|
|
|
10-04-2009, 03:03 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
|
|
S&W getting rid of internal lock?
I just read on another forum, where a guy said that Guns & Ammo just ran an article saying that Smith was dropping the lock. Has anyone else read that article? Does anyone know if it will be all guns, just the classics etc.?
I don't/won't buy G&A anymore, since they have gone so far downhill.
I know that the lock subject comes up here a lot, but if they do get rid of it, I will start buying new Smiths again. I don't mind the mim too much. I prefer the firing pin on the hammer, since I think it looks better there, but that's just my opinion. I do like the endurance upgrades of the newer guns, but I don't like the new style rifling as well. (it works, but not quite as well as the old style for lead).
Smith only sells a gun once, and they have to know that all of us old style fanciers, are buying and selling the old style guns repeatedly, in which case they are losing out on profit. It only makes sense to give us what we want. FINALLY!
They will sell a lot more guns if they go back to their roots, and keep it going with the classice series, but only with no lock in them.
Edited to add-
I got ahold of the guy who wrote the post, and he said it was actually the March/April edition of American Handgunner.
Last edited by Gun 4 Fun; 10-05-2009 at 02:33 PM.
|
10-04-2009, 03:10 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 18,773
Likes: 6,048
Liked 5,762 Times in 1,992 Posts
|
|
I don't know if it's true or not but if it is then they may have come to their senses.
|
10-04-2009, 03:15 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
|
|
And into my money.
Can you say m-58?
|
10-04-2009, 03:15 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 111
Likes: 1
Liked 22 Times in 16 Posts
|
|
I am with you. I think Smith can increase their sales by getting rid of the lock. People like us will buy more Smiths if there is stuff out there that appeals to us.
|
10-04-2009, 03:30 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NM
Posts: 117
Likes: 1
Liked 25 Times in 14 Posts
|
|
Did they say what article and who wrote it?
I'd like to check it out.
Bill Mahnke #1915
|
10-04-2009, 03:42 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
|
|
No, that was all that was mentioned about the article.
|
10-04-2009, 04:33 PM
|
SWCA Member Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SLC, Utah
Posts: 5,062
Likes: 739
Liked 3,271 Times in 1,282 Posts
|
|
I got the November issue yesterday and set it aside. I just looked through it and saw nothing reporting the demise of the internal lock.
There is an article by Wayne Van Zwoll about the N frame, which just mentions the lock in passing, nothing said good, bad or indifferent about it. Nothing of great import in the article, just a very general overview of the history of the company and some of it's guns.
|
10-04-2009, 05:09 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 0
Liked 40 Times in 25 Posts
|
|
This is one of those internet urban legends that won't die. Back in the Spring there were several threads in various forums claiming that Massad Ayoob had written an article in one of the gun mags announcing that Smith was discontinuing the lock. This provoked great excitement, numerous "I told you so's" and a fair amount of gloating. Sadly, for those of you who are lock haters he hadn't written any such article, and the story turned out to be a false rumor, or perhaps, a hoax. Obviously, one needs to drive a stake through this story's heart to kill it. I'm betting that we'll see it raised again by (presumably) innocent posters in the future.
|
10-04-2009, 06:27 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Grab Your Ankles
Posts: 2,973
Likes: 852
Liked 628 Times in 343 Posts
|
|
I'm with the guys who say "If They Loose the Lock, Then I Might Buy a Newer Made S&W"..
The still have the MIM parts & aren't finished as well as they once were & then there's Quality Control Too..
I'd still like the Idea of aquireing a newer 100% forged Smith & Wesson with no locks gadgets etc, Nothing but Sweet Goodness!!
I know I'm dreaming but I also come across older guns every weekend & the only thing keeping me away is the prices..
Gary/Hk
|
10-04-2009, 06:47 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 0
Liked 144 Times in 48 Posts
|
|
It worked for Remington when then put the lock on their rifles, a few years later the lock was off. Maybe S&W if true will admit to a mistake and correct their revolvers with no lock models.
These lock models will be worth nothing in trade in time if this is true....
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
|
10-04-2009, 06:58 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 987
Likes: 28
Liked 381 Times in 99 Posts
|
|
I love the net-but hate it when it is a method of transmitting hogwash. This one is hog*****. S&W was purchased by a lock making company and they still own it. Further, no manufacturer in their right mind is going to discontinue a "safety device". They might as well hoist a flag to the lawyers saying "sue me". Sad but true in our litigious society, which is personified by that moral stalwart John Edwards.
