S&W "Hillary Holes" and MIM parts...

[oldfool]

I vote w/ Fuff and Keenan
(Ayoob makes a honest buck selling tactical to the tactical crowd; what else would you really expect him to say ??)

but I mostly think all the wailing and gnashing of teeth is simply ludicrous
99% political
if you carry for SD, take the ILS out, it's braindead easy
if you can't sleep at night because of MIM, mortgage the house and buy a Korth

but I do not understand the suits at S&W, I don't
NOBODY actually likes the ILS, just what part of "no" do they not understand ???
it's just not that hard to design a reliable out-of-service lock for a handgun, if they truly believe it serves their litigation phobia to do so

"It is simply the dumbest design since the nuclear rifle that did not shoot beyond the blast range of the projectile."
undisputed

 

[Guillermo]

I have no love for the lock either, but given the other options that are available I don’t loose any sleep over it.

99% political

The first quote, that of Old Fuff reflects my opinion too.

For me, Old Fool's assertion that the lock hatred is 99% political is not accurate. It is probably 25%

The fact that S&W dropped to their knees for the Clintons is nauseating. That the lock is designed so stupidly and they stick with it even though their customers hate it is part of it too.

Why? The incredible arrogance and the poor decision making.

They are such pompous asses that they do not care what their customers think.

Since they stick with something so moronically designed, what standards do they have?

Judging from their QC, I would say that they do not actually have standards.

 

[Old Fuff]

Why? The incredible arrogance and the poor decision making.

Not entirely, but they do have reasons from their own point of view.

First, it should be noted that other companies – including Ruger and Taurus – have internal locks and more are introducing them as designed-from-scratch models come on line. But both of the above named makers have gone to some length to insure the lock isn’t such a “in your face” sort of thing, and so far neither have had any problem with reports of failures.

What is behind all of this is not consumer demand but rather self-protection. The manufacturer’s lawyers have pointed out to their clients, that in some states an individual that leaves a handgun unsecured and it is used by someone else – especially a child – to inflict damage, injury or death, both criminal and civil actions can be expected. In addition most attorneys involved in civil litigation would also make the gun manufacturer a party for failing to incorporate some devise in their product to prevent such an occurrence. Why sue the gunmaker? Sometimes there is anti-gun politics in the background, but usually it’s because the gun company – or they’re liability insurance underwriter – have deep pockets.

Now this may seem far fetched to some, but if the suit is brought in a deep blue/ultra-liberal city or state the chances of the petitioner succeeding and being upheld is very good, and defending the case (not to mention potential judgments) can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars or much more, even if the manufacturer prevails.

So like it or not, we are going to see more guns with internal locks, even though surveys show that only a small percentage of handgun owners use them. But unquestionably Smith & Wesson could cool much of the controversy by taking steps to make the feature less obvious. Both Ruger and Taurus have seen the light that S&W hasn’t.

 

[Guillermo]

Both Ruger and Taurus have seen the light that S&W hasn’t

because Smith does not care what we think.

That arrogance pisses me off.

Ruger HIDES their lock and unlike the Smith lock, it is as close to impossible to accidentally engage as statistics will allow.

 

[Deanimator]

because Smith does not care what we think.

They're like TSA and the groping.

The more complaints both get, the more in your face they get about it.

In both cases, it's ceased to be about security or safety. It's now a matter of dominance behavior. "We not only can MAKE you do this, we're going to make you LIKE it!"

One interesting thing I've noted however, is that a LOT of promotional photos of S&W revolvers ONLY show the right side.

 

[Old Fuff]

Oh I think they care, but the bean-counters are looking at the cost of a re-design and production tooling vs. sales lost because of a relative few malcontents (like the OLD Fuff, etc.) Frankly most of today's buyers don't have much - or any - experience or knowledge concerning the older guns, and some that do don't give a hoot about the recent changes. If they are satisfied then I'm delighted. It takes some price pressure off of what I'm looking for.

That said, recent, sometimes substantial, price increases in relatively common older Smith & Wesson's show that somebody other then the Old Fuff is interested in them. With some exceptions, used with-lock/MIM revolvers aren't showing this kind of increased value the old ones are.

I sure wish that you guys would stop complaining and go out and buy more new guns...

 

[Guillermo]

I sure wish that you guys would stop complaining and go out and buy more new guns

LOL


well said Fuffster

 

[Hawk]

but I do not understand the suits at S&W, I don't
NOBODY actually likes the ILS, just what part of "no" do they not understand ???

Where are they hearing "no"?

I'd guess they're hearing "no" from internet fora. However, internet fora don't buy new guns so why should they care? In modern revolvers the disconnect between what people say they want vs. what they buy has been immense.

It's been a while since I've posted so I'll offer the following refresher:
Sales per AFMER, S&W revolvers:
2003: 120,398
2004: 146,089
2005: 158,146
2006: 185,078
2007: 196,255
2008: 215,955

In the same amount of time Ruger (including both DA and SA) went from 110,894 to 96,736.

