Admin Edit-
There is a concise thread summary in Post #66

_______________________________________
_______________________________________

Was in a very large gun shop yesterday that probably carries every S&W currently made. Boy there were some really beautiful guns there but in looking I just can not get past the IL hole. I do have two 500s, a 357/.41 and two 686/.38 Supers but only have those models because they just never made them without the iL. But as long as I can find 17s, 27s, 57s and 58s with no IL I just will not buy a new gun with a hole...and niether will any of my friends...

This same shop also had about a half dozen pre-IL S&Ws including several nice 29s that were 2/3s the price of a new one... I managed to grab a 4" M48 with extra Long Rifle cylinder for $460.00...and no hole...

I wonder how much in sales S&W looses every year because of "the hole"?

Bob

Not much, most people either dont notice, dont care, or actually like this "safety feature".
I know quite a few people who wont buy a used gun.
I wish more people were like that.


Jim

It hung me up on buying a new Airweight for over a year. I finally broke down and bought one, then I bought another and then I found a new no-lock 642. I don't particularly like the silly thing in the guns but it doesn't seem to affect the functioning. Of course, I'm cautious (i.e., paranoid) so I keep one of the IL keys on my keychain and another on the chain around my neck, behind my St. Chrisopher medal.

I'll bet for every customer who refuses to purchase an IL revolver, five will jump at the chance. S&W will not go broke because some hard headed consumers will not buy a revolver with a built in safety feature. Personally, I prefer older made revolvers, so the IL is not an issue for me. Let's get real here. Attorney's/politicians/insurance companies rule this country. They make the rules. I'm sure it pisses off S&W that they have to place those locks on their firearms. They read the forums, they hear the bitching. They're following outlined procedures, by people wearing $2000.00 suits who probably do not and have not fired a weapon. EVER! But, you have to admit, it's still a quality made revolver with an excellent warranty.

It does not bother me either way.. I just like guns...

__________________
Endowment Life Member NRA

It might be an excellent gun but the first time you see a 2.5" 686 lock up on it's own as I did you may think differently.

I REFUSE to buy a new model S&W with the IL when I can purchase an excellent pre lock for a less expensive price.

There are plenty of other manufactures that make ALL of their firearms (rifles, shotguns and handguns) without that IL. S&W has bowed to the pressure of the ANTI's for the sake of the allmighty dollar and added a feature that is not needed if you practice proper firearms safety rules.

JMHO and happy Thanksgiving to all!

__________________
V/R
Roger / SG

I can't get around the hole either. I wish I could, but it just irks me.

But it's not just that; it's MIM parts, two piece barrels, the transfer bar, and everything else. New Smiths just don't feel right - to me.

Another thing which bothers me is the exploding cylinders on Scandium models. Makes me nervous to shoot beside anyone with an alloy Smith. A local dealer showed me what was left of a brand new 360 PD; three pieces of the cylinder, the fourth piece is somewhere near the Hubble. And that was with .38 Specials!

I know it's stupid of me to be like this, but I began shooting 30 years ago, and these new guns are awfully strange.

Thank God for Gunbroker.

I have bought classics with the IL when the original was priced out of my range. I have since sold them because I have to buy, trade and sell. You know the routine. I love them all. I now own one M625-8 with the IL. I would not hesitate to buy another if the price was right and it struck my fancy. I am too old to let a IL stop me from buying something I want.

What can I say? The IL is not a problem as long as this kind of buy is around.

Get them while you can.

It doesn't affect functioning very often, but when it does, you may not have time to get the key out.

Old Buddhist saying: Forewarned is forearmed.

Bob, you stoled the 48!

The IL sucks and I can't get passed it either. The rest of my life is too short to trust it to a gun with an IL, period! Besides, I can buy most older classic Smiths without the IL for LESS than the new ones with it and not have the worry. The whole idea of a revolver is, when you pull the trigger it's supposed to go BANG, not have to worry "did I leave the lock on?", "will it lock-up on it's own?", "will it jam?".

