What is the "Lock" on S&W revolvers
- Thread starter monk d
- Start date
- Status
INCOMING!!!!!!!! 
----Small keyhole on left side of frame above cylinder latch.
----designed to lock the gun action should you wish to leave it unattended.
----you SHOULD NEVER leave a gun unattended or unsecured so why the hell do I need a lock, but I digress.
----Undeniably ugly
----Verifiable instances of it locking under heavy recoil. Not the best design. Probably less likely than any other common failure but it is a part not necessary in the first place.
----Legal baggage as far as why it was put there in the first place. S&W playing footsies with the Clinton admin.
----Did I mention ugly on what should be very pretty revolvers.
All in all probably much ado about not much but most of us hate em.
----Small keyhole on left side of frame above cylinder latch.
----designed to lock the gun action should you wish to leave it unattended.
----you SHOULD NEVER leave a gun unattended or unsecured so why the hell do I need a lock, but I digress.
----Undeniably ugly
----Verifiable instances of it locking under heavy recoil. Not the best design. Probably less likely than any other common failure but it is a part not necessary in the first place.
----Legal baggage as far as why it was put there in the first place. S&W playing footsies with the Clinton admin.
----Did I mention ugly on what should be very pretty revolvers.
All in all probably much ado about not much but most of us hate em.
The lock is seen on the left side of the frame of newer S&W revolvers just above the cylinder release. It is intended as an internal lock to prevent the revolver from firing. It uses a key which can deactivate the firearm to keep children and others from accidentally and/or intentionally firing the gun.
The hatred of some is due to the appearance of the hole for the lock, and the claim by many that when unlocked the lock can possibly slip into the locked position. This would disable the firearm when needed at a critical time. There are stories of it locking up especially with larger caliber firearms with heavier recoil during firing.
There are other manufacturers who also use similar intended locks. An example is some Bersa semi-auto pistols. I am sure there are others.
If you search the internet you will find procedure to deactivate the locking mechanism and even a plug sold to fill the hole which is an eye-sore to many avid S&W fans. Many even find the plug a damnation.
The hatred of some is due to the appearance of the hole for the lock, and the claim by many that when unlocked the lock can possibly slip into the locked position. This would disable the firearm when needed at a critical time. There are stories of it locking up especially with larger caliber firearms with heavier recoil during firing.
There are other manufacturers who also use similar intended locks. An example is some Bersa semi-auto pistols. I am sure there are others.
If you search the internet you will find procedure to deactivate the locking mechanism and even a plug sold to fill the hole which is an eye-sore to many avid S&W fans. Many even find the plug a damnation.
I've never seen where it's any uglier than any other pin or screw in the side of the gun. As a matter of fact, some older S&W's have a pin in just about the same place. Of course if you think it's ugly, well, you just think it's ugly and I won't try to change your mind.
The rest of the stuff has been hashed over so much I won't even bother. I've owned and still own guns with and without it. I can't think of a practical use for it, but won't jump off a bridge over it.
The rest of the stuff has been hashed over so much I won't even bother. I've owned and still own guns with and without it. I can't think of a practical use for it, but won't jump off a bridge over it.
No I am not a troller in spite of my low post count. Over the years I have had two 686s, a 19, and now my wife has a 65-2. All of these were/are older I guess, not sure when they started putting them on, my first 686 was bought in the mid to late 90s I guess that would be the newest one.
I remember a while back when S&W sold to a foreign (I think it was French) company, late 80s to early 90s maybe, and for a long time I would not consider buying one. I had my 19 then and it was the only wheel gun I owned at the time
The thing that concerns me is the verifiable lock ups during heavy recoil that was mentioned. The whole reason for asking was that I was thinking about getting either a new 686 357 or a newer 44 mag. I had a Ruger Vaquero in 44 mag and it beat me up, but I have smallish hands and can't handle the N Frame. I a guy I know has a model 29 (in excellent shape) in 44 mag with a 10 5/8 inch barrel for $750 and I was considering getting that and having the barrel cut down to 6 inches. I am not sure of the frame on that, maybe L, but it fits fairly well with the grips he has on it.
