I have owned several S&W revolvers in my life but just recently purchased a new 686 plus that has the internal lock. This is my first S&W with the lock. Although, the risk of malfunction can be debated, that's not the reason for my post. My question is whether S&W will return to making revolvers without the lock. I believe I understand the business reasons the company went with the lock but is that decision reversible?

They make new 442's and 642's without the lock. I'm unsure why other models are not available without the IL. I'm guessing it's because they are DAO and the trigger pull is a safe 27 lbs...

S&W is probably not going to remove the lock from the models that have it.

Even though S&W is no longer under the same ownership that initiated the lock, it is still a publicly traded company. Sales might improve in the long term, but investors worry about the short term effects.

It's likely that attorneys in the company as well as stock holders would get nervous about S&W removing a safety device from a handgun in today's litigious society.

The 43C, 351C, 340 and 640 are also available without a lock (and maybe others?)

I saw in another thread here someone talked to a rep from S&W and was told that the lock would be included on everything with an exposed hammer. Why that makes any difference, I don't know.

Everyone says that, and I'm sure that's the concern, but S&W already introduced a new gun with a manual safety (the Shield) only to offer a safety-less version later, plus Ruger has removed internal locks from some of their product lines. The fact that S&W has also offered IL-less Centennials for several years should work in their favor legally.

Foreseeably, no. Get used to the lock. The lock won't fail. Regardless of Internet speculation.

I also have a 686+ with a lock. And it's one of my favorites .




Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

We are talking about Smith & Wesson... Never say never.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

Not to derail this thread, but yes, the lock can fail. Even on a 686. There are videos of the lock failing. Massad Ayoob has documented cases of this happening. Grant Cunningham, whom I greatly respect as a revolversmith, says he won't carry a revolver with an IL for self defense.

That said the odds of failure are extremely low and millions of revolvers with the lock have functioned flawlessly.

S&W has removed the internal lock from a number of Centennial models and the sky has not fallen, nor have they been sued into oblivion. It's possible it will be removed from other models in the future.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

That said the odds of failure are extremely low and millions of revolvers with the lock have functioned flawlessly.[/QUOTE]

I think like wining the power ball- or having hopes of getting struck by lightning twice in your lifetime. Like any mechanical part can fail. The chances are there.

Will his lock fail? Probably not.

I've logged more than 10,000 rounds on "locked" guns that never failed. Does that mean I'm lucky? Fortunate?

It's when collectors that try and dissuade potential future buyers that I've pleaded with Handejector to separate these forums. I've spent thousands on locked guns only to have a collector say my gun ain't worth ****!

Not calling you a collector. But, I'm tired of people complaining about holes or mim.

Just saying his gun may NOT fail.

And we are in dire need of separating these forums....



Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

There are the legal/liability/PR aspects as mentioned above, but there is also the production side to consider. Re-tooling their machinery to eliminate the frame opening, having to re-work the internal parts to exclude the lock, etc. would be very expensive.

My guess is the current revolver lineup with locks sells fine but may be a relatively small part of their revenue (think M & P pistols and rifles, and Shields as the majority), so revamping the revolvers is not economically feasible.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

I think you are right, the odds are so low that for most owners it will never be an issue. I have seen every kind of firearm fail on the range, including pre-lock S&W revolvers. My humble suggestion: carry two.

The heart of the issue. Heaven forbid anyone remove or deactivate a safety device from anything!

Hell, the NRA won't let Ruger Mk III owners delete the magazine disconnect from pistols used in NRA bullseye.

Thumb safeties can't be deleted from bullseye 1911s--despite the fact that not only is the thumb safety never used, in competition, the gun is never in a position where the safety can be activated!

Ditto for grip safeties. Anytime the gun's loaded, the pistol's in someone's hand. Anytime it's not in-hand, it's not loaded. So why no pinned grip safeties or one-piece mainspring housings?

The lock in my 340PD has engaged from recoil. So it's now the former lock.

