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.