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Smith & Wesson Holding Company because it generates sales of both revolvers (Smith's product) and locks (the product originally made by American Saf-T-Hammer); (3) Smith isn't going to discontinue installing locks so long as it is profitable for them to sell lock-equipped guns.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.

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.

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

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.

No luck on finding the AH issue in question, so far.

__________________
Sure you did

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-a...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 ****. 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!

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

Dpris

Thank you for your post.
If you took it that I was maligning your earlier posts, I wasn't. I have no idea who you are as an industry insider.

My last post was referring to writers such as John Taffin, Brian Pearce, Dick Metcalf (a true S&W bag man) etc. If these guys, whom most of us know from their writings, are starting to publish articles saying the lock is possibly being dropped (at least on some guns), then it seems a lot more believable to us regular guys than just a bunch of speculations on some forum, by guys who are offering their opinion of what may, or may not be happening with S&W.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

And, one other item I overlooked.
S&W does not incorporate those locks because it's profitable to do so.
Quite the contrary- since the CNC programming had to be altered initially to modify the frames to accept the lockwork (not a quick & easy process), and the lock pieces themselves cost money, the locks actually increase the per-unit production cost.
Those costs are passed on to the end consumer. Period.
It's not a case of a mythical "parent" company making more money by forcing a subsidiary to buy the lock parts & install them.
There is no profit, per se, in the locks themselves.

Denis

Gun 4,
Nope, didn't take personal offense.
Just trying to clarify my position to be posting what I've posted.

Thanks for the welcome, but I started with the forum quite a while back. Reduced participation severely since last year. Dunno why the post count didn't transfer with the forum change.
Denis

Am I the only one who has ever speculated on this possible scenario?

Does anyone ever wonder if any employees who directly work in production at S&W has intentionally taken a revolver out of production before it gets the lock hole drilled in it, and then taken it to the next step of production after the lock installation process just for them to be able to buy one w/o the lock? I'm sure this would be highly frowned upon by the management, but I'm wondering if it has ever happened. Years ago I recall hearing older men tell me stories of how they would take the 426 Hemi Engines from the chrysler plant and have them hidden behind the fence out back before the engine ever even had a S/N on it.....I can say that I know for sure this did happen at least once because I saw the engine w/o a S/N on it and was a good friend of the man who told this story.

That's like Longhorn Steakhouse saying, "We're switching the 'Flo's Filet' from beef to roadkill possum. People will either have to eat the roadkill or go without."

[Subject to applicable laws] Longhorn and S&W can sell any kind of swill they want. What they CAN'T do is make me spend any of my money on it.

In the words of Sponge Bob, "Good luck with that..."

Difficult to do when the frame machining process is automated & the hole & internal dimensions to accommodate the lock parts are done as part of the frame run.

Not simply a matter of "neglecting" to drill the hole.

Denis

Mort,
Neither defending their decisions nor happy about them.
Just explaining.

They're selling enough "roadkill" to stay in business & that's the bottom line.

Denis

It's not a safety device. It's a storage lock.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

It's a litigated safety and I'll have none of it...and no MIM parts please. I know, I know, I've heard all about how great modern metalurgy is and that MIM is OK...I say BS...I've had too many parts fail on SA 1911's too trust them. I'll let the future boys (and Girls) enjoy the benifits of this technology. I'll stick with the early Smiths and Colt handguns...well except for the one XD...I'm not completely stuck in the past!

While it might be impossible to prevent the machine from drilling the hole S&W still has "lunchbox" guns. I have seen a recent "lunchbox" gun from a fellow LEO. A relative that worked at S&W until 2006 made him a 649 with a 3 inch barrel. I have seen atleast 20 guns over the years on Gunbroker that could be traced to guys making their own custom version.

Think we'll ever see a new internal lock design? Preferably were I can't see it (Ruger style)

SHOT show 2010? 2011? 2050?

Lunchbox Specials are still entirely possible, but only to a degree.

The frame is basically a block of steel in rough form. It's clamped in the CNC fixture in such a way that the pre-programmed milling head (or heads) can do the majority of the machining in pre-determined sequences that remove excess material, reduce the block to the contours and dimensions of a finished (or very nearly so) frame, and then any additional machining steps may be done either by changing heads or moving the frame to another machine for more complex or finer milling operations.

Once the programmed sequence has begun, stopping it at any point prior to it running its full course, telling the software to omit or bypass a given step, or removing the raw frame while the program runs the head through that step without the frame in place & then replacing the frame in the fixture, all involve problems.

The days of individual skilled machinists milling frames on mechanically operated mills & lathes are gone at S&W. There's very little human machining left.

As far as Lunchbox Special variations such as different barrel lengths & so on go, those are still under human control and still capable of being assembled in unauthorized versions & configurations.
Dinking with a major CNC-fabricated large part like the frame involves altering the software program, and that's nothing to be done quickly or easily.

