The Million-dollar question about the Smith & Wesson lock

There is no mystery and the facts were well known at the time. IIRC, the story, much abbreviated, goes like this.

Andrew Cuomo, then Clinton's HUD secretary and a fanatic anti-gunner, was crusading against guns, especially easily concealed small revolvers. He first threatened Colt with lawsuits intended to bankrupt the company. Already losing money on their small guns (Cobra, Detective Special), Colt folded and just stopped making all its double action revolvers.

S&W was in better financial shape and tougher but, faced with the full power of the federal government, unfriendly courts, and the potential of losing millions in hostile lawsuits, they finally gave in and signed an agreement with the feds. It called for a number of changes in their sales policy and in the guns themselves, specifically the installation of some form of locking device that could be engaged to keep unauthorized persons (mostly children) from using the gun. (Other companies were also coerced to install a lock, but most managed to make them less conspicuous than the S&W method.)

S&W set out to redesign their line to accommodate a lock. In the meantime, the anti-gun Democrats lost the next election and the new (Bush) administration indicated it would not hold S&W to the agreement, even though the company did make some other changes in their sales policies. AFAIK, the agreement is technically still in effect, since any contract by a company is automatically assumed by a successor company.

Then S&W changed hands, but with the agreement still in effect, even if not being enforced, and the major re-tooling costs already done, S&W went ahead with the lock.

Many gun owners saw the lock as a "sell out" (even though the new company had no part in the agreement) and really went after S&W, in often extreme ways. Swearing never to own another S&W product was common, and a valid method of complaint. But at least one person threatened to blow up the factory, and another said he would kill S&W employees and dealers. Rumor had it that federal warrants were served on some web sites to identify posters and some people were arrested, but I can't confirm that.

Is the above accurate? Perhaps not, but it is the way I recall it. Maybe others will comment.

Jim
 
--IF-- you can get past anything/everything else about the lock, and your -ONLY- real roadblock is concern over the lock somehow engaging itself...

...please stop worrying and go enjoy a great revolver.

It's almost absurd how many guns today employ internal locks, but S&W revolvers are the only ones that have folks thinking they'll engage themselves.
Click to expand...

S&Ws are better than ever. The lock is a minor annoyance that I rarely or never actually think about or let annoy me. I enjoy my S&W handguns and the lock makes no difference. And no, they do not accidentally engage themselves.
 
Is the above accurate? Perhaps not, but it is the way I recall it. Maybe others will comment.
Click to expand...
It is, with one modification. Saf-T-Hammer, the company who manufactures the locks, is the owner of Smith & Wesson. They have gone on record a couple of times saying they have no intention of honoring the Clinton agreement.

Additionally, the agreement was supposed to be administered by HUD of all agencies, and they have no interest in enforcing it.
 
While I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I have never understood the whole "ugly" thing about the lock. To me it's no uglier than any other pin or screw in the side of a gun. <shrugs> Just something else there.

I've owned a couple of S&W's with the lock. They never bothered me a bit. I might buy another one one if that 44 mountain gun at my LGS doesn't get out of there soon.
 
I have a model 18 with the lock. If I was asked to choose to keep it or make it disappear I would choose the later. With that said, I hardly notice it. I do think it stands out a bit more on stainless guns but I never worry about its function. Of course with a K-frame in .22lr there is almost no recoil.
 
Taurus has these locks as well. But I have never even seen this brought up? Only a smith? Seems funny. I guess I look at my wife for beauty an shoot my guns.
 
Tom, those locks could be made by anyone, they are just a few not very complex pieces of metal. But they are not something you buy and put on, like a padlock, they are an integral part of the revolvers. S&W had to modify (at great expense) their forging dies and their production tooling to accommodate them. And they did that before Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W, so it seems unlikely that Saf-T-Hammer forced S&W to buy their locks or that they are only installed because the new owner supposedly profits from them. BTW, again IIRC, the patents are in the name of S&W, not Saf-T-Hammer, which has patents on a totally different system, the two piece hammer that gave the company its name.

As to the agreement, regardless of anyone's current intent, it is (AFAIK) still technically in effect and could be enforced at any time this or another administration might choose to do so.

