2ndamd
Member
How many have actually disabled their S&W internal lock?
Have you disabled your S&W internal lock?
- Thread starter 2ndamd
- Start date
- Status
22-rimfire
Member
Not me. They stay un-locked, but they are still lockable as designed by the factory. Removal or disabling of the lock eventually hurts the value of the firearm. If you don't want locks, buy pre-lock guns.
If you don't mind buying a used gun.
That is, assuming you can find one.
And it doesn't cost more than a new one.
And it's not shot loose or in need of expensive repair.
And that they ever made a pre lock version of the gun in question in the first place.
Yes a pre lock version is the ideal solution, but it's getting harder and harder to swing that as supply shrinks and prices soar.
You could theoretically I suppose open the sideplate and go through some elaborate adjustment to deactivate the thing. Of course you can't actually remove the possibility of failure anyway, nor can you get a sideplate sans spider hole. Oh and good luck getting S&W to help you in the event anything goes south.
Or you can do what I do, turn the thing to "off" and ignore it, pay too much for a used one if it's even available, or buy a Ruger.
GTSteve03
Member
This is the correct answer.
I don't mess with any internal parts on my Smiths. Consider that there were other, older S&Ws with locks, like the lemon squeezer Centennials. Now, if I came across a nice old Smith with a pinned and disabled backstrap lock, I'd pass on it, same as with one with the trigger guard filed on the right side or cut away forward.
Messing with the originality of any gun destroys its history and shouldn't be done. There's also the liability problem. Shoot someone in self defense or accidentally damage someone's property with your modified Smith and see how much extra your lawyer adds to his fee to explain how it came about that you disabled the safety on your gun.
Finally, my post-lock 686, out of the box, has just about the smoothest action and slickest trigger of any S&W that I've owned to date, and it's on par with a couple of Performance Center models I've owned. So I'd get a pre-lock or just enjoy your post lock Smith and keep it unlocked. BTW save those keys! They'll add value when future generations price that vintage post-lock Smith next to the particle ray guns on some future dealer's shelf.
Ironvic
Messing with the originality of any gun destroys its history and shouldn't be done. There's also the liability problem. Shoot someone in self defense or accidentally damage someone's property with your modified Smith and see how much extra your lawyer adds to his fee to explain how it came about that you disabled the safety on your gun.
Finally, my post-lock 686, out of the box, has just about the smoothest action and slickest trigger of any S&W that I've owned to date, and it's on par with a couple of Performance Center models I've owned. So I'd get a pre-lock or just enjoy your post lock Smith and keep it unlocked. BTW save those keys! They'll add value when future generations price that vintage post-lock Smith next to the particle ray guns on some future dealer's shelf.
Ironvic
2ndamd
Member
That's where I am at.
I buy Rugers mostly anyway. But, have considered the 642 for CCW. I guess I just need to keep an eye out for a used 642-1 that is +p rated and does not have the lock.
The SP101's are getting harder to carry in the summer. I have been CCW one (or two) for almost 8 years now. In the summer wearing jeans and pocket carry one with another one on the ankle. In the winter it is easy to strong side carry in a Don Hume H721 OT. I have found several pre-+p rated light weights that were in good condition after checking them out with range rod. But, kinda wanted to stay with the +p ammo.
Guess I just have to keep my eyes open and not compromise my principle of never buying any gun with an internal lock.
I buy Rugers mostly anyway. But, have considered the 642 for CCW. I guess I just need to keep an eye out for a used 642-1 that is +p rated and does not have the lock.
The SP101's are getting harder to carry in the summer. I have been CCW one (or two) for almost 8 years now. In the summer wearing jeans and pocket carry one with another one on the ankle. In the winter it is easy to strong side carry in a Don Hume H721 OT. I have found several pre-+p rated light weights that were in good condition after checking them out with range rod. But, kinda wanted to stay with the +p ammo.
Guess I just have to keep my eyes open and not compromise my principle of never buying any gun with an internal lock.
Wakal
Member
Unless you believe that guns are made to be shot, and not just put on a shelf and looked at.
I don't own any "lookin'" guns
If I don't like something about a gun, I fix it. Matter of fact, I make fair money running a shop that does just that for other people, so I suspect that I am not alone
There is no place on a gun designed for serious use for a silly "locking" feature that isn't designed to be deactivated on use...like the lemon-squeezer safety and such-like. Now that real shooters report that real Slick and Weasel locks are really (unintentially) activating under real use, there is no reason to have one...ever...on a shootin' gun...
Alex
pinkymingeo
Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 591
I've deactivated several. As mentioned earlier, only takes a few minutes with a dremel. The locking "flag" is available from S&W for four bucks and change. I have a new one for each I've deactivated, so I can return the gun to stock configuration in a couple of minutes. While I'm not a fan of the lock, I really like the scandium framed Smiths, so I'm stuck with them. Don't have to leave them intact, though.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
No shortage in Colorado that I've ever encountered.
