S&W Pre-Locks Vs. Post Locks

[MrBigStuff]

I don't recall if this has been covered ( probably has-please go over again!). Is the quality of the pre-lock Smithy's better than the new manufactures or is it all in my head? Did they change the metalurgy to accomodate the locks? I only "collect" pre-lock Smith and Wessons. To me they just seem better quality. You don't get that " rattling sound" you some times get with a lock version. Anybody with me?

 

[Smith357]

I'm not a fan of the new S&Ws, I don't think the MIM parts are as nice as the forged and case hardend parts, they just don't have any soul. The blueing looks like crap since the EPA has made all the old chemicals hazardous. I don't think I'll ever buy a new S&W.

 

[MrBigStuff]

Smith357

I'm glad I'm not alone! Love the prelocks.

 

[lanceman193]

I don't mind the bluing-hell they are all stainless. which I Love-I don't mind the MIM,but the damn' lock is ugly as hell.Not 1 of my 60-70 S&W revolvers has the damn' lock.Y'all remember( if you're old) those old Chicago roller skates you clamped to your shoes and skated in the street?The locks remind me of the old skate key necessary to tighten the skates to your shoes.God Bless pre-lock Smiths.......Lance
[email protected]

 

[MrBigStuff]

I'm almost afraid to post pre-lock love... gonna raise the prices!

 

[Old Fuff]

Smith & Wesson didn't make any changes to the gun's metalurgy to accomodate the locks. However about the same time the locks became standard they made other changes related to MIM lockwork, and later, two-piece barrels.

These changes may or may not have been good, depending on an individual's views. However "post-lock" and pre-lock" have become a standard way to describe the internals of various revolvers.

As a personal opinion I like the older guns better, particularly those made before 1960 and going back to the First World War. The steel they used isn't as good as that used today, but the hand fitting and general fit and polish was far superior. Of course I need to be selective about the ammunition I run through these older guns, but that doesn't bother me either.

In the end what's best is a matter of perspective.

 

[Standing Wolf]

No locks for me.

 

[Gordon]

I sold a 360 and a 329 that had locks. The more I looked/played with them, the junkier the details appeared
Now I have, as most of you know , a 242 and a 296 that were made in 1999 with no locks. These guns are head and shoulder in fit and finish,which is darn near perfect, compared to the 2 year later guns. :banghead:
Now I don't know what that means, maybe the union workers were happy under the socialist klinton administration but every S&W I have looked at made in the last 6 year were rougher than a cob internally and in the crane , on edges ect. I see a lot of Performance Center guns come thru the local high volume dealer that have problems too, and the finish doesn't seem much better even though the trigger pull, when they work is pretty good.
I have a REAL model 21 from the early 50's and you put it next to a TR 21 and My Goodness the new junk looks like an air soft if you get up close and handle the thing
They ought to make the darn things in India and China and Mexico and let the US craftmen make money in the 'service industries' to pay the inflated (deflated $) price! At least THAT would be honest!

 

[jeff-10]

I have 2 S&W revolvers. Both older ones. A 686 and a M29. Neither have locks and both have that rattling sound. I understand it is some kind of safety on the hammer or something. I knew what it was at one time but I can't remember what it is now.

Anyways the locks are very unpopular on this board but I doubt they really affect anything. The main problem with new S&W revolvers is that they cost more than a good semi-automatic. If they could get the price point below pistols they may be able to move more.

 

[HankB]

The ONLY "post lock" S&W I own - or will own - is a 340SC. I had to disassemble it to clean out the schmutz the factory left inside, and stoned off burrs - yes, BURRS - off various internal parts. (I thought MIM parts were supposed to be burr free?)

And while I was taking off the sideplate in the approved manner (tapping on the frame) the lock self-engaged. It's not supposed to do that . . . and now for sure it won't.

After some careful DIY internal honing (guided by the Jerry Miculek DVD) this revolver is now nice & reliable, with a significantly improved trigger, making it my "always" gun . . . but I see nothing else in the current S&W revolver line that I'd prefer over a pre-MIM, pre-Lock, revolver.

 

[.45man]

GORDON-Tell us how you really feel...

Yea,

As much as I want to disagree with you, I must agree with you I am not impressed with the post lock S&Ws. I have about 20 pre-locks, and two post lock S&Ws.

My blued 29-8 finish looks like crap . Someone had thier dirty, oily hands on the gun just prior to blueing and you can see it on the gun. I thought it was just oily finger prints when I purchased it in the shop. But when I got home and cleaned it well, the "marks" would not come off.

I also have a 617-6 and the action and trigger pull out of the box was terrible. It required alot to clean it up and make it shootable for my kids.

Saf-T-Lok will never remove the locks, unless someone else buys S&W.

Wonder why the Model 3s dont have the lock????:

 

[Jim PHL]

The only lock I have is on my 342. That's because I wanted a 342! (I already paid too much for the 'post-lock'. A 'pre-lock', if I could find one, would have cost even more!)
I would probably go ahead and buy a gun with the lock if they come out with a new gun that I want. If I see a model I want, I wouldn't let the lock keep me from buying it. The only newer Smith that has my interest lately is a 4" 620. I've considered settling for a pre-lock 686 but prefer the half-lug look. I have considered a 66 above all but when I find a good one, I don't have the money and when I have the money, I can't find a good one!

