What is the "Lock" on S&W revolvers

Status
Not open for further replies.
If memory serves, this whole thing got started by someone with an ax to grind who speculated that it could happen. The rumor mill quickly escalated that to it did happen. Influenced by the snowballing myth, folks who'd forgotten they'd locked their guns began swearing up and down that it had indeed happened to them.
Click to expand...
Mere speculation unless you can provide citations.
 
Driftwood-once again clear, large, well exposed pictures showing what you mean. Thanks. My experience is those kind of photos are not easy.

Thanks also to Tipoc for the history. I'm marking this thread for my own use. Also thanks for the rebuke on language/morals. 'nuff said there.

And to address a point that any number of posters could have clarified (read that as everybody in this thread) but didn't get around to it...

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.
Click to expand...

The S&W 29 .44 magnum is famously the N frame.
 
I have nothing to add except I've been a S&W collector for a couple of decades... I literally own zero S&W revolvers with locks. And I plan to keep it that way.

So no matter what argument you make... it is impossible to refute the fact that the lock cost them one customer for sure. That would be me. By now that is several thousand dollars in new revolver sales. I seriously doubt I'm the only person "like me."

Gregg
 
I wasn't even aware of ILS when I purchased my 642. Then after hearing about it, I researched it a bit and found that failures HAD happened, but were rare. Supposedly, it happened to Massad Ayoob, but that is second hand - never confirmed an actual quote from him.

Is it pretty? Nope. Did I think it would fail on me? Nope. So, why did I remove it? Because, I guess the thought of possible failure, even remote, just festered in my head a while, and in the industry I worked in (telecommunications), you always tried to eliminate every point of failure that you can. So, let's say the odds are 1 in 10,000, is the reliable enough? I don't think I'd fly in a plane if those were the odds. People DO win lotteries with a 10 in a million chance.

If it failed at the range, no big deal - just unlock it. If it failed with a crack-head rushing toward me with a lead pipe - whole different deal. It took me about 30 minutes to remove it (I'm sure it could be done faster, but I was meticulous and didn't want to scar/damage anything). I replaced the hole with a plug that looks "similar" but still pretty obvious with the rest of the frame. That doesn't bother me, really, as I bought it for practical purposes, not aesthetics. Yeah, I'd rather have one that never had the lock to begin with, but I'm not selling it.

Speaking of which, someone mentioned about liability in re-selling if I had removed a safety feature, but not sure how valid that is. And I do believe it was S&W caving to political pressure, though not a law. Also, I agree that they should offer it as a choice, not something you have to remove.
 
I don't like the term "Hillary Hole". It's flat out disrespectful to women in general. The point of the phrase is to compare the lock to female sex organs so a fella can make adolescent jokes; "I hate the Hillary Hole and won't touch it", etc. The men who use the term know it is disrespectful to women in general, that's the point, but continue to use it anyway.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I've used the term and I've never once intended nor even thought of comparing it to a woman's intimate area. When one of those things is instrumental to making life and the other could prevent the protection of life, it's hardly a valid comparison! I'd bet that the same juvenile persons making it make just as many jokes comparing the barrel to their own private equipment.

The fact is that the ILS port is literally a hole in the side of otherwise beautiful revolvers. The Clinton administration was leading the push that put it there. Hillary Clinton has long been one of the most recognizable leaders in the ongoing fight to violate our rights. "Hillary Hole" is as catchy as "Fulton's Folly" but actually appropriate. It's also a quick and easy way to specifically reference the aesthetically disturbing port section of the locking mechanism.
 
Cosmodragon,

Your explanation, more of a rationalization, is disingenuous.

I disagree. I've used the term and I've never once intended nor even thought of comparing it to a woman's intimate area.
Click to expand...

Now you know. But it sounds like you're trying to give yourself an excuse to be rude.

I made my points. Folks will do what they like.

tipoc
 
Originally posted by Cosmodragoon
I disagree. I've used the term and I've never once intended nor even thought of comparing it to a woman's intimate area. When one of those things is instrumental to making life and the other could prevent the protection of life, it's hardly a valid comparison! I'd bet that the same juvenile persons making it make just as many jokes comparing the barrel to their own private equipment.

The fact is that the ILS port is literally a hole in the side of otherwise beautiful revolvers. The Clinton administration was leading the push that put it there. Hillary Clinton has long been one of the most recognizable leaders in the ongoing fight to violate our rights. "Hillary Hole" is as catchy as "Fulton's Folly" but actually appropriate. It's also a quick and easy way to specifically reference the aesthetically disturbing port section of the locking mechanism.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the term "Hillary Hole" is a crude sexual reference is, IMHO, largely irrelevant. Even if it is not, it is still a rather childish invective just like "Smith & Clinton," "Safety Wesson," "Lock Apologist," or "Wind-up Gun." The insistence of some on using such juvenile nicknames leaves me with the impression that said person isn't interested in having a logical debate or conversation on the issue. Those who insist on calling the lock by such terms have, more often than not, made up their minds and respond to challenge of their opinion with ridicule, condescension, or personal attack. All of these invectives are petty and sophomoric and I maintain that we'd be better off without any of them.
 