__________________
NRA Endowment Member

.....but generally they won't fail.

You are a very rare exception!

Besides, aren't J frames still offered without the locks? Lightweight gun. Heavy recoil. Sure it could happen. I believe it.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Alan am I wrong in thinking that the machining process is done by CNC machines so that eliminating the flag hole cut would be as simple as entering the command into the computer, and that besides saving machine time it reduces parts cost as well as the time it takes to install the associated parts involved ?

IIRC every step in the post war hand ejector evolution (except the switch from R hand to L hand threads on the ejector rod) was done to cut milling, assembly time and costs.

Still hoping we can put together a special order gun sans IL for the SWCA 50th anniversary .
Best regards
Brad

I agree brad. The forging they start with doesn't have the cut included in it, so it's a cut and a hole that are added as separate machining steps and as result represent added costs to mill the frame for the lock.

It's not about re-tooling or production costs.

Maybe if yet again someone else buys the name S&W that does not own a lock company.

In so many words, no. Except for a few on this forum and other places, most people don't care.

Not unless a purchaser makes 'no lock' a condition for winning a very large contract.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

Does anyone have an estimate of how big an order would have to be for a custom run? Like say Lipsey's wanted to custom order a batch of Model 66s without a lock as an exclusive Talo edition, how many units would they be looking at?

Let me check my crystal ball

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Probably more like deleting a line of G code and possibly avoiding another tool change. In reality, the time it takes to change something like that on a machine's program would probably be made up for after the first couple of frames are machined.

I'd imagine the lock remains for publicity reasons only.

I have heard the lock is considered a storage device, and not a safety device.

As far as centennials are concerned, I cannot believe it took so long to offer no lock versions. In fact I can't believe they ever put locks on centennial s in the first place.

On a centennial there is no way to tell if the gun is locked or not the little flag is completely hidden. Extremely unsafe IMHO.

Here's an example I found a while back of what an internal lock failure actually looks like:


Do any of you who are more mechanically inclined have any idea of what actually happened on the inside of the gun?

In that video how do we know it was the internal lock that that failed and not something else? Was there a follow-up that confirmed it?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Maybe one day they will eliminate it, but don't hold your breath. It took almost two decades for S&W to bring back the snub nose K frame, so if it ever does happen there's just no telling when.

If there is concern about it malfunctioning there are two gentleman on the classifieds here (Bullseye Smith and epj) that make and sell a plug. I bought one for my 686+ and it works, looks great, and gives me some peace of mind. Highly recommended.

__________________
Ephesians 6 (Armor of God)

Aerocross:

There was a thread about revolver reliability. That "fail" happened to me. Out of a 686 also. I was shooting "ruger" loads and my gun seized! Couple cylinders only. Did I trigger the lock? To tell you the truth, I let the gun cool off and it un-seized! Hasn't done it since! And it's been years now.

I did have to send it in for a unrelated symptom. The timing went out. The firing pin would hit the side of the cases! Not the primers! That was bad....

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

That could have been me.I did post that once and as far as I know it's still valid. S&W doesn't currently make a revolver with an external hammer without the lock. I see lotsa guns shot here. I have PERSONALLY seen 3 locks engage on 3 separate guns. All were light weight .22s. Strange...

Because it's much easier for a kid to cock and pull a 3-4 lb trigger than a 12-lb DA trigger.

Even before the lock, PDs were issuing DA-only revolvers. That crisp SA trigger is great for target and hunting, but PDs decided it was a liability in shootouts.

Has that been a major cause of accidents? I seriously doubt it, but emotion and not logic rule. Headlines like "Gun Mfr removes child safety lock" or "S&W reneges on child safety lock agreement" would send stockholders fleeing. Unfortunately , in a publicly traded company, stockholders, and not customers, call the shots.

I'm not arguing for the lock at all, just stating why I think its not going away anytime soon.

Thank you all for your input. We're done here.

__________________
SWCA #2306
DAV in honor of POP