gotboostvr
Member
I think the worst "bill board" was the old TSW S&W autos. Great guns, but so ugly I polished my slide to get rid of it on a 4556TSW I had
S&W Mdl. 36 New Production
- Thread starter Mr. Mosin
- Start date
- Status
I think the worst "bill board" was the old TSW S&W autos. Great guns, but so ugly I polished my slide to get rid of it on a 4556TSW I had
ArchAngelCD
Member.
I was not discussing why they centennial frame was chosen, I was discussing why the centennial frame without the lock was chosen. I had no doubt why the centennial frame was bought. I also never said a BUG had to be More relible, I said it should Not Be Less reliable than other guns, there is a huge difference.
I prefer S&W revolvers without the lock, but I won't let it stop me from buying a nice newer model for the right price. I have both. The ones without the lock look better to me. It's not the lock hole so much as how they changed the profile of that whole section of the gun. They didn't just add a lock. They designed a new slightly different shapes revolver frame
Just got a no lock 442 and have shot the neck out of a 638 with lock for last 5 years
Just got a no lock 442 and have shot the neck out of a 638 with lock for last 5 years
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
If you don’t like the lock, don’t flippin’ buy one.
If you don’t like the lock but just love b****ing about it here then maybe you just like b****ing and drama. Life’s too short.
If you don’t like the lock but just love b****ing about it here then maybe you just like b****ing and drama. Life’s too short.
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
Well, it is all about you isn’t it, Mr Waveski?
Honestly I couldn’t care less...but, feel free to continue.
Deanimator
Member
The Hillary hole is just another symptom of a sometimes puzzling attitude toward its customers by S&W.
Another is the anomalous placement of the front sight on their M1917 clone. There was simply no reason to stick it all the way at the end of the barrel except as a finger in the eye of the potential purchaser.
Another is the anomalous placement of the front sight on their M1917 clone. There was simply no reason to stick it all the way at the end of the barrel except as a finger in the eye of the potential purchaser.
CoalTrain49
Member
I have both older Smiths and one newer one with an EL. I shoot it regularly and have owned it about 10 years. Never a problem with the lock, I don't use it. I'm not sure why there's so much hate for it as it doesn't seem to alter the function of my 625 in any way. I don't even know where the key is. I can see it might be a good idea if a person has kids around and they don't keep their revolvers in a safe. You would be shocked to know how many people with kids don't own a safe.
Some people like to buy new stuff. I buy new vehicles exclusively, always have. I do buy used S&W revolvers tho. I have a used 36 and 31. When I see a good deal on one I snap it up. About half of my pistols and revolvers were purchased used.
S&W stopped making really good revolvers about the time the IL came on the scene, somewhere around 1990. It isn't the lock that's the problem, it's the quality that's missing. Not buying anymore new S&W revolvers because of that, not the lock.
Some people like to buy new stuff. I buy new vehicles exclusively, always have. I do buy used S&W revolvers tho. I have a used 36 and 31. When I see a good deal on one I snap it up. About half of my pistols and revolvers were purchased used.
S&W stopped making really good revolvers about the time the IL came on the scene, somewhere around 1990. It isn't the lock that's the problem, it's the quality that's missing. Not buying anymore new S&W revolvers because of that, not the lock.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
Look at a real S&W M1917 (I used to own one). The front sigh is set back slightly from the muzzle.
Real M1917
Then look at the "modern" S&W clone. The front sight is right at the end of the barrel.
"Classic" M1917
If you have an explanation for that, I'd like to hear it.
The difference in placement certainly doesn't add anything significant to sight radius. All it does is make the gun look "off", defeating the purpose of supposedly "reviving" the M1917. While they were at it, they might as well have added a rail.
Add in a substantial price premium for something that visibly differs from the original, and the only explanation I can come up with is a passive-aggressive need to show the consumer who's "boss".
Deanimator
Member
- The lock has a history of failure. Massad Ayoob had a failure of one. It's a poor design, made intentionally obtrusive.
- It's aesthetically egregious. It could have been concealed, but for apparently ego driven reasons, it needed to be in your face. It's kitsch at its lowest.
- It's totally pointless. A padlock around the top strap accomplishes the same thing without making the gun uglier or less reliable.
I've got a safe full of pre-lock S&W revolvers. I'll never have a Smith with the current lock. Except for explicitly purposed target gun, all of my firearms have at least a secondary defensive role. I would never in a million years trust my life to an S&W revolver with that lock.
