Will Smith and Wesson ever get rid of the internal lock on their Revolvers?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
I just paid a premium for a prelock S&W 629 because I didn't want the interal lock. IMHO just something to go bad at the wrong time, malfunction or rust. I would have bought a new current one if they didnt come with the dang internal lock. I bought mine partially for bear defense and wouldn't want it locking up on me right when Mr. Grizzly is charging me. I also think the lock is ugly and ruins the aesthetics of the otherwise beautiful gun.

I know a lot of folks obviously don't mind them but I don't like or trust them.


Will Smith and Wesson ever get rid of the internal lock on their Revolvers?
 
Last edited:
It defies logic to put a contraption such as that on an otherwise fine firearm. If you really want to lock your revolver, you would do so in a visibly obvious manner with a cable or padlock, so there is no doubt of the pistol's condition of readiness. I know the lock has been beaten to death across forums for many years but I still find it bizarre S&W ever went that route in the first place.
 
I've read several articles about that thing locking up the gun when shooting full house magnums. There is a delete kit for it but you still have that ugly hole. We can only hope they will get rid of it. Don't know how they can have all these classic models and still installing locks in them. Kinda makes them not classic. I love their guns but have no Hillary holes in mine. Anxiously awaiting the new models without the hole.
 
You bet they will.....I only say that because I just got a new S&W with the lock, so of course they will do it just to tick me off...lol. Seriously though, before Colt started getting back into the revolver game full steam I would have said not a chance but now that you have two mainline options ( the other being Ruger) could S&W decide it might be in their best interest to drop that hole? I don’t know.
 
Will Smith and Wesson ever get rid of the internal lock on their Revolvers?

Well never say never but...

without ironclad laws preventing personal injury and product liability lawsuits they would be foolish too.

Of course they could do a limited retro run of classics without the hole.

Until then remove the lock and install The Plug.
 
Last edited:
Probably never happen. Too much of a liability if they made their products "LESS" safe by now removing the feature.
However I know there are plug kits available to delete the lock and plug the hole. I only have one in my accumulation that has the stupid lock but it really doesn't bother me. It's just a range gun. I bought a new J frame last year that doesn't have the lock so there are some models being made without them.
 
Please excuse my ignorance, and my question is about information and not sarcasm. What is the big deal about the revolver having a lock or not. I ask because I own 2 686's one that is pre-lock 6'' barrel and the newer one, a 686+ with 3" barrel which is my EDC. Shooting both I really don't notice a difference in functionality other than maybe the pre-lock is a little smoother but I've been shooting it for more than 36 years and the action is more polished from wear and I always preferred it to the colt python. My EDC is very smooth also but not like the 36 year old gun, it's only a couple of years old.
 
S&W does offer a few j-frame models without the internal lock. There is a “plug” made to fill the hole after the lock removal. However, you will still have the open slot for the “flag” beside the hammer. I have two new model 629s and both have the IL. I removed the lock on the 6” gun and installed the “plug” which worked fine. The open slot for the “flag” bothered me worse than the lock because when holstered, it is in the ideal position to collect all sorts of debris and moisture when used in the field. I reinstalled the lock and ignore it. I am happy with my IL guns and find them to be just as good as my older Smiths and better in some respects. I will no longer hesitate to by a new S&W with lock nor should you.
 
MS6852, for me it’s the aesthetics of the lock and the fact there is no point to the thing. There are a few documented incidents where the lock rendered the revolver useless as well.
What documented cases?
S&W has made and sold millions of revolvers with locks on them. Do you really think they care what a small but noisy group of people on the internet says about the locks? Don't like the locks? Buy an overpriced used one without the lock.
 
Never known anyone to use the lock. Reason is that if you don't trust whoever has access to the revolver who says it won't just walk off anyway, locked up until the person figures out how to unlock it or tosses it in a river or whatever. If that's the method of securing the gun , it's a very poor method. I'm sure there are some folks that lock the action, put the gun in the safe, lock the safe in a bunker 500' underground for ultimate safety, but if all your security fails and they get to the gun with a locked action, they'll steal it anyway.no one is going to try to unlock and load and then shoot a bad guy- no way. If there were some use in at all I don't think it would get as much hate. Further more there is already a certainty that at some point if shot enough parts will fail, why increase the number of useless parts with a great likelyhood of being able to lock up the action . probably with a higher rate of failure being an add on component not originally designed for the action. Horrible on every level, just useless. ---rant over---
 
I just paid a premium for a prelock S&W 629 because I didn't want the interal lock. IMHO just something to go bad at the wrong time, malfunction or rust. I would have bought a new current one if they didnt come with the dang internal lock. I bought mine partially for bear defense and wouldn't want it locking up on me right when Mr. Grizzly is charging me. I also think the lock is ugly and ruins the aesthetics of the otherwise beautiful gun.