The number of reasons why they would not discontinue the lock is quite long, and simply cannot be overcome by a quite small number of folks (like me) who simply will not buy a "locker" because it looks awful and is an insult to our intelligence.
The company that now owns S&W brought us the lock (although it probably would have come anyway, but maybe is a less obnoxious form), and the liberals and lawyers are seeing to it that we will always have it.
OK, EOR (end of rant).
|
10-04-2009, 07:28 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
They could put it where it doesn't look ugly. Like what Ruger does by putting their lock in the grip.
There are 2009 production 642 and 442 revolvers without the internal lock. I just bought one
On the "Pro Series" revolvers, such as the 686 Stock Service Revolver, it has a forged hammer and trigger.
Base on these two production runs, you might be able to buy a new S&W revolver with forged parts and no internal lock in the future.
|
10-04-2009, 09:11 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,692
Likes: 57,549
Liked 52,817 Times in 16,468 Posts
|
|
[QUOTE
There are 2009 production 642 and 442 revolvers without the internal lock. I just bought one
[/QUOTE]
Nah...just leftover frames. another internet urban legend.
__________________
Sure you did
|
10-04-2009, 09:41 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SE-SC
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 1,482
Liked 265 Times in 169 Posts
|
|
That is great, the few that I have with locks will be collector items.I don't think that will ever happen, S&W, can't make them fast enough now.
|
10-04-2009, 09:43 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Liked 42 Times in 16 Posts
|
|
Man... you got me all excited. At this point I should know better.
|
10-04-2009, 09:54 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times in 8 Posts
|
|
I have seen a number of threads talking about removing the locks. I wonder if they did actually remove the locks if there would be threads on how to insert a lock.
|
10-04-2009, 10:02 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
It is fairly simple to get S&W to stop putting locks in their guns - JUST DON'T BUY THEM!
If they don't sell the guns with the lock, and sell out every batch of guns without the lock, they will stop making the locks.
The problem is that a lot of people buying these guns are one time purchasers that don't read posts on this forum, and have limited knowledge of potential problems. There are also a lot of knowledgable people who buy them because they don't care about the locks.
So long as the lock guns sell, S&W will continue to make them because it is easier to make one gun for all states and some states require a lock. It is really just simply economics.
|
10-04-2009, 10:18 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wyoming-Texas, USA
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
To much to hope for, but wouldn't it be nice. I was just comparing my two Mtn. Guns, one with and one without the lock. No real difference except for the hole and knowing that S&W is politically motivated rather than shooter oriented. Unfortunately 1066 is correct, the lock won't go away until sales drop.
|
10-04-2009, 10:23 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 0
Liked 40 Times in 25 Posts
|
|
Well, this has turned into another "I hate the lock" thread. Look, folks, these discussions are a waste of time. Smith isn't going to remove the lock from its revolvers, for several reasons. First, because a few dozen gripers on forums like these don't amount to a measurable percentage of their overall market. I don't take issue with the passion that many of you display, or your sincerity, but you are less than a drop in the bucket when compared to the great mass of gun buyers. In case you haven't noticed, Smith's lock-equipped guns have sold well and continue to do so.
Second, because every other revolver manufacturer (and a few semi-auto manufacturers as well) have now equipped their guns with locks. Ruger, Taurus, they all have locks. One can quibble about whether Smith's lock is uglier than Taurus' or whether it would have been a better marketing strategy to put the lock under the grips as does Ruger. But, the bottom line is that for liability reasons if for no other, Smith will never stop equipping its guns with locks so long as its competitors equip theirs.
Finally, because Smith's products are more profitable with locks than without them. Smith, if you haven't noticed, is owned by the company that manufactures Smith's locks. That means that the parent company gets to equip every revolver sold with a lock. The parent's sales to Smith are direct profits for the parent and I have no doubt that Smith passes on to the consumer the cost of equipping each of its revolvers with a lock.
So again, no offense meant, but this is truly beating a dead horse. And, those of you who are inclined to take hope in internet tales like the "Smith's going to remove the lock" fairy tale need to take a deep breath, accept reality, and move on.