A disinterested third party reading this thread would think the situation should be reversed. After all, isn't everyone staying away from new S&W and rewarding Ruger for not allowing anything so diabolical to infest their product?

It would seem not. It would seem whatever S&W is doing is being rewarded by the market while Ruger could stand a little help here - where are all those buyers voting in the "new S&W vs Ruger" poll? A little broke from Christmas shopping or simply insufficient numbers to be a blip on the radar?

I don't have any special knowledge but I'd bet a donut S&W knows there's no point in wooing the old timers - If they dropped the lock, people would whine about the MIM rather than pay for the forged part models, if everything went forged, they'd crab about the EDM barrels. Or, not to put too fine a point on it, there's a crowd that's better off with older stuff and some marketing dweebs are likely in full agreement that the gain to recover them isn't worth the pain. And, infinitely more importantly, they are NOT being punished by the market.

I'm not saying that those swearing off new S&W don't have valid points - in fact, I'm more or less one of them (I only stray on rare occasion).

But, realistically, we represent a market force of squat-all. This thread is an excellent example - same names, same theme, repeated across multiple forums generally bi-monthly. Add all the UNIQUE names together and we get maybe a couple hundred potential buyers.

The lock never was and never will be the "agreement". The "agreement" resulted in a boycott by dealers and distributors that darn near brought the tent down and at least forced a change of ownership. The lock, not so much. It's caused a couple hundred folks that vary from simply preferring older stuff to conspiracy theorists to swear off the brand with vastly varying degrees of vehemence.

What's unfortunate is that some few (not necessarily even anyone in this thread) have confused the uprising against the agreement to be duplicable against the lock. Ain't gonna happen. Hasn't happened. Didn't happen.



On a related but tangential note, domestic revolver production took off in 2009 from 431K to 547K. The breakdown figures won't be out of embargo until January 2011. Should be enlightening.

 

[420Stainless]

I am not aware of any issues with either of those features beyond what has already been presented, only that I don't like them. The hole is ugly and useless. The MIM don't bother me so much, but I do prefer the old way better. Neither feature improves the functionality in any way and harm the aesthetics. The only improvement they may offer is a reduction in costs associated with manufacturing and liabilities. This can be an important factor for consumers weighing quality vs. affordability. China has taken over manufactured commodities because consumers will make that trade-off most of the time and S&W and other gun manufacturers' markets aren't much different.

I own a 25-13 because it has features that drew me past the objectionable ones. But I am not attracted to, or wish to buy any more with the hole. Too many other options are more appealing.

 

[dashootist]

Is it true that newer Rugers have MIM parts in them?

 

[Guillermo]

Hawk

you make a good point that their numbers are good. One wonders how good they would be if they gave a damn what serious gun people thought.

I would have bought at least one gun from them. (not a revolver...but I did not bother to consider an M&P when I wanted a polymer 45. Springfield got my money)

 

[Hawk]

I expect we'll never know.

Even if everyone that swore them off bought six to ten a year if they totally reformed I'm not sure it would make a dent.

It sounds like there's more of us than there is through what I believe is called "internet echo effect" but it's you, me, Old Fuff and the usual crowd in here - I don't see thousands per year in lost sales. Maybe thousands since 2003.

'Course this is conjecture. One could just as well speculate that their sales would be up significantly if they hadn't strayed.

 

[Old Fuff]

Is it true that newer Rugers have MIM parts in them?

I'm not sure about the most recent LCR revolvers, but other Rugers are made using investment castings, with a few punch press stampings (such as the hammer strut.) I have no reason to think they are going to change.

 

[Balrog]

I was just checking the S&W website, and find it kind of funny that all their semi autos are shown with the barrel pointing to the left, but all their revolvers are shown with the barrels pointing to the right. With the barrels to the right, the Hillary Hole is hidden on the opposite side of the gun. I do not think this is coincidental. I think S&W wishes everyone would just forget about the lock.

 

[Old Fuff]

Well Hawk...

It's almost worth getting involved in another internal lock thread just to get you back. I think you are correct in that many if not most of the objectors are on the older side, and their numbers (including me) aren't doing serious damage to Smith & Wesson's bottom line.

But I don't want to hurt the company anyway, it's just that I buy what my experience tells me is best, especially when the prices are attractive. Clearly the greater numbers don't agree with me, and for that I am absolutely delighted.

Besides I'm depressed. I was watching an auction this morning and noticed a "gun of interest," but the opening bid was $100,000.

And I am absolutely sure that it didn't have an internal lock or MIM parts!