ThomasT
Member
Thats what I would do. I have one gun with the lock. A model 431PD in 32 mag. If the day comes when I am worried about the lock I will remove it or otherwise disable it.
The MIM parts don't bother me. The locks don't bother me. The 2 piece barrel doesn't bother me. What I don't like is the EDM or what ever they call it rifling. It seems to work OK for jacketed bullets but doesn't seem to good for lead. And I shoot a lot more lead than jacketed bullets.
But no matter. If I buy a new to me S&W it will be a used gun.
CoalTrain49
Member
Never had a problem with my 625-8 with several thousand rounds thru it. The EL has no history of failure. It's an internet myth. I'll guarantee you 1911's have more malfunctions with SD ammo than EL Smiths.
Sounds like you have zero experience with the EL and basically going by something you read, probably on the internet.
The lock didn't come until 2002 or just before then. S&W went through several periods of declining quality. Most people would agree the days under Hellstrom, from post-WWII through the 50's were the peak. Quality in the 60's declined noticeably, and then there were the Bangor Punta days, dark ones. The 80's might have been a sort of revival that we could say lasted into the 90's, but by then automatics were taking the market by storm and revolvers were not the focus. 2002, when the internal lock appeared was actually the beginning of S&W's near-miracle rebirth. They went from the brink of bankruptcy under the ownership of the British company Tomkins, being sold for a mere $15M with $50M in debt, and returned to status as the premier US handgun manufacturer. While revolvers hardly played a role in S&W resurrection over the last 17 years, they have enjoyed the benefits of renewal and modernization in S&W's production capabilities. While a Hellstrom-era revolver is certainly more collectable, there is no doubt in my mind that S&W revolvers made today are made to standards higher than they ever have before. It's true they don't feature the hand-craftsmanship they did in the 50's. Technology has replaced a lot of that. But the technology like MIM, ECM rifling, and two-piece barrels works and results in revolvers that are more consistently as good as the design permits. While S&W does appear to have loose QA, they are known to stand behind their products with an excellent warranty and customer service. I haven't been a fanboy. If you've read any of other posts on S&W, you'd know I've called them on their slips and expressed frustration at having to return numerous revolvers over the last couple years. But I will say that they've been working to make everything good and that I wouldn't keep buying them if there was something better.
Deanimator
Member
So then Massad Ayoob lied?
I have zero experience with RGs, Jenningses... or heroin for that matter. I try to learn from other people's mistakes.
Personally, I prefer the shorter, 38 Special, J-frames versus the ones made after the J-frames were converted to accept 357 Magnum in certain models. The early guns are just a bit trimmer. So, look for an older Model 36 and you get better quality, non MIM parts, and no internal lock. There were lots of Model 36 (blued) and Model 60 (stainless) revolvers made before the conversion to 357 Magnum.
I do have a 357 Magnum Model 60 that I like to shoot with mid-range 357 Magnum rounds and it shoots well. Mine is a 3" barrel version.
On the surface, the S&W revolver numbering system seems a bit confusing but except for some exceptions, it does have consistencies. A particular model will describe a revolver of particular frame size and cartridge. Where the confusion enters the equation, S&W has changed their model numbering convention a couple of times over the life of model numbers. But at least they did not try to "update" the older model numbering system on revolvers already in production.
Generally speaking, two digit model number revolvers are blued revolvers. The teens are K-frames, twenties are N-frames and the thirties and forties are J-frames.
Stainless steel revolver model numbers begin with "6". Early models are two digit model numbers. After the L-frames were introduced, three digit model numbers were used, the stainless steel revolvers still began with "6". The first digit of other three digit model number revolvers indicate the frame material.
I know, it is still not easy to decipher. But, once you learn some details, it makes some sense. Having a source to reference helps with many of the less popular or know revolvers. The "Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson" is a good reference to have on hand if you are interested in S&W revolvers.
But, as I said, there are some exceptions. Some model numbers have been used to two different revolvers but they seem to be small production or "special" runs of a revolver.
The dash number is engineering revision version of the model.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Wow!
Talk about topic drift.
I only want to say there are plenty of Model 36s available on the used market without internal locks. (or MIM parts).
Like this Model 36 from 1963.
Or this Flat Latch Model 36 from 1961.
Talk about topic drift.
I only want to say there are plenty of Model 36s available on the used market without internal locks. (or MIM parts).
Like this Model 36 from 1963.
Or this Flat Latch Model 36 from 1961.