__________________
Dick

I'm with diamonback68. Don't need it, don't want it, won't buy one with it.

A quick look through the S&W 2009 catalog proves I'm not missing out on anything. You like em? You buy em. Regards 18DAI.

I don't like the lock, but I have a pair of 640-3's with it. I've done everything in my power to try to make them lock the gun up including firing some full-house .357's (I normally load it with +P .38 specials) and dropping the gun on a carpeted floor on it's topstrap to try to get the lock flag to pop up and engage the hammer. I just can't get the darned things to malfunction, so while I don't like them one bit, I'm not particularly worried about my specific guns locking up on me. Besides, I always carry a BUG
The lock is ugly as all get-out, but these are carry guns, not show pieces, so I live with it. If I had to do it again, I would buy guns without the locks, but the 640's were my best option at the time.

I suppose that's one advantage to being new to S&W's...the lock doesn't bother me. I've shot more revolvers with transfer bars than without, so the new stuff is fine with me. If anyone has any S&W revolvers with locks that they don't want, I'll be happy to give you a receipt for tax purposes

I can't stand the silly Lock either, I've "had" a couple with it & still have a few sets of the keys for someone who needs them..
To me it's more about the forged flash chromed hammers & triggers that the earlier guns had & on the Airweights that had Anodized Coated framed instead of a matte sprayed on finish, Just better looking & more durable..
Smith has put out a few revolvers in the past few years without the lock, All J Frames if I remember correctly, & I'm sure they noticed they sold quicker than the others..
I still think S&Ws #1 seller is the 642-2 currently with lock??
Of corse we could all buy the newer guns with the MIM parts & put "The Plug" in them disableing the lock, But leaving it reverasable if you ever sell the thing to keep you from being liable..
I once ground the tab off the flag on a 442-2 & when I sold it I told the buyer, a dealer, that it had been disabled & didn't even give him the keys.. Still made me feel funny since the gun was original sold to me by an FFL with paperwork.. That's another thing too..
All my current S&Ws have no paperwork trail.. All Gunshow buys/trades from collectors..
Gary/Hk

__________________
MightShowYouHisSmith&Wesson

I'm another, "no-locker". All my guns do not have a lock but one, and that one has had a transplant "ala The Plug". I am not a Gun Collector, but depend on these critters to save my life and my wife's as well. i cannot imagine pulling the trigger on another Armed person who is bent on killing or severely harming/injuring my family & the gun not firing due to that lock. Perhaps the IL is OK for the Collectors or Target Shooters, but just not for me.
Carl

My Smith and Wesson gun collection will NOT have a gun with a Hillary hole in it.
There are just way to many used Smith's to be had out their.
When people post pictures of their guns, I look instantly for the hole, if I see it, I move on to another picture.
Am I hard headed?, yup I am.
A safety feature you say, pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

As long as serviceable used guns are available without the blasted thing I won't buy one. It's not so much that it looks bad or has in relatively small numbers of incidents locked the gun up as it is just another liberal federal govt. intrusion in our lives. Damn bureaucrats in Washington need to realize they can't fix everything!

Sorry about that, just one of my pet peeves.

Joe in SC

I know an S&W engineer. He said that management is WELL aware of the general dislike for the IL.

I'd pass on the IL if given the choice but I greatly prefer new guns since I have no control over what abuse a used gun may have been subjected to. Some abuse can't be detected by visual exam and I won't pay for non destructive testing, magnafluxing, etc. And, as the OP said, they never made .500 Mags w/o locks. Also, the locks have never given me a problem, I never use it.

One poster said he dislikes several S&W features. S&W says that the two piece barrel (barrel & shroud) results in greater strength. Doesn't seem like a disadvantage to me. Ruger has transfer bars, S&W doesn't, they have hammer blocks if I'm not mistaken. Don

Gee, what's it been -- two whole weeks without an "I hate the lock and every other product change since 1982" thread? Just think, nine years of griping and Smith still manufactures and sells more revolvers than anyone else.