Oh, and as an aside, I just acquired a 1973 36 no-dash. A sweet gun if ever I saw one and, for those who care, no lock.
|
10-04-2009, 11:21 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,692
Likes: 57,549
Liked 52,817 Times in 16,468 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1066
It is fairly simple to get S&W to stop putting locks in their guns - JUST DON'T BUY THEM!
|
Don't and won't. Matter of fact just ordered one of them M442 "frame leftovers".
BTW, can anyone explain where this seemingly endless supply of no-lock J frames is coming from? Why would Smith sell them if the lockers were so profitable? Couldn't they make more money by drilling a hole in the side and putting in a lock? One more lock sale for SAF-T-LOK,nuther penny and three quarters profit.
__________________
Sure you did
Last edited by ladder13; 10-05-2009 at 12:00 AM.
|
10-04-2009, 11:41 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
|
|
People, please re-read my post. I didn't post up another net legend. I did post what I just read on another forum. The man there is fairly new there, and wasn't trying to start another rant. He simply mentioned reading an article in G&A.
I simply asked if anyone had read it, and what it really says. I then pondered on how nice that would be if true. What is and what will be, are still two seperate issues, and remain to be seen.
Last edited by Gun 4 Fun; 10-04-2009 at 11:45 PM.
|
10-05-2009, 01:53 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Liked 54 Times in 30 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieboy
Well, this has turned into another "I hate the lock" thread. Look, folks, these discussions are a waste of time. Smith isn't going to remove the lock from its revolvers, for several reasons. First, because a few dozen gripers on forums like these don't amount to a measurable percentage of their overall market. I don't take issue with the passion that many of you display, or your sincerity, but you are less than a drop in the bucket when compared to the great mass of gun buyers. In case you haven't noticed, Smith's lock-equipped guns have sold well and continue to do so.
Second, because every other revolver manufacturer (and a few semi-auto manufacturers as well) have now equipped their guns with locks. Ruger, Taurus, they all have locks. One can quibble about whether Smith's lock is uglier than Taurus' or whether it would have been a better marketing strategy to put the lock under the grips as does Ruger. But, the bottom line is that for liability reasons if for no other, Smith will never stop equipping its guns with locks so long as its competitors equip theirs.
Finally, because Smith's products are more profitable with locks than without them. Smith, if you haven't noticed, is owned by the company that manufactures Smith's locks. That means that the parent company gets to equip every revolver sold with a lock. The parent's sales to Smith are direct profits for the parent and I have no doubt that Smith passes on to the consumer the cost of equipping each of its revolvers with a lock.
So again, no offense meant, but this is truly beating a dead horse. And, those of you who are inclined to take hope in internet tales like the "Smith's going to remove the lock" fairy tale need to take a deep breath, accept reality, and move on.
Oh, and as an aside, I just acquired a 1973 36 no-dash. A sweet gun if ever I saw one and, for those who care, no lock.
|
While I agree with you on most points I would like to point somethings out. Ruger saw the light on internal locks and has limited its use. The Ruger New Vaquero in both blue and stainless and the Blackhawk in blue are the only revolvers that have the lock. They got some many letters and phone calls against the locks that they stopped at those models.
Some pistols still have locks but my dealer just got a batch of MKIII 22s without locks. They might have done the same as Remington.
|
10-05-2009, 08:53 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hendersonville, NC
Posts: 467
Likes: 102
Liked 403 Times in 107 Posts
|
|
No locks ? Possible sighting
I was at a local gun show this weekend, and would (almost) swear I saw a new model - in the Classic mode - without a lock. I did a double take, and it still looked like it did not have a lock. I think it was something like a M24 .44 Spec.
Certainly the first non-Centennial no-lock gun I have seen.
|
10-05-2009, 10:35 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mass/Florida
Posts: 161
Likes: 3
Liked 62 Times in 16 Posts
|
|
They really ought to start issuing some of the Performance Center guns without them. Of course if they did, I would be in trouble or at least I would have a negative cash flow for a while.
|
10-05-2009, 11:09 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 1 Post
|
|
I just went through Aug-Sept-Oct-Nov issues cover to cover and saw no mention of this subject at all.
Bummer cause I was really hoping it's true.
|
10-05-2009, 11:21 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Greenwood, IN USA
Posts: 446
Likes: 18
Liked 67 Times in 49 Posts
|
|
It's too bad that with the internet someone can pretty much post anything, like this IL thing, just to get a response.