Denis

Nobody cares for the lock, but to say S&W is hurting in sales because of it just ain't so. Below is a quote of their 1st quarter firearm sales and a link from MSN Money where the quote was taken:http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/tic...38&Symbol=SWHC

__________________
NRA - All Day

In these times, perhaps S&W was not the only gun manufacturer with increased sales.

__________________
Sure you did

I don't believe that S&W envisions a bunch of fossils who still have Loretta Young pinups on their walls as the core handgun market. I would imagine that they believe our particular socioeconomic group will always find something to complain about when evaluating handguns made after Dick Nixon promised we wouldn't be kicking him around anymore. I suspect they feel their IL sales are just fine, and the few additional units they might move aren't worth the headaches. S&W's current pressing problem IMHO is FTF's, which are now so prevalent the marque is going to lose it's reputation for reliability.

A quote from Dpris previous post: "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."


Sir, I respectfully disagree. We will not be "forced to buy new or go without as older samples dry up". Not in my lifetime, not in my grandchildren's lifetime. I recently purchased an "older sample", 84 years older in fact, that shines like new money, with fit and finish that are beautiful. It didn't come with rubber grips, either. And it cost less than a new sample. A new Model 627 retails for $1003.
Even leaving the lock out of the equation, the older revolvers I've handled are of better quality than the new ones. And the supply is huge. I don't know how many guns S&W produced from, say, 1900 to 1980, but a whole lot of them are 95% or better.
The current buying frenzy will fade. Profits will shrink. And maybe S&W corporate officers will see the light. If your going to market a line of "Classic" revolvers, at least match the quality of the originals. And please, WE DON'T WANT THE DAMN LOCK.
OK. I'm done. I just needed to vent.
Thanks

+1 there. And if anyone doubts the validity of this, maybe you should check out how the companys stock has been fairing the last couple of years.

There will always be a lot of incredible Pre lock Smiths for sale. I have never had a problem buying NIB or LNIB old Smiths of whatever flavor I desire with just a little patience. With all the forums and access to gun shops around the country on the internet, it has never been easier. As folks get old and start winding down or feel they can use the money for something else, they start to part with long stored and collected guns as witnessed on these forum classifieds every single day. There is really no reason to feel like you have to run out and buy a new Smith at this point with the dreaded lock, unless you are not willing to take time and search for an older one. Like I have mentioned plenty of times, I would start buying new Smiths (especially PC models) if in fact they dropped the lock, but until then I will continue to purchase the older guns. Every pre lock S&W that I own right now looks as if it came off the showroom shelf yesterday and it was not really hard to do.And to me the search is really half the fun!

As someone with CNC programming experience, I beg to differ. It's actually quite simple. I'd be willing to bet that the "pre-lock" CNC programs (commonly refered to as "cutter paths") are still available, be it backed up on disk or on someone's personal flash drive.

Rich,
In time, it's not too hard to project that the movement of pre-lock guns will decrease as prices continue to increase.
Yes, right now there are numerous older Smiths available. But- prices are escalating markedly on those, and some models are drying up.
S&W has no stocks of replacement barrels on many older models (19, 27, 28, for instance) and can't service them as they used to. Other parts to keep them going may or may not be available as time goes on.

In past years these guns circulated at a fairly constant rate, but that rate was predicated on ready access to new guns, and is showing signs of slowing as more of us who want older Smiths are buying & keeping them, which affects the number of guns in circulation.
Good specimens will be retained as shooters (with a side market for collectors), bad specimens will be cannabalized to keep the good ones going.

Parts availability will become a separate issue. Already S&W is using MIM parts (and plastic, in one instance I'm aware of) to replace forged/machined parts in older pistols that need work, where those parts are otherwise interchangeable.
In the case of revolvers, parts interchangeability between new and old can be more problematic.

It won't be today, and it won't be next week, but if the existing situation continues along predictable lines, given enough time, availability of the older guns will decrease and pricing will increase to the point where the only viable choices for an average consumer will be either a new Smith or no Smith.

It's a waiting game, and barring catastrophic external influences (government bans) or consumer boycott (unlikely at any significant level), S&W is coming out just fine & will most likely continue to sell the new lock-equipped guns well into the forseeable future.
The bottom line is $, and they're gettin' 'em.

Girvin,
I've been told by S&W that switching production back to pre-lock frames would involve new programming for the CNCs. I assumed from that that there are no "older backups" retained.
Besides which, there are other changes between current frames and pre-lock frames than merely the lock hole and the milled areas inside the frame that accommodate the lock pieces.
The location of the mainspring seat notch has moved, and there are other dimensional differences between older frames and new frames.
Running a pre-lock "backup" program merely to eliminate the lock hole would bring up other issues that would have to be addressed in assembling new parts on an old frame design.