I've been shooting since I was a kid in the '40's...spoiled with all the quality fo guns from those times. I don't own anything with an IL and probably won't. I nearly choked when my recent 64 showed up with a hollow trigger. Progress isn't always a good thing. I'm thankful that there are plenty of older guns out there to last me the rest of my days! An IL is like political correctness...and I'm dead against that. The Australian prime minister's speech about wimpy immigrants was right on...you come to my country...you live by our rules! I'd like so see a vote on the IL by the shooters. I'd vote no.

__________________
Term limits!

Oh joy, yet another thread for the Mimwits and lockjaws.

What'a an IL?

Sorry....

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Happy Thanksgiving, all. "I can't believe I ate the whole thing...." Well, I didn't but I did put a good dent in the old bird and the fixins. And there'll be sammiches tomorrow, huzzah.

My extensive collection of two (yes, two) revolvers all have the IL but it is a very easy thing to remove and fill the hole with a Bullseye Smith plug. I am disappointed that the IL exists at all but I am thankful for BS' good old-fashioned American ingenuity.

Chris

__________________
/at least she finds me handy.

"I REFUSE to buy a new model S&W with the IL when I can purchase an excellent pre lock for a less expensive price"

I agree with this. The man obviously knows what he is talking about.

__________________
jj

Please define Mimwits and lockjaws?

__________________
V/R
Roger / SG

Simple.

"I won't own a gun with MIM parts or a lock".

I can't take the credit, it was someone else that came up with those names.

Some people just reject change, we all do to some extent. But there are a good number of people on here that just go from topic to topic complaining about the lock and the MIM parts. I've watched new S&W owners come here to learn more about the new revolver they just purchased and get ripped apart because they bought something with a lock or MIM part. Understandably they leave after a few visits never to return.

We're in a disposible society where there are probably more plastic and aluminum guns than steel being produced. Manufacturers are doing anything to cut costs just to stay in business. At this point I'm amazed that S&W is even producing revolvers in steel and could care less about the lock and MIM parts.

I think my 625-6 Mountain Gun has some MIM parts

I'm sorry that you don't understand or appreciate information being passed about the fact that the IL will once in a while cause a revolver to be completely nonfunctional, but the information is not posted here for you. It is posted SPECIFICALLY for the new guy who otherwise would not hear about it, thus would be unable to take whatever steps he considered appropriate.

If you feel that it is not appropriate to do anything at all about the IL, that is your problem; don't try to make it everyone else's.

I've never seen credible evidence of the locks spontaneously locking.
As far as the guns, the revolvers Smith makes today are the best ones they have ever made. The combination of better materials and better manufacturing techniques has yielded guns with trigger pulls that would have taken a lot of expensive gunsmithing in the past.
I'm past the brady hole and looking hard for a Model 60 Pro.

__________________
"Vus ken men tin?" -Irving

Rabbi I must confess that I disagree with you. The older revolvers were of a higher quality, internally and externally than today's S&W coming off the line. I have not had one trigger job done on any of my 16 Smiths and all of them have Very Good to Outstanding trigger pulls, both DA and SA. I've also never had ONE of them lock up on me as I thoroughly maintain my firearms.

The IL is S&W's COWARDLY reaction to a non existant problem. If everyone would practice firearms safety and properly store their guns we would not have this issue.

My 870 riot loaded with OO buck will do much more damage to a human at 7 yards than any hangun cartridge and it doesn't have a lock. My mind is the lock. Neither do my Springer 1911, BHP, Sig 228, Beretta Vertec, H&K P7..... have locks on them.

If you see ONE of the IL revolvers (686) lock up as I did with 158 gr. Speer Gold Dot's .357 mags it'll make a believer out of you. Thats all it took for me to become a anti lock S&W owner/operator.

Here is an article for everyones reading concering the lock and the NRA's firearm safety rules.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2009/09/03/
http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

Granted it doesn't happen alot but the 1 time it does could have you 6' under.

Regards,

Roger

__________________
V/R
Roger / SG

I don't know, is it that stupid thing I disable in about 5 minutes? Or is that thing I buy a plug for and solve within 10 minutes?