I won't have a gun with a lock or an idiot message stamped anywhere.
I have a S&W 66 with lock, never use it no problem, this is the best trigger I,ve had on a smith and I,ve owned many.
As far as the horror stories go {unintentional locking etc} I would think some of these guns are used in law enforcement, if it were to lock itself? in a self defense situation Don,t you think S&W would be liable?
Shoot Safe
As far as the horror stories go {unintentional locking etc} I would think some of these guns are used in law enforcement, if it were to lock itself? in a self defense situation Don,t you think S&W would be liable?
Shoot Safe
I'm another one that doesn't have a problem because I don't own an S&W revolver with a lock. If I did a drop of blue Loc-Tite would prevent any problems, and if I needed to (highly unlikely) I could restore the lock's function.
Trigger guards: There was a reason for both thinned and cut-away trigger guards. S&W made some revolvers with thinned guards, and Colt did some with the guard cut away at the front. Both were used by a long who's who list of highly respected and knowledgeable lawmen among others.
Like many other I tend to stick to earlier revolvers - not so much because of the lock, which is a factor - but for other reasons that I consider to be more important. I understand that it is economically and perhaps legally impossible for S&W and others to make guns like they used too, but so long as older guns are available I have a choice, and I'll exercise that option.
I sure hope the rest of you will go out and buy the new stuff... I highly recommend it for others beside myself...
Trigger guards: There was a reason for both thinned and cut-away trigger guards. S&W made some revolvers with thinned guards, and Colt did some with the guard cut away at the front. Both were used by a long who's who list of highly respected and knowledgeable lawmen among others.
Like many other I tend to stick to earlier revolvers - not so much because of the lock, which is a factor - but for other reasons that I consider to be more important. I understand that it is economically and perhaps legally impossible for S&W and others to make guns like they used too, but so long as older guns are available I have a choice, and I'll exercise that option.
I sure hope the rest of you will go out and buy the new stuff... I highly recommend it for others beside myself...
DMK
Member
I just put the keys in the box, put the box away and ignore the lock.
Personally, I think it's a non-issue and the whole uproar was started by those who wanted to make their older S&Ws worth more. But that's just me.
Personally, I think it's a non-issue and the whole uproar was started by those who wanted to make their older S&Ws worth more. But that's just me.
theNoid
Member
What's the Big Deal?
Not targeting Jim here in this thread, but more like just wondering about all of the people who make this statement and stick buy it.
Do you in fact only buy old muscle cars and antique vehicles to avoid the damn seat belts? If you are a cycle rider, would you never ride a bike in a helmet-law state? Would you never buy a boat just because it has an anti-syphon valve on the fuel tank?
I own a S&W 617 with the lock. I don't like the lock there because it was mandatory, but it has absolutely no bearing on how great of a gun/shooter it is, so I just leave it be and continue to love the gun. I have owned a 686 in the past as well with the lock, guess what, I just left it alone and it never gave me a single problem either. Both guns having thousands upon thousands of rounds through them.
I mean shoot folks, I can't stand the third brake light on new McLaren F1, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't buy one if I could afford it.
Noidster
Not targeting Jim here in this thread, but more like just wondering about all of the people who make this statement and stick buy it.
Do you in fact only buy old muscle cars and antique vehicles to avoid the damn seat belts? If you are a cycle rider, would you never ride a bike in a helmet-law state? Would you never buy a boat just because it has an anti-syphon valve on the fuel tank?
I own a S&W 617 with the lock. I don't like the lock there because it was mandatory, but it has absolutely no bearing on how great of a gun/shooter it is, so I just leave it be and continue to love the gun. I have owned a 686 in the past as well with the lock, guess what, I just left it alone and it never gave me a single problem either. Both guns having thousands upon thousands of rounds through them.
I mean shoot folks, I can't stand the third brake light on new McLaren F1, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't buy one if I could afford it.
Noidster
gudel
Member
Not just you, count me in. Just put the lock away, and it has never bothered me.
If you prefer to buy used non lock smith, that's fine. Just don't forget your tinfoil hat while you're at it.
GTSteve03
Member
The problem with this comparison is that it's 180 degrees from what the lock is for on the post-agreement S&Ws.
All those examples you listed are designed to protect you from bad things happening.
The lock on S&Ws are there to (supposedly) protect others from doing something and hurting themselves with the gun. However, that gun is originally designed to protect you just like the seat belts and helmets. When a mechanical device is added to this gun that can and has in documented cases caused the gun to fail in it's primary purpose of firing, then that gun is no longer providing you with the protection that it was supposed to when you bought it.
Therefore, the lock, unlike your other examples, is actually harmful to your own safety.
theNoid
Member
I guess I was under the impression they were there to protect everone, including myself in case of accident or the gun getting into the wrong hands. I could have been wrong, it has happened before.
A quote from another fellow on another forum:
Now while I haven't known anywhere near as many S&W shooters as this guy, I have known quite a darn few, and likewise have yet to ever hear of any problems with the internal locks except on the internet. Am I saying these things haven't happened? No I am not, but how many actual cases have been documented and proven?