My comments on the CNCs were directed at the Lunchbox Specials scenario. The CNC operator, as you know, does not write codes & does not program the sequencing. He or she pretty much fixes the raw forging in the fixture, punches the GO button, checks to make sure the fluids are flowing & the process is running smoothly as the machine runs, and removes the end product when it's done.
He or she is not in a very good position to alter programming on an individual machine to turn out one single non-spec frame; there are several machines in the line, others would notice, downtime in unit flow would probably be noticed, and so on.

It's not a simple thing to do.

Denis

Tell that to the shareholders ...

Omitting a hole is easier than adding a hole. Omitting additional milling on the inside of the frame is also much easier than adding additional steps.
The prelock prints are available. Their molds are already made, possibly stored.

They still make a profit, so they won't change the lock anytime soon.

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

We can dissect the details for quite a while, but my main point is that it's no longer a matter of one man on one milling machine simply omitting one hole "drilled" in the frame, on the production floor in the middle of ten or twenty other skilled machinists.

Denis

Wildcard, the market in general has been a real rollercoaster the last few years. Sadly, my IRA has been a seemingly too willing participant. So that's one factor.

When it comes to SWHC, however, there is another factor at work. The process of transitoning from the closely held Saf-T-Hammer to what S&W is today, over the last roughly seven years, has involved a lot of money. Whether it was stock options, warrants or just plain stock, when these big blocks exercised/redeemed/traded they could cause gyrations in the stock price. That is a lot of what your graph(great job BTW) shows.

Bob

Based on age I might be or am approaching old fossil status. However, I realize that in selecting a fighting weapon to permit me to continue receiving govt benefits, the semi auto often with the dreaded polymer is hard to beat. My only revolver "weapons" are the J frame 442 and 642 and I just got more without locks.

That said I like revolver for play and maybe a walk in the park. But beyond the Jframe, revolvers are not essential to my arsenal. Therefore, I can be selective and get what I want. So I keep my old revolvers with forged parts and No locks and go to gunshops to find more of the "old stuff". But if Smith would go back to its old standards I might buy some new revolvers.

And I don't think I am part of a small and insignificant demographic. A lot of disposal income is available in my age group and yes we are picky, but will spend.

I always said that I didn't want a Smith with a built in lock, but now that a fellow Forum member has "The Plug" available, I might have to reconsider that option in the future.

Or S&W lying about actual sales and inventorys ....
Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. | Reuters

As far as i can tell, the suit is still pending.

Wow! This is really informative, and I appreciate all of the imput, but all I really asked, was had anyone read the article in question in the March/April issue of American Handgunner. I just wanted to know if it really existed or not.

Sorry I confused you with the facts. That law firm specializes in corporate ambulance chasing. Their suits have had no effect on SWHC or have they on any other firm they file against. Nuisance litigation is part of doing business in today's world.

Gun4fun...sorry. I'm outa' here.

Bob

With his design, the lock parts are still in the gun. So the lock is fine as long as you don't "see" the *******.
I remove all the junk.

Remove the lock!

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Didn't confuse me. Maybe you confuse malicious intent with curious speculation ? Either way, sorry if i came across as hostile.

You took the words right out of my mouth! Thanks!

I did take your post wrong...my bad. I'm back on the meds today so all's well.

Bob

I've done that far too many times to admit.....take posts wrong that is. You're a good man Bob, to admit as much.
As Jules said in Pulp Fiction..."I'm trying hard".

__________________
Sure you did

I am not so delusional as to think S&W will ever get rid of the IL. I would like to think that they will see that their current design is faulty and at least redesign it. Maybe something like Ruger is moving to under the grip that isn't activated by recoil.

[QUOTE=frogger;1127367]I am not so delusional as to think S&W will ever get rid of the ILQUOTE]

When I was a kid my mom was afraid of guns. I had a padlock that I would loop behind the trigger and this tied up the gun so it was safe in the house. She was happy!!! All S&W needs to do is have people practice proper storage and handling procedures. It's not hard to make a learning video and have a link on the web.

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Not to kick this any worse, Taurus has a lock system, does it have equal failures? I am asking just on the mechanical aspect, I see they use a key on the rear of the hammer. I own 20 S&W's, 2 with a lock. My son bought a 332 (first one purchased), the gunshop he bought it from did not even mention what THE KEYS WERE FOR!!! he bought it while I was in Iraq and I asked him if he tried to lock it. Silence from the other end of the phone line, "Dad what the H@ll are you talking about??

My goodness this thread is getting old. If I had to choose only one, I truly believe I prefer this thread to come to an end rather than the IL on the S&W revolver.

If this thread upsets you so, why do you keep posting in it?

I remember back in the '60s when film critic Judith Crist would review the first commercial adult movies. Her reviews were dripping with loathing and disgust. Strangely, I don't EVER recall her walking out before the end of the movie...