The best way to handle these is to just let them die instead of the typical "I wish" or "they would sell a ton of them". They already sell a ton of them and whether we like it or not, the IL is here to stay.
|
10-05-2009, 11:25 AM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
|
|
I wonder if he was reading one of their periodicals?
I will get back on that forum and see if I can find that post again then ask him where he read it.
|
10-05-2009, 02:31 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
|
|
Well, I got ahold of him, and he said that it was his mistake. It was actually in the March/ April edition of American Handgunner.
|
10-05-2009, 02:55 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladder13
Don't and won't. Matter of fact just ordered one of them M442 "frame leftovers".
BTW, can anyone explain where this seemingly endless supply of no-lock J frames is coming from? Why would Smith sell them if the lockers were so profitable? Couldn't they make more money by drilling a hole in the side and putting in a lock? One more lock sale for SAF-T-LOK,nuther penny and three quarters profit.
|
Good point.
So which it true?
Is Smith & Wesson skipping the "drill the hole" step in manufacturing 442/642 frames or selling off a stockpile of old frames?
If S&W starting putting internal locks in their revolver frames around 2001, these old frames are around 8 years old. That's a long time to keep a stockpile of unused frames.
|
10-05-2009, 03:05 PM
|
|
Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: GSO NC
Posts: 6,106
Likes: 23,604
Liked 13,182 Times in 2,860 Posts
|
|
The "left over frames" story came from the fanboys.
They had to come up with some explanation for the appearance of current production lock free revolvers, despite their claims that "S&W is forced to put locks on all their revolvers!!" "States require locks!!" "S&W will never be able to legally go back to making lock free revolvers!" "The lock is here to stay!".
Evidently they were wrong. Regards 18DAI.
|
10-05-2009, 05:09 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 0
Liked 679 Times in 313 Posts
|
|
I checked with my regular contact at S&W last month about the lock issue again & was told "The lawyers won't let us" drop the locks.
Things could always change, but for right now they are not going away.
Denis
|
10-05-2009, 05:35 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Liked 38 Times in 26 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieboy
Finally, because Smith's products are more profitable with locks than without them. Smith, if you haven't noticed, is owned by the company that manufactures Smith's locks. That means that the parent company gets to equip every revolver sold with a lock. The parent's sales to Smith are direct profits for the parent and I have no doubt that Smith passes on to the consumer the cost of equipping each of its revolvers with a lock.
|
Total hogwash and the idea that the products are more profitable with the lock is false. I'm not going to get into the history but Smith & Wesson is a widely held public company traded under the symbol SWHC. There is no Saf-T-Hammer and hasn't been for many years. Saf-T-Hammer never made any locks and there are no fees paid to anyone by S&W for the IL.
Hating the IL or MIM parts or anything else about current S&W products is anyone's personal decision. And all of us has a right to that others should respect. However, that does not mean you are entitled to just make things up to back up your position.
Bob
|
10-05-2009, 05:37 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Yonkers,New York
Posts: 1,001
Likes: 13
Liked 90 Times in 46 Posts
|
|
We can only hope that S+W comes to their senses and gets rid of the lock.I heard that the lock company was one of the owners of S+W.If that is the case it will be a cold day in hell before they disappear.God Bless...Mike
|
10-05-2009, 05:53 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 111
Likes: 1
Liked 22 Times in 16 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpris
I checked with my regular contact at S&W last month about the lock issue again & was told "The lawyers won't let us" drop the locks.
Things could always change, but for right now they are not going away.
Denis
|
Why can Smith produce limited runs of 442s and 642s without the locks and not other models? Seems if the lawyers would "object" on a liability basis it would be across the board for all models.
|
10-05-2009, 06:13 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vermont
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by davemercer
Why can Smith produce limited runs of 442s and 642s without the locks and not other models? Seems if the lawyers would "object" on a liability basis it would be across the board for all models.
|
+1
Seems like those "non-existant" lost sales from people like me who refuse to buy a S&W with IL might be carrying a bit more weight than some would like to believe.
|
10-05-2009, 06:13 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 0
Liked 679 Times in 313 Posts
|
|
Can't answer that one beyond noting that a year or so ago when I was asking them if the 442s & 642s would be regular offerings & around long enough to justify a write-up, I was told "No". That meant they anticipated selling existing stocks fairly soon & implied they were not going to keep those lockless guns in regular production.
