S&W getting rid of internal lock?

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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-sale-trade/68376-wts-nib-no-lock-642s-442s-stock.html

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 :D
 
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-sale-trade/68376-wts-nib-no-lock-642s-442s-stock.html

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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
 
As noted, there is no separate business or entity that either owns S&W or manufactures locks & sells them to S&W.
Aside from whichever small parts are outsourced to outside vendors (along with various other small parts that S&W doesn't produce itself), the locks are mandated by S&W management that has made a deliberate business decision to include them in the product line.

S&W is not forced to do so by a non-existant Saf-T-Hammer Corp, or by anybody else.

Denis
 
I'm getting bored with this back and forth but, for the last time, here's the facts. In 2001 a majority of the shares of Smith & Wesson were acquired by American Saf-T-Hammer for $45 million. American Saf-T-Hammer then changed its name to Smith & Wesson Holding Company. As far as I know Smith & Wesson Holding Company remains the single largest shareholder in Smith. Which is to say, it retains a controlling interest in the company. In that respect Smith is not unlike most publicly held corporations. Shares are traded on the stock exchange but a controlling interest is held by an entity which has not put its shares up for sale. One can buy shares in the company but that doesn't dilute the controlling interest of the holding company unless it decides to deliberately dilute its controlling interest by issuing more shares. Are the locks manufactured at the Smith factory in Springfield? What possible difference can that make? They are being manufactured at the direction of the majority of Smith's share holders -- Smith & Wesson Holding Company, formerly known as American Saf-T-Hammer Corporation -- which, prior to acquiring Smith, was in the business of making locks.

Now, all of this is sort of a digression from my basic points. I'll repeat: (1) the story about Smith discontinuing its installation of locks was spread around a bunch of the gun forums back in March-April of this year and was thoroughly debunked back then. Repeating it now doesn't make it any less false than it was back then; (2) Smith installs locks in their guns because it is profitable for them to do so. Tying the lock to the end product, the revolver, makes profits for Smith & Wesson Holding Company because it generates sales of both revolvers (Smith's product) and locks (the product originally made by American Saf-T-Hammer); (3) Smith isn't going to discontinue installing locks so long as it is profitable for them to sell lock-equipped guns. Over time their decision has been reinforced by other manufacturers, to one degree or another, doing the same thing.
 
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?

You raise a good point, but properly designed, I would not have a problem with a Ruger style internal lock. I think Ruger's design is a good one and one that doesn't change the appearance of their revolvers.

I understand many of us want no internal lock. But me, personally, I would be happy with a Ruger style internal lock in the grip. In other words, a lock out of sight, is a lock out of mind. Todays lock is squarely in sight and unsightly.

I would love to buy a new 8 shot 63, 10 shot 4" 617, 7 shot 4" 686, and many other revolvers.

Coming across a 10 shot 4" 617 on the used market is becoming difficult and I'm half tempted to say finding a 7 shot 4" 686 is becoming difficult as well.
 
I'm getting bored with this back and forth but, for the last time, here's the facts.
You are still woefully misinformed. As I tried to point out, you can't take partial truths from years ago, add a bunch of supposition and declare it today's facts.

On your next Google drive-by, try searching Mitchell Saltz. It may get you closer to the truth than you've been able to get so far.

Bob
 
You raise a good point, but properly designed, I would not have a problem with a Ruger style internal lock. I think Ruger's design is a good one and one that doesn't change the appearance of their revolvers.

I understand many of us want no internal lock. But me, personally, I would be happy with a Ruger style internal lock in the grip. In other words, a lock out of sight, is a lock out of mind. Todays lock is squarely in sight and unsightly.

I would love to buy a new 8 shot 63, 10 shot 4" 617, 7 shot 4" 686, and many other revolvers.

Coming across a 10 shot 4" 617 on the used market is becoming difficult and I'm half tempted to say finding a 7 shot 4" 686 is becoming difficult as well.

GeorgiaRaised85-
I realized that after I posted that, it may have looked like I was directing that at you. I wasn't.;) Your comments just got me to thinking about why I hate the Hilliary hole so much. The potential (whether real or imagined) for failure is a big reason.

I agree that a lock that works 110% of the time, and is out of sight (like under the stocks) wouldn't bother most of us. I think that the lock hole makes the gun somehow look like a cheap imitation. To me, it's like buying a brand new car with a big dent in the door already installed for you by the factory.