While I admit that the apparent sexual crudity of "Hillary Hole" had never occurred to me, thanks all, now I can't seem to get it out of my mind. :eek:

I use(d) it as a slam against Hillary, not women in general. It was Hillary's administration that pushed for it, and despite her only official position being First Lady (at the time) you'll never convince me she wasn't all in favor or even actively promoting the idea.

However, now that it has been pointed out, I shall refrain from using that particular term. Anyone have a good slam against it that isn't offensive to someone????
 
webleymkv wrote:

Whether or not the term "Hillary Hole" is a crude sexual reference is, IMHO, largely irrelevant. Even if it is not, it is still a rather childish invective just like "Smith & Clinton," "Safety Wesson," "Lock Apologist," or "Wind-up Gun." The insistence of some on using such juvenile nicknames leaves me with the impression that said person isn't interested in having a logical debate or conversation on the issue. Those who insist on calling the lock by such terms have, more often than not, made up their minds and respond to challenge of their opinion with ridicule, condescension, or personal attack. All of these invectives are petty and sophomoric and I maintain that we'd be better off without any of them.
Click to expand...

I've only ever used "Hillary Hole" but there is no question that it expresses irreverence and ridicule of the concept. It certainly identifies the opinion of the user. A lot of terms do this sort of thing, like "assault rifle", "commonsense gun control", and others bandied about by the movement that was successful in getting the Hillary Hole drilled into the side of those revolvers.

Does using it imply a closed mind any more or less? I don't know but let me ask if everyone here is open to this one. Any supposed slight from a term like "Hillary Hole" is only perceptual and emotional. The movement using those other terms--the movement in which Hillary is a hero--uses them as instrumental to actual violence. Violating rights and strong-arming people or businesses is violence. It's specifically violence against us and all the things we discuss on these forums.

So even if you outright dismiss my defense of the admittedly silly term, I think there are VASTLY more pressing issues on which to take a stand.
 
Originally posted by Cosmodragoon
I've only ever used "Hillary Hole" but there is no question that it expresses irreverence and ridicule of the concept. It certainly identifies the opinion of the user. A lot of terms do this sort of thing, like "assault rifle", "commonsense gun control", and others bandied about by the movement that was successful in getting the Hillary Hole drilled into the side of those revolvers.

Does using it imply a closed mind any more or less? I don't know but let me ask if everyone here is open to this one. Any supposed slight from a term like "Hillary Hole" is only perceptual and emotional. The movement using those other terms--the movement in which Hillary is a hero--uses them as instrumental to actual violence. Violating rights and strong-arming people or businesses is violence. It's specifically violence against us and all the things we discuss on these forums.

So even if you outright dismiss my defense of the admittedly silly term, I think there are VASTLY more pressing issues on which to take a stand.
Click to expand...

What makes you think I don't condemn the anti-gun movement's use of such terms with equal or greater conviction? Yes, the other side are quite adept at using emotional response and logical fallacies to promote their cause, but I don't think that stooping to the same tactics is the best way to sway people to our side of the fence.

The anti-gun movement already tries to portray us as a bunch of backward, insensitive buffoons. I hardly think that the best way to combat this stereotype in the eyes of a fence-sitter is to resort to sophomoric name-calling. The best way to show that we are not what the anti-gun movement has portrayed us as is, IMHO, to behave like rational adults. The only support you're going to get by using childish nicknames is from people who already agreed with you to begin with.
 
What makes you think I don't condemn the anti-gun movement's use of such terms with equal or greater conviction? Yes, the other side are quite adept at using emotional response and logical fallacies to promote their cause, but I don't think that stooping to the same tactics is the best way to sway people to our side of the fence.
Click to expand...

+1

To quote an old saying: It's not what you're against that defines you. It's what you are for. I'd add that how you fight reveals more about what you are for than words can.

tipoc
 
Friends, I won't assume what you do or don't do when you aren't posting here. For those who are active in the fight to protect our rights, and especially those who are reaching out to those who might otherwise have no source of exposure but the anti-gun propaganda machine, you have my respect and gratitude.

Webleymkv raises a valid concern. Some of the same institutions which promote innocuously phrased violence against us also teach people to have violent reactions to certain kinds of speech. There certainly exists an institutionally cultivated disposition to wrongly interpreting the phrase "Hillary Hole" as some kind of class warfare. It would be foolish to help them put a rake in our path.

So this is likely the last time you'll read it from me. As penance, I just made a donation to the 2016 presidential contender who I think will be best at keeping this story's villain from returning to the White House and then defending our rights once there. This is obviously the wrong thread for that discussion. Is there a good place for it on TFL as we wade into the season?
 
The lock failure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsIWXd_9xPE
Click to expand...

What I saw in the video was a guy firing six rounds in single action then double-cocking for a seventh. Did “heavy recoil” from the last round fired engage the lock? If it had, wouldn't the hammer have been locked down? Would he have been able to cycle the action two more times before the action allegedly locked with the hammer back?
 
OK, this discussion is now all over the place. This prevailing discussion isn't about the physical entity anymore, so I'm going to close this one.

If you want to talk about the locks as part of the greater gun control scene, or the language surrounding the locks, feel free to start another thread in General Discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top