull, 642 bur in forcing cone, 642 #2 had an extra heavy hammer spring, 617, spits in your face some, M&P .22 Compact jams some but it's a .22 semi and they are supposed to jam some, 9MM EZ, shoots low and S&W don't care. Now, with the superior materials and machinery and manufacturing techniques one would think the guns would be better, they are not.
 
Last edited:
Your synopsis is spot on, 44 AMP. A lesser side issue when it comes to gun "safety" and/or the fear of being on the wrong side of a frivolous lawsuit (watch out how you hold that hot coffee cup) is the unsightly and in your face permanent "how to/how not to" warnings etched on the barrels or frames of the guns from several makers (I think Ruger started this but there are several companies who haven't, as yet, succumbed to the "we'll lose our fortune if we don't" paranoia, including SIG, Taurus and CZ).

But I don't hold grudges against our friends in the industry. It's helpful to understand that there are very real reasons for gun manufacturers to fear losing their businesses via class-action law suits (the country's oldest gunmaker is no more for chiefly this reason). And there is good reason to know that the lawful ownership of firearms and ammunition is at risk at the hands of people who use "safety" as a wolf clad in fleece to impose draconian gun control laws on an unsuspecting public (New York state's recent "SAFE ACT" gun "safety" law is a blueprint for more of the same).

Personally, I can't bring to mind any gun control law that has ever had a favorable impact on crimes committed with the use of a firearm nor any law promoting gun safety that was nothing more than gun control wrapped in deceit.

Beware of the anti-Second Amendment protagonists' many Trojan horses.
 
It's helpful to understand that there are very real reasons for gun manufacturers to fear losing their businesses via class-action law suits (the country's oldest gunmaker is no more for chiefly this reason)
Click to expand...

If you're talking about Remington, its demise was NOT due to lawsuits over a supposedly defective trigger, OR over their marketing of an AR class rifle. Remington survived those. What killed Remington was corporate greed.

The company that owned Remington (understand these are not the Remington mgt people) took out huge loans in Remington's name, then took off with the money leaving Remington with debt it could not support, leading to bankruptcy and the demise of Remington as a company.
 
This conversation isn’t with merit.

When I was in my conservative business undergraduate school we learned that the coffee spill required the woman to have vagina reconstruction surgery. When McDonald’s refuse to pay just the medical bills that she originally sued for that’s when the lawsuit got large. This was taught in the business school ethics class of how wrong McDonald’s was in the case they lost twice. My undergraduate program was in 2006. For some reason, people play up lawsuits for political gain and not reality. I could make 1000 cups of coffee with my Mr. coffee and never slip it to the burn of point of surgery.

The coffee lawsuit is like the s&w lock. Lots of talk, zero merit for an actual issue.
 
wild cat mccane said:
This conversation isn’t with merit.

When I was in my conservative business undergraduate school we learned that the coffee spill required the woman to have vagina reconstruction surgery. When McDonald’s refuse to pay just the medical bills that she originally sued for that’s when the lawsuit got large. This was taught in the business school ethics class of how wrong McDonald’s was in the case they lost twice. My undergraduate program was in 2006. For some reason, people play up lawsuits for political gain and not reality. I could make 1000 cups of coffee with my Mr. coffee and never slip it to the burn of point of surgery.

The coffee lawsuit is like the s&w lock. Lots of talk, zero merit for an actual issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the relationship between the coffee lawsuit and the S&W lock. The S&W lock undeniably changes the cosmetic aspect to a gun and adds a mechanical device to the gun which potentially can fail. How much the lock changes the cosmetics and how often the lock fails are up for debate.

Edit: My original thread on a backup gun was closed but I did get a Smith and Wesson .38 Bodyguard Revolver. I like it and I doubt it will be my last :)
 
Last edited:
Okay.

I just have a really hard time caring about it (myself).

It doesn't fail. No thread ever started on it failing and that's over 30 years.

And then I think....my goodness. Is that tiny lock hole really that visible? no.

Has anyone seen the alternative of the book written on the GP100 barrel? I'd take 40 holes with 40 interconnected locks over the warning on the GP100. :D
 
The cosmetic differences between revolvers with the lock versus those built before is more than just the hole on the side. There is more metal around the hammer recess area of the frame as well. It kind of detracts from the graceful lines of the original models.

Maybe its not a huge change in appearance, but I dare say if Winchester changed the trigger guard of the model 70 rifle to a squared off version, customers would be upset that the classic aesthetics had been violated.

As polymer has taken over the pistol world when it comes to utility, those that want classy blued steel and walnut don't care to see its beauty abused.
 
Maybe its not a huge change in appearance, but I dare say if Winchester changed the trigger guard of the model 70 rifle to a squared off version, customers would be upset that the classic aesthetics had been violated.
Click to expand...

As a long time hater of weird (but "fashionable") trigger guard configurations, in this context, I certainly would have my feathers ruffled.
 
Look for an 80s or 90s 586 or 686 to about -3 or -4. These should be pre lock models and very well made. The square style cylinder release and full size wood grips are pre lock models. Some of the Rubber K grip, L frame guns are pre lock and some are not. Limiting yourself to current production is a non starter. I think there is a little 640 pro model but not a good representation of a classic Smith and Wesson revolver. Some of the pre lock guns are also PRE MIM. Hammer mounted firing pin models of 686 are to my knowledge Pre Lock. Because of S&Ws politically correct changes they lost me as a potential customer a long time ago. Ruger SP101s and GP100s are wonderful revolvers in the current market. Picked up used 617 and 629 in the last decade that are pre lock. They had been out of production many years and hardly used. Used guns can be the best choice if they are what you want and were well cared for and hardly used.
 
Was upset with S&W when they caved and installed the locks on their revolvers. But, I wanted a Mountain Gun and it came with the lock. Unlocked it and used it for years; there has never been a problem. (actually, not sure where the key is! must be in my safe somewhere)

Many who didn't like the S&W lock issue were quick to cite "possibilities" of lock failure, etc. There is no evidence of that. Unless you look for it, you really don't notice the hole, frankly. So, in my opinion, the "lock issue" just rankles old timers who didn't like that S&W succumbed to pressure a long time ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top