Stevieboy,

I noticed that since I went and asked the other guy when the actual article was written, and he told me, then I posted that here as being March/April, you are now (in your last post) referrencing that time frame as when these supposed internet lies were debunked. I am on several forums (as are you I see), and I am on daily. I have never seen the debunking anywhere. At least not by anyone with actual and factual knowledge, as opposed to a lot of guys that are speculating, or just espousing their thoughts publicly regarding their opinions about the lock.

I don't have all the answers here, and don't claim to. I just asked if anyone had the article in question, and could confirm that it even existed. It would be nice to know if the industry insiders are getting some firsthand info, that they can now release to the public.
 
You are still woefully misinformed. As I tried to point out, you can't take partial truths from years ago, add a bunch of supposition and declare it today's facts.

On your next Google drive-by, try searching Mitchell Saltz. It may get you closer to the truth than you've been able to get so far.

Bob

This post and the next one should answer both of your Questions.
here are 2 articles that explain from start to finish on the buy out of Tomkin Corp.
At the bottom of the first article about saf-t-hammer buying S&W you will find Mitchell Saltz name.

http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-structures-ownership/6122728-1.html

Saf-T-Hammer Corp. Acquires Gun Maker Smith & Wesson; Firearm Safety & Security Company...
Publication: Business Wire
Date: Monday, May 14 2001

Business Editors

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 14, 2001

Saf-T-Hammer Corp. (OTC BB:SAFH), the Scottsdale-based firearm safety and security company today announced that it has purchased Smith & Wesson Corp. from Tomkins Corp.,
D&B Small Business Solutions
Business Credit Solutions


a subsidiary of U.K.-based Tomkins PLC (NYSE:TKS), for $15 million. Smith & Wesson has total assets of $97 million and total liabilities of $53 million.

"Smith & Wesson, a brand name for 147 years, would be at the top of any list of immediately identifiable corporate logos recognized worldwide," said Bob Scott, president of Saf-T-Hammer and former vice president of Smith & Wesson. "We are proud to return this storied company to American ownership. We intend to maximize the value of the name and to fully utilize the manufacturing, marketing, and worldwide distribution assets of the company to create appreciation and value for our shareholders.

"We also plan to increase the company's revenues through expanded branding activities and strategic acquisitions that will compliment the company's current product lines. As part of the synergy between our two companies, we plan to incorporate Saf-T-Hammer products into the firearms manufactured by Smith & Wesson."

The stock purchase agreement between Saf-T-Hammer and Tomkins encompasses all assets including patents, trademarks, intellectual property, distribution rights, machine drawings, inventory, equipment and physical assets of Smith & Wesson, including its corporate headquarters in Springfield, Mass.

Under the agreement, Saf-T-Hammer will pay $15 million in cash, with $5 million paid upon closing and the balance due in May 2002. As of the close, Smith & Wesson's total assets were approximately $97 million, which includes two manufacturing facilities. The main facility is a 660,000 square foot plant on 160 acres located in Springfield. The other facility is a 36,000 square foot plant in Houlton, Maine. Total liabilities are approximately $53 million, which includes a 10-year note payable to Tomkins for $30 million due in May 2011.

"Tomkins' motivation to sell Smith & Wesson as part of its refocused worldwide operation, presented an extraordinary opportunity for Saf-T-Hammer. It took a tremendous amount of creativity and diligence from both companies to craft the terms of this transaction. We're excited about the prospects afforded by this unique union of a firearm safety and security device developer and a firearm manufacturer that is synonymous with Americana," said Mitchell Saltz, chairman of Saf-T-Hammer Corp.
 
Smith & Wesson: Definition from Answers.com

In a seeming case of a minnow swallowing a whale, Tomkins ended up selling Smith & Wesson to Saf-T-Hammer Corporation in May 2001. The purchase price, apparently reflecting the firm's troubled nature, was only $15 million, although Saf-T-Hammer also agreed to assume $53 million in debt. Based in Scottsdale, Arizona, Saf-T-Hammer was a manufacturer of gun locks that had been founded in 1998 and had begun selling its products in late 2000. The company's president, Robert Scott, had spent ten years as a Smith & Wesson vice-president before joining Saf-T-Hammer in 1999. He was named the new president of Smith & Wesson Corp., now American-owned again and still headquartered in Springfield, Massachusetts.