 

[Kramer Krazy]

Pre-lock

I prefer pre-lock on everything, but I only have one S&W (a pre-lock 617). My wife, Missashot, is the S&W fan in the house (I prefer Colts), and she doesn't have a preference. Thing about her preference, though, is that her two S&W revolvers don't have the lock. Her first post-lock S&W should be here in about two weeks.....a 686-6 with 4" barrel. We'll have to wait and see if her preference changes.

 

[MrBigStuff]

Thanks for replying

I'm glad I'm not alone here. I have several pre-locks of all sorts and only one lock-the stubby, AirWeight 637. I like this 637, but will only buy the magnums if they were made before the locks. Thanks again guys.

 

[xring44]

Hummmm, I have several, both with and without the locks, I shoot alot, I cannot tell one bit of difference in one or the other, my newest is as smooth and reliable as my oldest. Just like mim parts, I find no difference, but I appreciate you boys who do, it makes my older ones more valuable.

 

[jamz]

If someone gave me a S&W lock gun, I wouldn't throw it away. I would probably even carry it, because the likelyhood of lock failure is so low. That being said, I looked for a year or so before I found my ideal pocket gun- a pre-lock bodyguard made in the 70's.

I don't really hate the locks, I just won't pay money for them if there's an alternative.

 

[xring44]

I have a 686 with lock, it has in excess of 8000 round through it, no failures, thats reliable enough for me.

 

[454c]

Olf Fuff,what changes were made around that time frame ? I know about the trigger and hammer.


Add me to the "don't buy lockers" group.I don't understand the theory of "it's only a small chance of failure,don't worry".There is also a small chance of getting hit by lightning but,I still avoid high ground in a thunderstorm.Why add the extra chance ?

 

[Old Fuff]

Olf Fuff,what changes were made around that time frame ?

There were a lot of things, and they weren't all bad. Some minor dimensional changes were made to the J, K and N frames to beef them up. The cylinder lug on the left side of the frames was made as part of the frame, and lengthened to give the breech area more support. The hands were changed to the style used in the L-frame, in that they pivoted on a pin that was press-fitted into the trigger. This (sometimes) improved the double-action trigger pull. When the MIM lockwork was introduced in the J and K frame's the side panels of the frame beside the hammer was raised, making a stronger frame, and exposing less of the hammer itself. These changes allowed them to make J-frame .357 Magnums, and the N-frame Magnums held up better to heavy loads.

While some of this was an improvement, it didn't ring the Old Fuff's bell. He has absolutely no interest in a J-frame .357 Magnum (let alone one with an aluminum/Scandium frame) and didn't use his N-frame Magnums with Wally-Wallbanger loads. The new lockwork assembled like a puzzle with interlocking parts, and didn't lend themselves to improvement beyond dry firing. Also of course, they discontinued most of their blued models - which I prefered.

I have no problem with those that prefer the newer style guns, as they tend to keep the prices of the older ones lower. To each his own...

 

[JERRY]

on a target gun the lock is a mere nuesence.

but there is no way in hell im going to trust my life to it by carrying it as a ccw or duty piece.


the gun funtioned fine without the lock. now the lock adds just one more thing that can get you killed by its possible malfunction.

keep it simple, as much as possible.

 

[sfhogman]

I have only 2 Smiths, a 38/44 and a 620. I put about 300 rounds of .38+P through the 620 a month, and have yet to have a failure of any kind. For me, it's a superb gun. The 38/44 is simply a wonderful machine. It was manufactured in 1935, and pleases me in a way a new gun never could. Love 'em and trust them both.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

No locks or MIM parts for me.

Just picked up another M-640 (no dash) today, this time a 2 incher to go along with the 3" one I already had. It's a police trade-in that looks like it maybe had one box of ammo through it, if that.

 

[Redhawk1]

I will take them both, locked or not locked.

 

[bpisler]

I've had no problems with my 642-2 in the
500rds i've fired in it.So far it's
every bit as good as my 5 prelock S&W's.

 

[fastbolt]

Lotta variation in quality control has been evident over the years ...

Pesonally, since I had the most out-of-the-box problems with S&W revolvers in the 80's, that wasn't my favorite time for them. Badly fitted, out-of-tolerance/spec machined carbon steel parts aren't really of much use to me ...

I like my pre-lock revolvers, even though one of them has MIM parts. Ironically enough, so far that J-frame equipped with MIM parts has been the most trouble-free of all of my S&W revolvers (although I have a 37 sitting unfired in my safe ) ... right out of the box. My 649 & 629-4 both required repair before they'd reliably function, and the 629-4 required hammer & trigger replacement to eliminate SA push-off and bring them within normal factory specifications.

I don't like titanium cylinders. Sorry. Only steel cylinders interest me.

I'm reluctant to have sleeved barrels, although S&W engineers have made a good argument for why it's actually an improvement, and not a cost-saving measure ... on paper. Maybe it's just the execution that needs some refinement, if some of the occasionally reported barrel/frame fit problems are indicative of anything at all. Dunno, and don't claim to ... but I'm of a cautiously skeptical nature when it comes to revisions, improvements, changes, etc., etc..

I'm still witholding judgment on the locks ...

Liked the older blued finish better ... although the new stainless finishes seem better than those of previous years.

Old Fuff ... In the end what's best is a matter of perspective.

Ain't that the truth?

Nice to speculate what the quality of hand-fitting and craftsmanship of the 30's, 40's & 50's ... mated to some of the metallurgical improvements of the present ... might result in, though, huh?