Just to add info, all of mine were used except the one 686 I bought new in the late 90s. it had a 2 1/2 inch barrel and with full power loads it beat my wife up too bad so it did not last long in the line up. The 65 we bought last year at a gun show, probably made in the early 80s, I think it was a former police gun, 4 inch barrel and shoots great
I remember a while back when S&W sold to a foreign (I think it was French) company, late 80s to early 90s maybe, and for a long time I would not consider buying one. I had my 19 then and it was the only wheel gun I owned at the time
The thing that concerns me is the verifiable lock ups during heavy recoil that was mentioned. The whole reason for asking was that I was thinking about getting either a new 686 357 or a newer 44 mag. I had a Ruger Vaquero in 44 mag and it beat me up, but I have smallish hands and can't handle the N Frame. I a guy I know has a model 29 (in excellent shape) in 44 mag with a 10 5/8 inch barrel for $750 and I was considering getting that and having the barrel cut down to 6 inches. I am not sure of the frame on that, maybe L, but it fits fairly well with the grips he has on it.
Just to add info, all of mine were used except the one 686 I bought new in the late 90s. it had a 2 1/2 inch barrel and with full power loads it beat my wife up too bad so it did not last long in the line up. The 65 we bought last year at a gun show, probably made in the early 80s, I think it was a former police gun, 4 inch barrel and shoots great
Last edited:
monk d said:
AFAIK, there have been very few actual verified lock-ups, and those few have been with lightweight guns chambered in heavy-recoiling cartridges. The vast majority of "reports" are merely second-hand accounts that've been re-told so many times the truth behind them is dubious at best. The Lock should be a non-issue with with a 686 or 29, but, as others point out, it's easily removed if it concerns you.
I have The Plug installed in 7 guns. I don't plan to buy any more, as if I needed any, but that alone should not stop someone from buying a gun with a lock.
You have to admit that continued hate mongering over the lock system does a nice job of elevating prices on older pre-lock models.
You have to admit that continued hate mongering over the lock system does a nice job of elevating prices on older pre-lock models.
Honestly even though it has happened I would argue that you are just as likely if not more so to have other action component fail or the cylinder being out of spec or any number of other issues that could render the gun inoperable. That Said I do hate the damn things.
Also as was said it's fairly trivial to remove the mechanism or alter the locking flag etc. if you so desire.
If they produced what you want before the lock or produce a model without it I would probably go that route myself. If not then I wouldn't sweat it that much as they're are plenty of things to go wrong in the lock work that nobody worries about on a regular basis.
Also as was said it's fairly trivial to remove the mechanism or alter the locking flag etc. if you so desire.
If they produced what you want before the lock or produce a model without it I would probably go that route myself. If not then I wouldn't sweat it that much as they're are plenty of things to go wrong in the lock work that nobody worries about on a regular basis.
Basically it's a tiny little hole near the cylinder latch. Not even 1/1000th as ugly or intrusive as the grip safety on 1911's and similar guns. No 1/100th as hideous as the chamber-indicator on a Ruger LC9. Nor, 1/10th as annoying as the trigger dingus on Glocks and Glock-a-likes.
The bottom line - People just don't the internal S&W lock on principal; and I can't really blame them for that. It is still basically useless junk on a double-action revolver even though not nearly as intrusive as the other horrendous safety devices mentioned above.
The bottom line - People just don't the internal S&W lock on principal; and I can't really blame them for that. It is still basically useless junk on a double-action revolver even though not nearly as intrusive as the other horrendous safety devices mentioned above.
Some people don't like the idea of a lock, on general principle. For a lot of us, the lock on S&W revolvers is particularly onerous.
In some circles, its known as the "Hillary Hole".
Basically, the Clinton Administration had a list of features and business practices they wanted to see on handguns. A lock. Loaded chamber indicator. Magazine disconnect. Hidden serial#s. These were to be included in new gun designs, and any that could be, should be applied to existing gun designs .
Their "deal" also included a bunch of other restrictions about how the guns could be sold at retail, even including language to bar minors from even being there, etc.
What they offered the gunmakers was, that, if they went along with the deal, the gunmaker would be immune to the pending lawsuits from the various City Mayors groups. AND, they hinted at preferential treatment for the gunmakers's products if future purchase contracts (something that they couldn't do, in effect, a lie to the gunmakers).
S&W was owned, at the time, by Thompkins LLC, a British holding company. THEY decided S&W would be the first on the Clinton's bandwagon. SO, we got the Hillary Hole.
As it turned out, S&W was the ONLY gunmaker to get onboard with the Clinton deal.