The precipitous decline in sales not only cost Smith & Wesson its place as the leading U.S. maker of handguns to Sturm, Ruger, it also led to a $14 million loss for the fiscal year ending in April 2001. Scott moved quickly to turn the company's fortunes around, particularly by mending fences within the gun industry. Buyers slowly began returning, and sales grew from $70.7 million in the fiscal year ending in April 2001 to $79.3 million the following, before jumping to $98.5 million the year after that. After suffering a net loss of $10.8 million in the fiscal year ending in April 2002, Smith & Wesson returned to profitability one year later, $15.7 million in the black. Aiding this turnaround were a number of other Scott initiatives, including improving the production process and turning out new gun products, although the firm's efforts to aggressively license the company's name for myriad items--such as fine art prints, watches, body armor, safes, footwear, and golf clubs--yielded little in the way of profits. During this same period, the legal threat that had been hanging over the gun industry more or less evaporated. A growing number of the lawsuits were dismissed, and the newly installed, pro-gun Bush administration backed away from the "landmark" deal between the government and Smith & Wesson.

In early 2002, meanwhile, Saf-T-Hammer renamed itself Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation. In January of the following year, Scott was named chairman and CEO of Smith & Wesson Corp. (the operating subsidiary). Taking over as president was Roy C. Cuny, a former president of Peerless Manufacturing Co., a maker of air filtering equipment. Cuny had joined Smith & Wesson in November 2002 as vice-president for operations. As president, he oversaw the launch of nine new handguns in early 2003. These guns garnered strong interest at national and international trade shows held in February and March. Among them was the Model 500, a .50-caliber revolver weighing 4.5 pounds, which was the largest, most powerful handgun ever made, and the .45-caliber Model 1911 pistol, which was a modernized replica of the military sidearm that the U.S. Army used for most of the first half of the 20th century.

Although Smith & Wesson was seemingly on the road to recovery, it was soon engulfed in a new round of controversy, mainly revolving around machinations at the parent holding company. In December 2003 Smith & Wesson Holding filed its annual report five months after the deadline because it needed to restate its results for 2002 owing to a series of mistakes in the way it had accounted for its acquisition of the gunmaker. That same month, Chairman and CEO Mitchell A. Saltz and President Colton R. Melby of the parent company stepped down from their posts while retaining spots on the board of directors. Saltz and Melby were the firm's two largest shareholders. Cuny was named chairman, president, and CEO of Smith & Wesson Holding, but just one month later a new chairman was appointed, James J. Minder, a management consultant and member of the board of directors since 2001. Also in January 2004 the holding company announced that it would close its Scottsdale headquarters and move its functions to the subsidiary's Springfield offices. Then in February 2004 came more embarrassment when Minder resigned the chairman's post while maintaining a seat on the board after it was revealed that he was a felon who in the 1950s and 1960s had served 15 years in Michigan prisons for dozens of armed robberies, including a bank heist, and an attempted escape from jail. Taking over as chairman was another member of the board, G. Dennis Bingham.

Smith & Wesson Corp. attempted to put all these distractions behind it by refocusing on its core gun line during 2004. The firm shut down a nascent and ill-conceived venture into home decor cataloging and divested other businesses as well, including its Identi-Kit software program. Millions were spent to improve and expand production at the Springfield plant. During the year, Smith & Wesson regained its position as the top maker of handguns in the United States. This positive note, however, was followed by the announcement in November 2004 that Cuny had left the company with no indication of the reason for the sudden departure. Bingham resigned as well around this same time and was replaced as chairman by Barry M. Monheit, a management consultant and independent board member. In December 2004 Michael F. Golden was brought onboard as the company's fifth leader in as many years. The new president and CEO had previously held management positions with three leading U.S. manufacturing firms: Kohler Company, Black & Decker Corporation, and Stanley Works.