Jim
 
The only time I've ever known of the lock on a S&W accidentally activating was with my 637 and that was my fault because I reassembled the internals incorrectly (it was later fixed by S&W free of charge, btw) after taking it apart completely. As long as you trust the construction of S&W, I don't see why there would be a lack of faith in a lock that, other than add a black dot to the gun, does absolutely no wrong to the gun. Plus, it adds the convenience of being able to lock the gun without needing a traditional lock :thumbup:
 
JMO... Not a big fan of Lock&Wesson, but I really enjoy gazing upon the sweet lines of an original. The S&W logo does not make it an S&W. They claim on their website the new "classics" are an improvement over the originals????

Each model, known for its legendary performance, has been enhanced with modern advantages. They are the timeless best of both worlds – Smith & Wesson Classics.

Sorry, but I wasn't born yesterday, and though my eyesight is fading, I can still recognize a bouquet of plastic flowers. I even tried looking at them through rose colored glasses (thinking it might help me see better). Didn't do a dang bit of good... I still saw a big hole.
 
Last edited:
Not a very good photo, but I have a 686 snub that has a stainless steel plug in place of the Internal Lock. Lock removed=no chance of accidental lock up.

I would not carry this gun if it still had the IL, as I frequent several gun forums, and have heard first hand accounts of at least 4 incidents where IL locked up under recoil.


 
I find it rather amusing. Some say look at that big hole. If it were the hole the bullet was exiting from, the same people would say look at that tiny hole.
 
James K pretty well covered the history, but left out a few points, which I feel are important to understanding what happened, and why.

The Clinton "agreement" included (among other things) not just changes to the guns (lock, hidden serial#, loaded chamber indicator where possible, etc.) but also changes to how the guns were sold. One of those changes was a requirement to prohibit anyone underage from even being in the store area where handguns were sold. (and you tell me how a manufacturer is supposed to manage that!)

Any way, the agreement was voluntary. The carrot was, that a bunch of big city mayors was getting ready to sue each firearms maker, because of the "cost of gun violence" in their cities. Makers who signed on to the agreement would not be sued. Also, it was hinted that those who signed on would be given preferential treatment in future govt purchasing contracts (something which had it been done would have been illegal).

The owners of S&W at that time were a British holding company (Thompkins LTd, or something like that). THEY are the ones that signed the agreement with the Clinton administration. And they were the only "gunmaker" who did.

We saw this as a betrayal. There was a boycott of all new S&Ws. Sales tanked, S&W stock tanked, and the Brits wound up selling S&W for a considerable loss.

The people who bought S&W were the people who designed the internal lock, and so it stayed in their models. A lot of us still won't buy a S&W with that lock (aka the Hillary Hole). I'm one of that crowd.

I have no beef with a built in lock, I think they are stupid, but that's a different matter. What I hate in the "in your face" location of the S&W lock. (and the change in the shape of the classic cylinder latch to accommodate the Hillary hole) It just irritates me. Other makers put them in places where you don't notice them much, if at all. S&W's lock just screams in my face every time I see it. Personal thing, sure. But the guns I buy AND my money are personal to me.

I have heard of about half a dozen verified instances of the S&W lock "auto engaging". And many times that number of "hearsay" incidents. So, it has happened, which means it can happen. (even if it is said to happen much more often than it actually has..)


For some people that alone is enough. It would be enough for me (starting from my already admitted dislike of the lock) to remove one from a carry/home defense gun, just in case...
 
Is there any evidence that the lock is the weak link in the durability and reliability of S&W revolvers?
There's a theory that adding a part, any part, will make the gun less durable and reliable because "there's one more thing to go wrong", but if the lock mechanism is not the weakest component in the gun, or the likelihood of it malfunctioning is less than that of any other component, it's unlikely to be the source of a gun breaking or malfunctioning.
For the four instances of the lock malfunctioning, how many other malfunctions did S&W revolvers suffer? Ten? A hundred? None? Just citing lock failures doesn't really paint much of a picture.
 