S&W shooters, who love the classic look of the S&W line suddenly got not only a stupid, unneeded hole, but also a drastic change in the look of the cylinder latch as well, which "spoils" things. AND, WE DIDN"T GET AN OPTION, or a VOICE in the matter. It was "lock models only, take it or leave it."
And a LOT of us left it. S&W sales tanked. Their stock dropped hugely, and Thompkins LLC wound up selling S&W for a LOSS!
Sadly for the purists, the people who bought S&W were heavily involved in that lock as well, and it was kept. I think S&W should offer identical guns with, and without that lock for a few years, and let the market decide which ones to keep, but that's just me...
I'm not opposed to having a lock built in (provided it can be ignored), I've got a Ruger with a lock in it, and its of no concern to me at all. But the Hilary Hole S&W lock was just such an "in your face" insult to not only our sense of style and history, but our right to free choice as well, that I cannot, and will not forgive it.
Personally, I think you are an idiot if you USE a lock on a loaded gun. Internal or aftermarket. And an unloaded gun is not dangerous.
Lock up (secure) guns IN something,, I'm fine with that. But don't lock a loaded gun.
In some circles, its known as the "Hillary Hole".
Basically, the Clinton Administration had a list of features and business practices they wanted to see on handguns. A lock. Loaded chamber indicator. Magazine disconnect. Hidden serial#s. These were to be included in new gun designs, and any that could be, should be applied to existing gun designs .
Their "deal" also included a bunch of other restrictions about how the guns could be sold at retail, even including language to bar minors from even being there, etc.
What they offered the gunmakers was, that, if they went along with the deal, the gunmaker would be immune to the pending lawsuits from the various City Mayors groups. AND, they hinted at preferential treatment for the gunmakers's products if future purchase contracts (something that they couldn't do, in effect, a lie to the gunmakers).
S&W was owned, at the time, by Thompkins LLC, a British holding company. THEY decided S&W would be the first on the Clinton's bandwagon. SO, we got the Hillary Hole.
As it turned out, S&W was the ONLY gunmaker to get onboard with the Clinton deal.
S&W shooters, who love the classic look of the S&W line suddenly got not only a stupid, unneeded hole, but also a drastic change in the look of the cylinder latch as well, which "spoils" things. AND, WE DIDN"T GET AN OPTION, or a VOICE in the matter. It was "lock models only, take it or leave it."
And a LOT of us left it. S&W sales tanked. Their stock dropped hugely, and Thompkins LLC wound up selling S&W for a LOSS!
Sadly for the purists, the people who bought S&W were heavily involved in that lock as well, and it was kept. I think S&W should offer identical guns with, and without that lock for a few years, and let the market decide which ones to keep, but that's just me...
I'm not opposed to having a lock built in (provided it can be ignored), I've got a Ruger with a lock in it, and its of no concern to me at all. But the Hilary Hole S&W lock was just such an "in your face" insult to not only our sense of style and history, but our right to free choice as well, that I cannot, and will not forgive it.
Personally, I think you are an idiot if you USE a lock on a loaded gun. Internal or aftermarket. And an unloaded gun is not dangerous.
Lock up (secure) guns IN something,, I'm fine with that. But don't lock a loaded gun.
g.willikers
New member
The lock failure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsIWXd_9xPE
The explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzKh5Y0TaY0
How to remove it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVPYgohVCNM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsIWXd_9xPE
The explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzKh5Y0TaY0
How to remove it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVPYgohVCNM
bedbugbilly
New member
Just remember . . . Smiths are not the only handguns with locks . . .
A lot of folks get bent out of shape over them . . . I do have some that have a lock but I just ignore them - never had a problem with any of them. Ruger, Bersa, Smith, etc.
To each their own . .. that's what makes the world go around!
A lot of folks get bent out of shape over them . . . I do have some that have a lock but I just ignore them - never had a problem with any of them. Ruger, Bersa, Smith, etc.
To each their own . .. that's what makes the world go around!
thanks guys. I totally appreciate the info. There is a lot of good stuff here. I have heard the lock referred to here and on other forums with mostly negative implications.
I guess my concern is if I were carrying in the woods where potential dangerous game was, in my neck of the woods it would be black bears, possibly a two-legged predator, and I had to draw down and the darn lock "locked up" for some reason
I would be in a pickle, which unfortunately, I could NOT shove into the Hillary hole. 