As mentioned, I have yet to hear or see in person a lock of ever doing such things. On the other hand, I have been stranded about 30 miles offshore because of an anti-syphon valve failing. Being a boat mechanic by trade, I have seen it on a few occasions actually. Does this mean I stop buying all boats because the are required to have them when manufactured...nope. They are pretty well designed devices that in most cases do their job as normal, protecting not only me, but everyone around me.
Noidster
spwenger
Member
Pinned Grip Safety on Centennial
(The reason that some people opted to pin the grip safety is that, according to hand size and shape, for some users the safety might not be depressed reliably each time the gun is grasped.)
The first-generation Centennials, with the grip safeties (Model 40 and 42), came from the factory with a pin under one grip panel, for those who preferred to pin the safety in the "fire" position. If you find one that you don't want, because the safety has been pinned, please let me know - I could use another for my collection, The pin slides out as easily as it slides in, once you remove the grip stocks.
(The reason that some people opted to pin the grip safety is that, according to hand size and shape, for some users the safety might not be depressed reliably each time the gun is grasped.)
ironvic:
The revolvers you cited were made by S&W so that the grip safety could be disabled. All that was required was to remove the stocks take out the lock-out pin, squeeze in the grip safety, and drop the pin into the manufacture-provided hole. Doing the reverse would make the safety functional again.
Then the gun owner had a choice, and the choice was made available by the Smith & Wesson company. Today's lock doesn't offer a buyer any options. As I stated in an earlier post, I can easily live with the lock, but don't chose to do so for other reasons.
Some folks don't mind the lock, and may even prefer it. Others don't and for whatever reasons buy older guns without the lock - or other "improvements." It boils down to a matter of choice. So long as I can buy what I like I don't care about what others buy or like. That's their business.
I do note however, that in times past Smith & Wesson's management was wise enough to understand the importance of giving consumers a choice.
Oh, and if you do come across an older Centennial that's pinned, please send me a PM. I'm not above removing the stocks and pulling that pin...
The revolvers you cited were made by S&W so that the grip safety could be disabled. All that was required was to remove the stocks take out the lock-out pin, squeeze in the grip safety, and drop the pin into the manufacture-provided hole. Doing the reverse would make the safety functional again.
Then the gun owner had a choice, and the choice was made available by the Smith & Wesson company. Today's lock doesn't offer a buyer any options. As I stated in an earlier post, I can easily live with the lock, but don't chose to do so for other reasons.
Some folks don't mind the lock, and may even prefer it. Others don't and for whatever reasons buy older guns without the lock - or other "improvements." It boils down to a matter of choice. So long as I can buy what I like I don't care about what others buy or like. That's their business.
I do note however, that in times past Smith & Wesson's management was wise enough to understand the importance of giving consumers a choice.
Oh, and if you do come across an older Centennial that's pinned, please send me a PM. I'm not above removing the stocks and pulling that pin...
Change isn't always a good thing. When Colt came out with the series 80 and the fireing pin block I bought one. I went out to shoot it and it wouldn't fire. Seems when it came from the factory it was just a little off in the trigger enough to drop the hammer but not push up on the plunger far enough to free the fireing pin. The Colt was put back as a toy status and would never be used for self defense.
Smith chose a bad design for their lock in my opinion and I won't buy a new gun. I have plenty of old Smiths to shoot without the lock including a 6 shot 617 that is one of the finest weapons I own. A lock isn't going to make it a better shooter and there is no reason for it to have one.
Am I an old guy that has certian values I stick with? You bet I am and getting to this stage I feel I know what is best for me. The rest of you guys have the freedom to buy what you want form whoever you want as the way you spend your money is one of the great freedoms we enjoy in America. Heck guys like you probably love Chinese products:banghead:
jim
Hawk
Member
I got interested in revolvers relatively recently and for those of us "new on the scene" whether through accident of birth or inclination, the available supply of pre-lock models is dwindling. I don't like locks or bulletin board rollmarks but there is something I dislike more than either: paying a grossly premium price for a used product.
I don't have a S&W with lock (yet) but suspect my time is limited. If the lock is on something more or less "normal", I'll likely just leave it. If it's on one of those outer space things that Michael Bane reported self-locking, I'll probably slather it up with thread locker. The Bane lock-up was on a modified product but I can't see where the modfication could possibly be called to account by anyone other than a warrantee department employee.
I don't have a S&W with lock (yet) but suspect my time is limited. If the lock is on something more or less "normal", I'll likely just leave it. If it's on one of those outer space things that Michael Bane reported self-locking, I'll probably slather it up with thread locker. The Bane lock-up was on a modified product but I can't see where the modfication could possibly be called to account by anyone other than a warrantee department employee.
Ohen Cepel
Member
I'm with Jim on this one.
"I would never buy a Smith with the lock so count me out."
"I would never buy a Smith with the lock so count me out."
- Status