I have not asked directly how or why those frames came into being, but I'd speculate foreign contract overruns.
And- Saf-T-Hammer no longer exists as a separate entity. It was a name used to broker the sale from Tompkins. There are no "royalties" or licensing fees.
The "company" that manufacture's S&W's locks is S&W.
Denis
|
10-05-2009, 06:18 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
|
|
Lawyers shmoyers. Money talks BS walks. It's that simple. If they can gather back in those who have left them for Ruger and other such places, they will. It's all about the benjamins. The fact is, they know they are hemmoraging money to their competition. Why else did they bring back the classic series?
One or two screwed up states won't be the rule, but rather the exception to their bottom line, and they will do what is most profitable for them.
I don't know if it will happen or not, but we can only hope that they took off the old brown earmuffs, and are starting to see the light.
Somone ealier made a point about Smith selling to a lot of uninformed consumers, and I think that is at least partially true, judging from what I see happening at the gunshops. Still, that doesn't mean they are stupid consumers. They are hearing things about all of the "issues" with Smith, Ruger, etc., and are coming to forums like this in record numbers to learn. The word is getting out about the locks and such. I hear first time buyers asking about it. If it was such a secret, or only known to those of us here on the forum, how are they hearing about it?
|
10-05-2009, 07:16 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,692
Likes: 57,549
Liked 52,817 Times in 16,468 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bk43
Total hogwash and the idea that the products are more profitable with the lock is false. I'm not going to get into the history but Smith & Wesson is a widely held public company traded under the symbol SWHC. There is no Saf-T-Hammer and hasn't been for many years. Saf-T-Hammer never made any locks and there are no fees paid to anyone by S&W for the IL.
Hating the IL or MIM parts or anything else about current S&W products is anyone's personal decision. And all of us has a right to that others should respect. However, that does not mean you are entitled to just make things up to back up your position.
Bob
|
+1................... Just how much does that *** lock cost to manufacture, about 10 cents? That really adds alot to the bottom line eh?
__________________
Sure you did
Last edited by ladder13; 10-05-2009 at 07:19 PM.
|
10-05-2009, 07:37 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 111
Likes: 1
Liked 22 Times in 16 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpris
Can't answer that one beyond noting that a year or so ago when I was asking them if the 442s & 642s would be regular offerings & around long enough to justify a write-up, I was told "No". That meant they anticipated selling existing stocks fairly soon & implied they were not going to keep those lockless guns in regular production.
I have not asked directly how or why those frames came into being, but I'd speculate foreign contract overruns.
And- Saf-T-Hammer no longer exists as a separate entity. It was a name used to broker the sale from Tompkins. There are no "royalties" or licensing fees.
The "company" that manufacture's S&W's locks is S&W.
Denis
|
What is also strange is that no lock 442s and 642s are listed on the Smith website. No suggested retail price, directs you to your dealer.
|
10-05-2009, 08:11 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 0
Liked 40 Times in 25 Posts
|
|
Total hogwash? I don't think so. The fact that Smith is a publicly held company doesn't mean for an instant that an entity doesn't own a majority of the stock. And, rather obviously, it is in the interest of that entity to equip all of Smith's revolvers with locks, because it makes them. I'm not going to waste my time belaboring this issue except to say that Smith wouldn't sell lock equipped revolvers if the entity that owns the majority of its stock didn't think that doing so was profitable. I repeat what I said in an earlier post. The few dozen people who whine on this and other forums about the terrible lock (and MIM parts, etc.) represent a tiny minority of the gun buying public. So tiny, in fact, that Smith and other manufacturers have no problem in ignoring your opinions. Having said that, I'd like to add that I'm not "pro lock". I am, however, a realist, unlike some.
And, finally, to get back to what this thread is all about, the "Smith is discontinuing the lock" story is simply an urban legend. No such article was written, at any time, in any of the gun mags. Sorry, but that's the truth. Like it or not, the lock is here to stay.
|
10-05-2009, 08:28 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
|
|
You're pretty vocal in your opinion, and that is fine, but do you have any proof of the things that you are posting? You are stating what you think to be true, not actually what is. I would be very interested in anything that you can produce along with the source from where you get it.