That's my attitude. Very knowledgeable people like John Taffin (if you don't know who he is, your firearms background is lacking) say that the current S&W revolvers are made to tighter tolerances and with much better/stronger materials than in the past.

Yes, older ones had more hand polishing and probably better bluing but those things really drive up the price of firearms.

Joed49 wasn't complaining about those who dislike the IL, he's just commenting about the never ending IL whining threads discouraging new shooters. The search function will give them hours of "I hate the IL" discussions to browse through.

One of the purposes of this newer revolver area was to keep IL complaint threads OUT of it and that hasn't worked. Don

I only have one of the new S&W revolvers. Its a model 10-14 4 inch. I like the revolver but the gun still does not have the smooth action like my older Smiths. Your right. The politicians and attorneys own this country. Even though my model 10 has the new interlock I still have too buy a cable lock and install it when I am transporting the revolver. This is in California. It does not make sense. It really boils down to government trying to control more of our lives. To add to this post I recently bought a brand new revolver. I was looking at another L frame revolver. I have a pre-lock 686-3 4 inch. My gun store showed me a new 686P and a Ruger GP100. After handling both revolvers and thinking if I bought the 686 I would have to deal with another interlock revolver I made my decision. I bought the Ruger GP100. I also saved about $150.00. The Ruger trigger was just as good as the new 686. Now both revolvers did not have the triggers my old Smiths do. I believe those days are gone. But given the options today on new revolvers I am inclined to buy a Ruger. At least I do not have too deal with the interlock with the Rugers.
One old fellas opinion,
roaddog28

I've never seen nuclear fission, but it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. If it were clear that you spend much time on this board, it would be clear that you are calling a number of posters here liars.

Oh, goody. Not only do we have the umpteenth thousandth "I hate the lock and every product innovation since 1982" thread, but to make matters complete, we have the usual hurling of insults.

Amen.

Wish I knew what the answer was but I surely don't.

That may be true, but they would sell EVEN MORE revolvers if they had no locks on them IMHO!

Like many have said, as long as there are good examples of pre-lock guns to be had, I'll stick to those.

Things at Smith went downhill when they did away with the screw by the trigger guard. Darn guns have never been the same since.

__________________
"Vus ken men tin?" -Irving

Smith isn't worried about those with a fetish for pre-lock firearms. I have some of both types. They all work. Those with locks have NEVER posed ANY reliability issues.

__________________
Jaeger

....I wish we had a separate forum for the lock rantists.

+ many on that and "nothing new is good" approach. MIM parts for example are used in many very high tech, critical applications, try Sandia National Laboratories, one of the developers of that technology. Haven't heard of any of them failing.

All this anti new technology reminds me of car issues. Those who say "they don't build them like they used to!" You're right and for that, we can be grateful.

Old 1965 Mustang in line 6 cylinders had pathetic acceleration and got WAY less than 20 mpg. New 435HP Corvettes can get 30 mpg at posted limits on an interstate and positively DESTROY any LEGITIMATE muscle car of the 60s in any performance test, all with miniscule emissions, great brakes, superb handling and great air conditioning. Love those old single digit mileage muscle machines.

Anyone notice the recent crash test of a 1959 full size Chevy vs a 2009 Chevy Malibu which was noticeably lighter? The 1959 would have killed the driver. The Malibu driver would have been uninjured. Yes, the good old days, they're SO much better. Don

I do have pre and post lock S&Ws. Only two with the IL and they now have the "plug". And by the way, my 327Pc with the blued plug looks GREAT without the IL!!

For me its two things, aesthetics and reliability.

First, the lock is ugly. Other companies like Ruger put the locks where they are not so obvious.

Second, even if it's only 1 in a million that the lock malfunctions, it's Zero chance without it!

And the real original reason for the IL is not toadying to antigunners, when SafeTLock bought S&W, they put their design in them.

And now they are in a difficult position. If there is any data on a malfunction and S&W knew of it they will lose the inevitable future lawsuit.