Not that any pickle I have on a more permanent basis would ever be guided in that direction intentionally. 'Scuse me while I throw up at the thought
My EDC is a 1911 and has been for 21 years, but I like the idea of a wheel gun for the woods and I thought I would like to upgrade to a 44 mag. I have never hunted in the Northwest, but I understand the potential of brown bears, and I hope to get out that way for elk one day soon. Not getting any younger
I guess my concern is if I were carrying in the woods where potential dangerous game was, in my neck of the woods it would be black bears, possibly a two-legged predator, and I had to draw down and the darn lock "locked up" for some reason
I would be in a pickle, which unfortunately, I could NOT shove into the Hillary hole. Not that any pickle I have on a more permanent basis would ever be guided in that direction intentionally. 'Scuse me while I throw up at the thoughtMy EDC is a 1911 and has been for 21 years, but I like the idea of a wheel gun for the woods and I thought I would like to upgrade to a 44 mag. I have never hunted in the Northwest, but I understand the potential of brown bears, and I hope to get out that way for elk one day soon. Not getting any younger
monk d said:
If you're going to worry about that, it'd only be fair and helpful to think about revolver reliability in general, a point cslinger eluded to above (and quoted below). There are many things that can (and do) take a revolver out of commission, and happen much more frequently than The Lock has ever shown to, yet most don't give them a second thought. Use good ammo, keep your gun clean and lubed, all things threaded tight, and your Dremel away from it, and you're highly unlikely to ever have an issue. That's true for a new and vintage revolvers alike.
cslinger said:
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Howdy
I only own one S&W with the lock, a Model 617-6 that shipped in 2003. I only bought it as a lark, I was shooting a steel plate match at the time and I needed to put 8 rounds on target in 15 seconds. Couldn't do that with my six shot Model 17-3.
Here is what the lock looks like from the outside. The key fits into the hole to lock or unlock the gun. I don't think I even have the key, I have left the lock disengaged.
Here is what the parts look like on the inside.
Here is a photo of my Model 17-3 that was made in 1975. It is a classic S&W K frame revolver. This is the gun the 617 is based on.
If you look carefully, in this photo of the 617 you can see the profile of the frame near the hammer has been altered to add the parts of the lock.
Personally I have no issue with the lock because I have no desire to own anything made recently by S&W. I'm one of those snobs who only likes the classics. Not interested in guns with locks and MIM parts. This Model 617 is probably the only modern Smith I will ever own.
I only own one S&W with the lock, a Model 617-6 that shipped in 2003. I only bought it as a lark, I was shooting a steel plate match at the time and I needed to put 8 rounds on target in 15 seconds. Couldn't do that with my six shot Model 17-3.
Here is what the lock looks like from the outside. The key fits into the hole to lock or unlock the gun. I don't think I even have the key, I have left the lock disengaged.
Here is what the parts look like on the inside.
Here is a photo of my Model 17-3 that was made in 1975. It is a classic S&W K frame revolver. This is the gun the 617 is based on.
If you look carefully, in this photo of the 617 you can see the profile of the frame near the hammer has been altered to add the parts of the lock.
Personally I have no issue with the lock because I have no desire to own anything made recently by S&W. I'm one of those snobs who only likes the classics. Not interested in guns with locks and MIM parts. This Model 617 is probably the only modern Smith I will ever own.
Yes I see the difference in the frame, less curved. It's also the first time I have noticed the lock. I have not owned one with the lock. So the point is to load the gun, then lock it so nobody can snatch it or a child can't inadvertently get it and fire it. How stupid is that. You get pulled into a situation, then have to find the key, unlock it, and only then you go to work. Wow.
My kids are grown and grew up with guns, and still have respect. They knew if they went near anything without my permission or knowledge and I found out about it, they would be skinned alive, same respect my dad taught me and my brother
Sorry I must have been living under a rock, at least when it comes to this. I mean I knew it existed but never paid attention. I am no novice, I have a fair collection/variety, mostly long guns, only four handguns, but it is still growing
My kids are grown and grew up with guns, and still have respect. They knew if they went near anything without my permission or knowledge and I found out about it, they would be skinned alive, same respect my dad taught me and my brother
Sorry I must have been living under a rock, at least when it comes to this. I mean I knew it existed but never paid attention. I am no novice, I have a fair collection/variety, mostly long guns, only four handguns, but it is still growing
- Status