I am not trying to be a redneck here. I am just interested in where you get all the info you just posted. I haven't seen it in any magazine or book, much the same way you say that the man I quoted was lying. I don't know either of you, and am willing to give both of you the benefit of the doubt for now.
BTW, I am no newbie when it comes to all of this. I am always interested in facts though.
|
10-05-2009, 08:41 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,692
Likes: 57,549
Liked 52,817 Times in 16,468 Posts
|
|
G4F, I save all my AH mags, what time frame was this statement made in, I'll look for it.
Ooops, you said G&A, sorry.
Ooops again, AH, I'm on it.
**EDITED** Could not find the AH issue from March, it may be at my gun club, will check there. In any event, we know this for sure, no-lock Smiths are being produced when the naysayers said they wouldn't.
__________________
Sure you did
Last edited by ladder13; 10-06-2009 at 08:53 AM.
|
10-05-2009, 08:51 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
|
|
Mike,
I said G&A at first, cause that's what he posted. I sent him a PM and asked which month, and he said that he had been mistaken, and that it was actually AH from March/April this year.
|
10-05-2009, 10:31 PM
|
Moderator
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Suburban Chicago
Posts: 5,199
Likes: 1,041
Liked 6,601 Times in 1,533 Posts
|
|
For all who say they will buy a new S&W if it didn't have a lock here is your chance. Interesting to see how many respond. I don't know the seller and have no affiliation with him.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/guns-sa...42s-stock.html
__________________
John. SWCA #1586
|
10-05-2009, 10:40 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vermont
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsguy
|
Tempting, but i don't need another J-frame. The Taurus that i bought instead of a smith is doing me just fine.
Now if he had a listing for a no-lock 629 then i would be sending the pm and whipping out the CC
|
10-05-2009, 11:19 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 111
Likes: 1
Liked 22 Times in 16 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsguy
|
I bought a 442 no lock and a 642 no lock last week from different local gunshops. I waited for over a year to buy them looking for a no lock. I trust I meet your criteria for one who will buy if no lock Smiths available and not buy if only IL available.
|
10-06-2009, 03:21 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
The Model 40 "S&W Classics" is available without an internal lock.
This is a new production frame and is rated for .38 Special +P.
Maybe S&W figured an internal lock isn't necessary because it has a grip safety.
I think it's interesting that the 442, 642, and 40 are available without locks. Maybe it's just coincidence. Maybe it's a market test. Most of us would like to believe it's the latter.
I would be happy if they just move the damn lock to the grip like Ruger does and be done with it. My main beef with the lock is the unsightly hole. To put it simply, the hole is ugly.
|
10-06-2009, 08:27 AM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
|
|
The hole is ugly, and if there's even one lock failure that happens, would you want it to happen to you, especially while during a life threatening event?
|
10-06-2009, 08:47 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,692
Likes: 57,549
Liked 52,817 Times in 16,468 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsguy
|
My dealer has one, a 442, which I'm picking up next week. I don't need it but what the heck.
Hide the hole, then we can plug it, Smith..can you hear us?
__________________
Sure you did
Last edited by ladder13; 10-06-2009 at 08:49 AM.
|
10-06-2009, 11:19 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Liked 38 Times in 26 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieboy
The fact that Smith is a publicly held company doesn't mean for an instant that an entity doesn't own a majority of the stock. And, rather obviously, it is in the interest of that entity to equip all of Smith's revolvers with locks, because it makes them. I'm not going to waste my time belaboring this issue except to say that Smith wouldn't sell lock equipped revolvers if the entity that owns the majority of its stock didn't think that doing so was profitable.
|
Your scenario is of course possible. However the facts are there is no entity, there is no majority stock holder and nobody is making locks other than the S&W plant in Springfield. The locks are a cost incurred in building the guns and are profitable to no one. You can't take a small part of what was true years ago, embellish it with a bunch of supposition and declare it today's facts...doesn't work.
It amazes me that this "lock maker" stuff keeps coming up when it is so easy to get the straight scoop on a publicly held corporation these days.
Bob
|
|
|
Tags
|
1911, 44 magnum, 442, 627, 642, 649, centennial, colt, commercial, departure, ladysmith, lock, model 24, model 625, prelock, punta, remington, ruger, sig arms, sigma, springfield, taurus, vaquero |
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|