I know a lot of folks obviously don't mind them but I don't like or trust them.


Will Smith and Wesson ever get rid of the internal lock on their Revolvers?


"I know a lot of folks obviously don't mind them"


I never heard anyone say they didn't mind them - with the exception of a couple of people on this thread! Combine those Hillary locks with my recent unpleasant experience with the S&W warranty-repair dept. (see the model 317 thread, or S&W thread on the general gun discussion board), high prices, and diminished quality, I'll be looking elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Never known anyone to use the lock. Reason is that if you don't trust whoever has access to the revolver who says it won't just walk off anyway, locked up until the person figures out how to unlock it or tosses it in a river or whatever. If that's the method of securing the gun , it's a very poor method. I'm sure there are some folks that lock the action, put the gun in the safe, lock the safe in a bunker 500' underground for ultimate safety, but if all your security fails and they get to the gun with a locked action, they'll steal it anyway.no one is going to try to unlock and load and then shoot a bad guy- no way. If there were some use in at all I don't think it would get as much hate. Further more there is already a certainty that at some point if shot enough parts will fail, why increase the number of useless parts with a great likelyhood of being able to lock up the action . probably with a higher rate of failure being an add on component not originally designed for the action. Horrible on every level, just useless. ---rant over---


Excellent!
 
They will remove the locks. They will make it one of the "features" on Performance Center Guns to help justify doubling the price.
 
When I was In gun sales years ago I had a customer looking at a new 686 (with lock). He was hemming and hawing about it I could tell he liked it and was in a buying mood and he pointed at the hole and asked what it was. I told him it was an internal lock to keep the gun from being able to be fired when I was engaged. He had never heard of them and thought it was a really neat feature. That was the final thought before he said he would take it. He may have bought it anyway but he clearly was a fan of the lock.
 
I don't think the S&W lock is a big deal, but I don't see the point of it either. If I don't want people getting access to my revolver, I won't lock my gun, I'll lock my safe. And I'm not going to lock and unlock a nightstand gun. On the whole, I'd rather just not have it.
 
Last edited:
It's possible, but I think it's unlikely at this point. I think if they were going to cave, they would have done it long ago when people were really angry about it. Even though it's still something of a hot topic, it's calmed down a lot.
 
I predict it will disappear when Robert Scott no longer has any influence, which will probably be a result of his death, and that will be unfortunate. I don't mean any malice toward him. He is the man who bought and rescued S&W in 2001. He also oversaw a tremendous turnaround that was driven by the diversification of S&W's products and markets, helped by market forces that were the result of tragedies like Sandy Hook and political conditions. He was originally the CEO of Saf-T-Hammer, a gun lock company, and when he bought S&W, he vowed to apply its product/design to S&W's products as it made sense. The revolver lock is the only thing that became of this and I believe it is to him his signature legacy.

Bob is currently 73 and not likely to soon give up a substantial stake in S&W even as it prepares to spin-off from AOBC (the current name of Saf-T-Hammer Corporation). It is probably reasonable to imagine he will not be around 30 years from now, and then there will be no one on the board of directors with any affinity to the "lock." I do not believe the concerns about the liability of removing it are unsurmountable.

S&W only competes in the double-action revolver market. They don't compete with Ruger or Magnum Research or FA in the single actions. Within the DA market, they dominate in every segment they want to. I'm sure they're happy to let the import brands possess the low-price segment. Ruger is just now beginning to enter the competition segment with their Custom Shop 9mm Super GP-100. They have a long way to go before competitors are going to switch to Ruger for no other consideration than the "lock." The Kimber and LCR have been eating into S&W's dominance in the "J frame" segment, but S&W already offers several models of the J frame without a lock, so there is nothing to be done there. S&W is competitive in the DA hunting revolver market, but this is really only a portion of the overall hunting revolver market, a large portion of which is made up of single actions. If S&W wanted more market share in hunting revolvers, they would be better off introducing a single-action than they would be deleting the "lock." That move would most certainly sell more units.

The only segment where I see a legitimate concern for lock-equipped S&W's is the nostalgic "classic" market. There is no question the lock hole mars their line of blued "Classic" revolvers like the 29, 27, 57, 10, 19, 48, 36, 17, 25, etc. But up until now, they were really only competing with their own products on the used market. Now that Colt has introduced a classic-styled Python, there may be a little more presure on S&W, but when you consider the size of this segment, it can't amount to an irresistible force.

The Super-GP100 and the new Colt Python do put a modest amount of market pressure on S&W to remove the lock, but you must imagine those new guns have yet to produce any measurable effect in S&W's sales figures. They might look at responding by this time next year, but then again, the Super GP and Python could yet fizzle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top