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

I owned a NIB 357 .41 Mag Nightguard, my only post-2003 S&W wheelgun ever purchased. Everytime I the action cycled, the flag would flop about halfway towards the lock position.

No thanks. I sold it unfired.

I once owned a 5" barreled S&W 686-Plus "stocking dealer's special" that was half-lugged (love that look) that came with Ahrend's coco bolo finger-groove stocks. Tightest lock-up of any revolver I've ever owned. Sweet-shooting, accurate, really good looking. But I eventually sold it off simply because, at the time, The Lock bugged me so much. Boy, was I dumb. I miss that gun.

Otherwise, I love S&W revolvers, I just don't like The Lock … (or the idea of so much MIM, mostly because I love the look of color case-hardened triggers and hammers, the concept of MIM I understand).

It is apparent that the main “beef” with the IL has more to do with it’s appearance than any other reason. I agree that it does detract from the otherwise clean lines of the revolvers. However, the guns themselves are still the quality that we expect from S&W. The reason for its existence is that it is a “feel good” solution to placate the gun control groups. Taurus also uses a lock but it isn’t as easily noticed because it is placed behind the hammer spur. I don’t think that anyone really likes the S&W IL but, it is a sign of the times.
If you are really stressed out by the lock, you can add one of these:

If S&W is reading this, you have lost at least 4 sales to me alone by keeping the lock in your guns.
I just go to Gunbroker and look for older 686's, etc, and buy those.

Look at it from their prospective. Everyone wants to sue everyone else, including gun manufacturers just for producing guns that work.

So S&W puts this lock there and now their lawyers can say, "hey, we put a lock there, he or she didn't use it, so obviously it's not our fault".

I'm sure their market analysts know if, and how much, it may be hurting sales as opposed to how much extra they'd pay in insurance or liability claims.

Bottom line is it's the bottom line that counts, not necessarily lives. Auto makers make these decisions all the time.

It probably will not disappear.

It's not going anywhere until someone new owns S&W.

That said it has never bothered me. Remove it if it does. It is all of four parts. Plug the hole and forget about it.

Internal lock, or infernal lock?

I am not a fan of the lock, and I will only buy a Smith with the lock if a pre lock version does not exist.

Out of 8 S&W revolvers I have 3 Smith & Wesson revolvers with the lock.
1. Model 327 Night Guard - .357 Magnum
2. Model 60 Pro - .357 Magnum
3. Model 63 - .22 Long Rifle

None of them have ever had the lock set itself. I have tested the locks using the key and then shooting them and never having a problem with the lock.
If the lock on a 23 ounce J frame shooting lots of full house 158 grain .357 Magnum loads doesn’t trip it on I doubt very highly that they will activate themselves.

I just wish S&W’s Quality Control folks put as much effort into inspecting their guns as someone there obviously does with these locks. Each one of these revolvers has had issues that caused them to have to be returned for repair.

So, anyone from S&W reading this might want to let someone know that loyal S&W customers are getting fed up with your lax way of doing business. Notice I didn’t mention owning any semi autos? That’s because I don’t want to experiment or beta test those products as well for you people.

kidneyboy said:

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.

Click to expand...

The only "cases" I ever heard of with S&W locks acting up, was when they first introduced the .500 X-Frame. My neighborhood LGS alone sold 4 of them.... And they all came back locked up. Cylinder wouldn't open, and revolver would not cock either in single or double action. All had live rounds in the cylinder when brought in. Luckily there was a gunsmith in the same strip mall who was able to get them open and empty them so they could be sent back.

It's my understanding there were many others. S&W fixed it fast, and there has been nothing since. All of mine are pre lock. But if I were to buy another S&W revolver, I don't think the lock would stand in my way. Even though the whole concept is stupid.

Personally I would never own one. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
When we went to the Indianapolis NRA convention last year. Told the S&W reps how I felt....they couldn't care less....

...........................

I just posted this in another thread, but here is the Classic Model 29 I'm testing right now. It's a really nice revolver.

I've removed the ones I have and plugged up the hole. A gun is not a machine that you want to make have even the slightest extra chance of failure in an emergency situation by adding totally needless complications. And as many have already said, what purpose does it serve other than earning some lawyers and politicians some brownie points and money? If you leave it around locked there is no chance you'll have it ready when you really need it, and it also offers no deterrence to someone stealing it and then taking it apart and taking off the lock, a simple matter.

On the other hand me removing it gives S&W yet another excuse not to honor their lifetime warranty, and potentially a prosecuting attorney could tell the jury that this "homicidal maniac" (defending his home or his life) was so eager to shoot someone that he removed the safety lock on his gun!