CoalTrain49
Member
Can you define several malfunctions as a history of malfunctions/ I guess you can. Commercial airlines also have a history of crashes. Therefore I guess you should not fly on any of them. Heroin overdoses are documented and determined to be a health hazard. There is zero documented proof that EL locks have a failure rate higher than any other firearm.
Back up your claim or quit distorting the truth.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
You can't add enough superfluous elements to the operating mechanism of a self-defense firearm... said NOBODY, EVER.
You're backpedaling. First it didn't happen. Now it doesn't happen ENOUGH. ONCE is enough if you've got a loaded paperweight and your wouldbe murderer has a loaded and WORKING Hi Point.
If it's totally unnecessary (and it is) and it decreases the reliability of a self-defense firearm AT ALL, either it or the firearm have to go. S&W has chosen in its passive-aggressive manner to keep this abomination. so I will NEVER buy a S&W revolver which incorporates it.
I don't owe S&W ANYTHING. I certainly don't owe them my money, much less my life in return for a badly defective and unattractive firearm.
CoalTrain49
Member
I bet Massad Ayoob flies on commercial airlines.
All those people who bought S&W revolvers or flew on a commercial flight are still alive. It's a freakin miracle.
OAO.
If you're really concerned about the theoretical possibility of the lock causing a problem, it can be removed at no cost. All that's needed is to remove the side plate and take it out. The hole will remain but the lock will not be there and cannot possibly interfere with the hammer after that in any mode. It's not necessary, but you can also fill the hole with an Original Precision plug or weld it.
Considering the lock can be completely removed from the gun at no cost and that the lock isn't at all necessary for the gun to function, I just don't see how it's a problem. But if you prefer, you can buy Rugers with their breaking transfer bars that result in failures to fire after the transfer bar has been fatigued by the normal stresses from being hit by the hammer enough times that it breaks and falls out or jams. Personally, I use both guns with locks and guns with transfer bars, but I wouldn't want someone who doesn't want to use them to be forced to do so.
Considering the lock can be completely removed from the gun at no cost and that the lock isn't at all necessary for the gun to function, I just don't see how it's a problem. But if you prefer, you can buy Rugers with their breaking transfer bars that result in failures to fire after the transfer bar has been fatigued by the normal stresses from being hit by the hammer enough times that it breaks and falls out or jams. Personally, I use both guns with locks and guns with transfer bars, but I wouldn't want someone who doesn't want to use them to be forced to do so.
I cannot imagine spending significant dollars on a new firearm , then taking off the side plate to jettison parts.
Why would I do that? And then having a hole to plug?
And no , the alternative is not buying a Ruger and waiting for the transfer bar to break..... the alternative - for me anyway - is to avail myself to the great availability of pre-lock Smith & Wesson revolvers still on the market at prices generally lower than new.
To each his own , as the saying goes.
Deanimator
Member
I've got a safe full of attractive, reliable pre-lock S&W revolvers that I'd trust my life to.
I agree that there's no reason to buy kitsch when you can have the real thing.
I agree that there's no reason to buy kitsch when you can have the real thing.
farm23
Member
If one doesn’t like the lock and is afraid of it failing at the wrong time, can’t the lock be disabled?
It can be removed completely in just a couple minutes with nothing more than a screwdriver and a toothpick or tweezers:
The video details the complete procedure to remove the lock, and goes on to install a blank plug in place of the lock. Even with detailed narration, it takes less than 10 minutes. The blank plug isn't necessary but it does plug the hole left by removing the lock.
Note that the lock is not kept from activating by spring tension as was incorrectly cited in post #17 of this thread. The coil spring is there to retain the lock slug. The lock is activated and deactivated by rotating the slug with a cam that interferes with the hammer' rotation (blocking cocking or trigger pulling). Spring tension is not used to rotate it locked or unlocked. It does not default to locked or unlocked if the spring fails. In fact, the gun can work with the spring removed entirely, but the lock would probably be loose and easier to turn than we would want.
The blank plug is simply a slug without the cam and without a pentagonal post for the key to rotate it. While there is nothing to grab the blank slug with, if you could rotate it, it would spin around and never interfere with the hammer since it is round with no cam. With the blank slug, the spring retainer is kept in place because it will keep the cylindrical blank slug from falling out the hole.
Deanimator
Member
Are there any issues regarding the slot where the flag on the unmodified lock protrudes? I thought I once read that there were problems when the lock mechanism was removed without replacing them with a dummy part of some sort.
- Status