If you didn't realize that there is a lock hidden under the grip of every new(ish) Ruger Blackhawk on the market today, raise your hand.

It does beg the question why Ruger doesn't employ the same internal lock on the GP-100 revolvers...?
 
If you didn't realize that there is a lock hidden under the grip of every new(ish) Ruger Blackhawk on the market today, raise your hand.
Click to expand...

I just bought a new Blackhawk and Didn't know it had a lock. After I read this I went through the box again and found the key.
 
I own a few with the lock and they never gave me any mechanical trouble. I specify because it gives me philosophical and psychological trouble on a regular basis. It has been the deciding factor that caused me to buy several firearms from Ruger and other manufacturers instead of Smith and Wesson.

I'm curious. Have any of you who share these thoughts ever shared them with Smith and Wesson directly? Since I've seen a few things come out in their pro-series without locks recently, I think continued customer feedback could help correct this dark age in S&W history. We all know people feel this way but I'm not sure how much time their executives spend reading web forums.
 
I own 3 with the lock. I've shot a bunch of rounds thru them, like several thousand thru 2 of them, no malfunction so far. No problem with the locks, no problems with the MIM parts. There were/are some quality issues with all 3 guns but they're due to the bonus S&W assemblers get for the number of guns they put together. With the machine technology we have today the guns should actually be better than they were 40 years ago. They are Not better. Bad timing, burrs in the forcing cone, warped ejector, rear of bbl ground with a dip in it. Amazing but all 3 guns would fire every time the trigger was pulled. They gotta ship as many as the can fast as they can. I guess if it goes bang it's within spec.
 
Believe me, S&W has heard about those locks and their supposed problems many thousands of times.

For the S&W haters there is now a new rumor. Supposedly, UPS has had to hire extra help in Springfield due to the tens of thousands of defective new guns being returned to the factory.

It never seems to stop, and seems to go well beyond any reasonable concern about the locks, and so on. I have to wonder if some of the hatemongers are really anti-gun, determined to conduct a campaign against a successful American handgun company. If they take down S&W, Ruger fans better not cheer because I guarantee their favorite guns will be next!

Hi, 44 AMP,

As I said, there may be some truth to the lock stories, but you say you have "heard about" a half dozen cases and then categorize others as hearsay. But have you ever personally experienced the condition or been present when it happened? Anything else is hearsay.

Jim
 
For the S&W haters there is now a new rumor. Supposedly, UPS has had to hire extra help in Springfield due to the tens of thousands of defective new guns being returned to the factory.
Click to expand...
I believe it's more than thousands. I've read hundreds of complaints within the last few years. Like I said before... they are not the same company.
I was a Ruger fanboy, but I'll have to say they are going down the same path with their QC department (5 for 5 defective Rugers this year). This is not just one company. This is a pattern with Ruger, S&W, and Taurus. I'ts all about cutting costs, sales, bottom lines, and "what is our defect to sale ratio". If they can pump out more guns at a lower cost and still not take a loss on the number of returns. Believe me they will do it! You would think the consumer would pay less with all the new efficient ways of manufacturing? Heck no! The inflation continues because the cost of returns has to be met somewhere. Yes, by our wallets. Somewhat of a double edged sword, but that is the reality of today's production. The days of "pride in our product" are gone like a fart in the wind, and the thing that ticks them off more than anything are the ones who remember it. The video game generation (spray and pray) are used to defective products (their best audience). Unfortunately, those who remember, are not dying off soon enough.
 
HI James K
but you say you have "heard about" a half dozen cases and then categorize others as hearsay. But have you ever personally experienced the condition or been present when it happened? Anything else is hearsay.
Click to expand...

You are correct, its all technically hearsay unless we personally experience it. I might have been clearer (although I was clear to me:D)

When I said cases I have "heard about" I meant cases where someone reported the failure, that happened to them, or that they witnessed, and gave specific details (including who it happened to, when, what, etc.)

I put those in a different category than the reports where its "my buddy Jim said his buddy Fred had the lock fail..."

I consider the former kind of report something that could be verified. The rest, I called hearsay. Perhaps I should have said rumor, instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top