I'll never buy another one with a lock, and after my recent S&W service dept. experience will never buy another S&W either, except maybe an old one when they were built much better.

jdavis123 said:

It is apparent that the main “beef” with the IL has more to do with it’s appearance than any other reason.

Click to expand...

For me it's a lot more than that. It's the fact that it's an unnecessary complication. Something unnecessary to the proper function of the revolver that if it fails, you have an expensive paper weight until it's fixed. It's a symbol of the deal made with the Clintons. It goes hand in hand with the cost-cutting measures including injection molded lockwork, chintzy looking markings, two-piece barrels that cannot be shortened or removed by anyone but S&W, etc., etc.. Judged on their own, they're good guns but it is impossible for me not to compare them to the older ones. If I have a choice, I'm gonna pick an older gun.

I do not know if S&W will. I do know I have a HK P2000SK from around 6 or 7 years ago with an internal lock. Just bought a brand new VP 40 and it does not have one. So there is precedent for a company to drop internal locks on new firearms.

jeff-10 said:

I do not know if S&W will. I do know I have a HK P2000SK from around 6 or 7 years ago with an internal lock. Just bought a brand new VP 40 and it does not have one. So there is precedent for a company to drop internal locks on new firearms.

Click to expand...

Ruger has dropped theirs. Seemingly without fanfare.

I don’t like the locks for many of the perceptions “voiced” here. Admittedly, I’ve had my 642 with lock since about 2004 or 2005. I’ve shot it more than I would bet most owners of them have....thousands of rounds. I’ve never had the hint of an issue with it. That being said, I’ve gone out of my way to buy the no lock version for when the lock finally fails.....

I don't think it has to do with liability (fear of lawsuit) otherwise it would be on all S&W handguns. Correct me if I'm wrong but it only appears on their revolvers. The two S&W autos I own, a 1.0 M&P .45 and a Shield, have no lock. If they can leave it off those why can't they remove them from revolvers?

LaneP said:

I don't think it has to do with liability (fear of lawsuit) otherwise it would be on all S&W handguns. Correct me if I'm wrong but it only appears on their revolvers. The two S&W autos I own, a 1.0 M&P .45 and a Shield, have no lock. If they can leave it off those why can't they remove them from revolvers?

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are some marketing numbers that suss it out. My guess is that a good chunk of S&W revolver sales are for home defense as they aren't the gun of choice in LE anymore. I bet a large chunk of those home defense buyers are buying revolvers because they are deemed "safer" than a pistol. I'm sure a good chunk of those are nervous to have a gun in the house and keep it locked in a lock box with the IL engaged and the key hidden with the ammo locked in a box in the top of the closet in the other room...but at least their home is protected.

I would prefer it not to be there, but I won't boycott the guns over it. Most people don't. If they did, it would have gone away or S&W would be belly up. It's pretty much a nonissue in their mind.

Aim1 said:

Ah, good to know.


I could see S&W not doing it because they would have to re-tool their machines and that could be expensive.

Click to expand...

I don't know that would be the issue … S&W has done several runs over the past few years of 637s, 442s and 642s without the lock, priced the same as the ones with lock.

And yeah, a lot of it (for me, anyway) is appearance. Wouldn't that 629 Classic pictured in Max's post look much better without the hole and etched arrow on the sideplate?

We pretty much debunked the issue of lock failure several years back on this very forum; even Mas Ayoob and several S&W revolver authorities (this forum had a couple very credible experts at the time) weighed in on the issue and it became apparent that while there were at least a couple well-documented failures of the lock, most other accounts were anecdotal and were never verified. So that has really become a non-issue these days, and it appears the most of us have accepted the concept of MIM parts in our guns now as well since every manufacturer used MIM to some extent or another (although, as I said before, I miss the look of color case-hardened or jeweled forged hammers and triggers).

As far as the gun inadvertently locking, that is probably not going to happen contrary to what the Internet says.

The big deal about the S&W lock is that it really detracts from the appearance. If we get right down to it, the main reason to buy a revolver these days is that a lot of people really appreciate the beauty and craftsmanship of a nice revolver (me included), and if something detracts from its looks, it's a deal breaker.

At least Taurus put their lock on the hammer and it does not detract from the look of the revolver.

MaxP said:

Internal lock, or infernal lock?

Click to expand...

I have been known to call it the latter once or twice...

At this point I almost don't care what S&W does with the lock. I object to it on principle, but in practice I've already bought older Smiths without the lock instead of buying new ones with it, and at this point I've got almost everything I want. There are maybe one or two current production S&W revolvers I'd buy if the lock were gone, but as it stands, I'll just keep an eye out for pre-lock versions, just as I have with all of my other Smiths, or buy an equivalent Ruger.