Several other changes in the top management were made around this same time as Smith & Wesson attempted to assemble a more marketing-savvy leadership team. Early in 2005 the parent company completed a refinancing that reduced its total debt by $21.3 million and offered $1.5 million in savings on interest expense for the fiscal year ending in April 2006. The Golden-led team also began working on a plan to broaden the firm's focus to include "safety, security, protection, and sport." After more than 150 years in the handgun market, Smith & Wesson was considering moving into the production of shotguns or rifles and was also looking into licensing its name for such products as ammunition, nonlethal weapons, and home security systems. The company was also stepping up efforts to bolster sales to law enforcement agencies and the military, both areas in which Smith & Wesson once dominated but had been lagging for some time. Perhaps most important was Golden's intention to bolster marketing and to turn what he called "a quiet company" into a much more visible one.

Key Dates:

* 1852: Horace Smith and Daniel B. Wesson form a partnership, Smith & Wesson Arms Company, to build a repeating, lever-action pistol.
* 1854: Partners sell the company to Oliver Winchester, who later bases his famous Winchester repeating rifle on some of the pistol's features.
* 1856: Smith and Wesson create new partnership, Smith & Wesson, Inc., to begin manufacturing the first Smith & Wesson revolver, in Springfield, Massachusetts.
* 1865: Surging demand during the Civil War years helps establish Smith & Wesson as one of the top U.S. gunmakers.
* 1873: Smith sells his interest in the company to Wesson.
* 1899: Company introduces the .38 Military & Police.
* 1906: Wesson dies; the company continues to be owned and managed by members of the Wesson family.
* 1908: The N frame line of revolvers debuts.
* 1935: The .357 Magnum is introduced.
* 1946: C.R. Hellstrom becomes the first person outside the Wesson family to run the company.
* 1955: Smith & Wesson introduces the legendary .44 Magnum.
* 1965: Smith & Wesson introduces Model 60, the first all-stainless steel revolver; Wesson family sells the company to Bangor Punta Alegre Sugar Corp.
* 1984: Lear Siegler Corporation acquires Bangor Punta.
* 1987: F.H. Tomkins PLC (later Tomkins PLC) acquires Smith & Wesson.
* 1989: The LadySmith line of handguns designed for women debuts.
* 1994: The Sigma Series is the first Smith & Wesson line to feature plastic frames.
* 2000: In agreement with Clinton administration, company agrees to restrictions on the way it makes, sells, and distributes handguns; a backlash against the company causes sales to plunge.
* 2001: Tomkins sells Smith & Wesson to Saf-T-Hammer Corporation.
* 2002: Saf-T-Hammer renames itself Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation.
 
I have a question about all this lawyer crap. How come Colt is making SERIES 70 1911s? (With no lock BTW) Uh, isn't that a step back from a "safer" gun? How can they get away with that?

I've said it before but I like repeating it, when I was at the NRA convention a Smith rep was visibly annoyed with me for asking why the lock. That indicates to me that they are a bit tired of hearing about it, and that indicates that they hear about it a lot.

Speaking of Colt (and others) how about that SAA? You can still smack the hammer on a loaded chamber and it goes BANG!
 
Last edited:
Gun 4,
As one who could be considered to be an "industry insider", I've passed on my best info from my regular press contact at S&W.
That contact is usually pretty good at either passing on reliable info or getting me through to somebody who knows more specifics if I need more detail.

Nothing is cast in iron with any gunmaker, and any of them can turn on a dime at any given moment.
My responses here were to address the original question of whether or not S&W's dropping the locks, and from there to address the mistaken notion still prevalent that S&W is owned by an entity that builds locks & forces S&W to buy & install them.

During the most recent email exchange with my contact over the lock question, I pointed out (as I have before) that the company is losing sales because of the locks. S&W is very much aware of the dissatisfaction with them, but they don't feel that dissatisfaction is strong enough to affect product sales to the point of dropping it throughout the lineup.

As long as new guns continue to sell well (and they are), the company is in a strong enough position to maintain status quo on those locks.
There are two factors in their favor:
First, if a customer wants a new Smith, there's no choice & a large enough percentage will buy regardless of its presence to keep the company turning a profit.
Second, even those of us who buy only older Smiths because of the locks will eventually be forced to buy new or go without as older samples dry up and their movement on the secondary market declines.

At the moment, they see little reason to change. They're moving product and making money, the percentage of no-sales due to the locks is statistically small enough that they're willing to ignore it, and though I'm not saying they don't care about S&W brand loyalty or their customer base, they perceive the locks as a liability issue and anticipate them being requirements in some states at some point.
Their lawyers have genuine input here.

Denis
 

Latest posts

Back
Top