If they take them out they have to give some reason and again, a possible future lawsuit depending on the excuse.

I like the earlier smiths for quality of finish and the feel of rarity in the limited PC guns I own.

This is not a new subject, just ask a Winchester Collector about pre-64 rifles!

I agree, If you don't like the lock - just don't buy it or cry about it, your loss and our gain. Old Navy is also right in his statement . IL is here to stay right now so live with it. S&W is the best out there on the market. Of course you guys don't buy a Chevy or Ford because they broke down like your S&W, so now you buy the inports.

It's funny after not being on for awhile, that the discussion still continues. My take is still the same. I do not trust the lock, as it is an added possible failure to a defensive weapon. The gunsmith at the local range has had several brought to him that have locked up while people were shooting them, that is a fact. Any gun can fail, but this is an added unnecessary possibility. I had one and sold it.

Now if you are buying one just for fun to bang around at the range go ahead, but I would not have it as my main defensive gun.

I think if anybody ever shoots a person with a revolver with the lock disabled is up for a bigger legal fight, then if it was'nt.

I also feel that if anybody gets shot/killed while trying to defend themself with revolver that failed because of the lock, S&W will have a huge lawsuit against them.

__________________
Wayne

Over, and over, and over.

I think I finally figured out what is needed to fix the problem.

The locks came out in 2000 I believe. The firearm time period should be 1980 to 2000 instead of 1980 to present. Add a separate section for the 2000 to present time frame firearms.

Make the lock subject a sticky that can be read and not responded to.

Last (and my favorite), anyone bashing the lock and MIM is banned from the forums.

One of the things I liked about the last software this forum was on was you could add users to a group that was ignored. God, I miss that feature!

I wont hesitate to buy a wheelgun with the lock.
I also wont hesitate to remove the lock as soon as I get it home.
While they are a thing of beauty, they are a tool first and foremost... And the S&Ws that I have bought have been some amazing tools.
I wont deny myself one of the best revolvers on the market, due to a piece that takes less than 5 minutes to remove.
I like N frames... I like fixed sights... I like .44s and larger...
Finding this combination without the lock is VERY hard... and when you do, its out of my price range in general.
Dont get me wrong, if I had 2 identical revolvers... same price, same specs, one with and one without the lock... I would leave with the lockless gun.


Jim

I have not had a problem with my interlock model 10-14. My whole issue with the lock is in a lot of states like California even if you have a handgun with a interlock you still have to have a cable or trigger lock to store the gun or carry the gun in your vehicle to the range. Again, my take is this was strictly politicians and lawyers doing the same things they do to control the Americans lifes. Unfornately, Smith & Wesson bought into the game. Mim parts don't really bother me. I can take them or leave them. Just about every industry has started using different materials to make goods. This is to cut costs and make money. My only objection to Smith and Wesson going to interlocks on guns is it creates another possibility of a persons gun failing to function. And in a life or death situation that could result in a sad ending.

roaddog28

I could decry the lock if I thought it would make any difference. I have personally witnessed the lock engage on several 620's during qualifications for a particular agency here in NC for whom I used to work. My personal opinion, and it's worth exactly what you paid for it, is that I will never carry a S&W revolver with the lock as currently designed and promoted by S&W. I will continue to buy pre-lock models and carry them with confidence.

Perhaps we should suggest a redesign of the lock. It would be a compromise of course. We would still have a lock but one we could live with. Perhaps S&W could change the lock design to make it reliable and move it to a more inconspicuous location.

I can't suggest any specific changes. I'm just a cop and know nothing about mechanical engineering, gun design or tv repair.

For fun and amusement, I just read this entire thread . . . but imagining the thread was about the slow and steady giving up of our gun rights rather than accepting the damn Clinton-coerced Internal Lock, at a time when previous owners of S&W caved in to political arm-twisting.

In that context, it is easy to see why we keep giving up our gun rights. Too many people willing to happily compromise, or blissfully ignorant to the reasons the damn IL was introduced in the first place . . . and the IL wasn't introduced to make the guns more reliable, that's for sure.