 

[oldfool]

"assertion that the lock hatred is 99% political is not accurate. It is probably 25%...
The fact that S&W dropped to their knees for the Clintons is nauseating"

dog gone it, you got me there, G...clearly 75% non-political

"because Smith does not care what we think."
no they do not, nor did Colt, nor does Taurus, nor does Glock or HK, obviously

The lock never was and never will be the "agreement".
fact
the only thing the MBAs-R-Us were looking to "lock" was to lock out competition... BAD move.. bankrupted the company, auctioned off for 10 cents on the dollar

Where are they hearing "no"?
from G and Fuff and Ayoob and every revolver forum in cyberspace for 10 straight years

"S&W knows there's no point in wooing the old timers"
right... that's why they introduced and keep expanding the so called 'classic' line, at extra high markup prices... cause they don't think anybody still alive actually remembers or wants the good stuff

tooling up cost too high to make revolvers w/o ILS... vs. tooling to build the current 'classic' line w/ ILS... hmmm

2003 thru 2008
Ruger plus S&W combined went from 231,000 to 313,000 revolvers
wow
whilst injection molded black plastics with crappy mushy DAO triggers went....
and 'Dan Wesson' sold only autoloaders...
(pert near makes an old fool want to sit right down and cry)

reality check -
"the company formerly known as S&W" MBAs-R-Us screwed up HUGE and lost the company (because of NOT hearing their customers)
bought for 10 cents on the dollar by... Safe-t-Hammer
somebody's daddy owns the patent on that pitiful excuse for an out-of-service handgun lock
somebody's child gets a royalty on every one of those (over a million) S&W revolvers sold 2003 thru 2008 (quite likely plus a VIP fat salary and bonus stock options whether they show up for work or not, golden umbrella guaranteed)
and somebody's child is going to vote at the board meeting to expand the 'classic line'.. with ILS of course

who ever woulda' thunk it ???


PS
whatever else I am wrong about... hey, NOBODY actually likes that lock, whether they lose sleep over it or not
(except maybe somebody's child ?)

 

[Guillermo]

from G and Fuff and Ayoob and every revolver forum in cyberspace for 10 straight year

I am honored to be mentioned in the same sentence as those guys, but I recognize that I am not worthy to carry Old Fuff's range bag...although he would let me if I walked 3 paces arrear.

 

[18DAI]

Yes, things are going so well for S&W that they are making lock free revolvers again. The apologists here have assured me for years that this would never happen.

S&W's stock is tanked - not Rugers.

Oh, and S&W is dropping the prices on all its handguns. Check their website. Sales must be rosy indeed.

 

[Marvin KNox]

When I decided to carry, I wanted to carry two Smith and Wesson J frames.

I couldn't find what I wanted without the lock. So I got guns with the lock. When I had the guns worked on for their triggers I had the locks disabled. I wasn't THAT worried about them. But since there was no charge to do it I figured why not.

I wish they didn't have the hole in the side. But they do. If I had my choice the holes would disappear. But it's not an option.

I love the guns and won't be trading them off for anything. They have great triggers and they can't lock up now even if that was a worry at one time - which it wasn't.

I don't carry for looks. No one sees them usually. Why shouldn't I be happy with them. They do the job very well indeed.

Thank you - to the guys who bitched and moaned until Smith and Wesson began to see the light. The gun owning public owes you a great big thank you. Consider it done.

I'm just a guy who carries two guns that will do the job for me and mine.

BUT I WAS NOT PART OF ANY PROBLEM. Smith and Wesson's political correctness was the only problem in the equation.

The rest of us are heros - whether we happen to have ugly holes in the sides of our guns or not. How bout a little respect here?

 

[dashootist]

Do people at S&W even know we don't like internal locks? I find only mild dislike for the locks when I talk to real people who owns S&W. They don't like it, but not enough to complain about it to S&W. I only find deep hatred on internet forums. I don't think that many people actually reads internet forums. So we can complain all we want on the internet, but I don't think S&W is getting the message. Maybe one of those big gun magazine would do a critical article about it.

 

[Old Fuff]

Gee Marvin,

You don't have to put up with the ugly holes. Someone makes an aftermarket plug to fit in it. Easy do-it-yourself sort of thing.

 

[Old Fuff]

Smith & Wesson's management does not live in a cave, and yes they are very aware about the very vocal objections to the lock. But as long as it offers them some protection against lawsuits, and doesn't seriously impact their bottom line the lock will stay on most models.

Now the Old Fuff will go out and spit into the wind while he pets one of his pre-lock revolvers...

 

[340PD]

Every S&W I currently own has "the Lock" Every one of them has at least several thousand rounds through them. I feel secure carrying any of these revolvers. Anyone, please feel free to send me any of guns with locks that you are concerned about. I will give them a good home.

 

[BADUNAME13]

Do people at S&W even know we don't like internal locks? I find only mild dislike for the locks when I talk to real people who owns S&W. They don't like it, but not enough to complain about it to S&W. I only find deep hatred on internet forums. I don't think that many people actually reads internet forums. So we can complain all we want on the internet, but I don't think S&W is getting the message. Maybe one of those big gun magazine would do a critical article about it.

Oh, Gun companies READ the postings...

Seen proof many times.

 

[dashootist]

340PD, do you ever use the internal lock?

Does anyone?