I see stuff all the time about "pre-lock" S&Ws being so much better, "post-Hillary" locks, etc. From what I read, almost no one actually uses them...so it begs this question:

Why are they such a bad thing *IF YOU DON'T USE THEM*? It just has the OPTION of using them. If you choose not to use the lock, what makes it a bad thing? How does it affect anything on the gun if it's not used?

Un-noob me.

lol.

Well, other than the fact they're ugly, there have been stories about them locking up the gun during firing or when dropped.
It apparently is most likely to happen with the ultra light guns in powerful calibers. I personally don't see it as a huge problem, but I will admit, I wish my 340PD was lock-less. But then again, I wish it was pinned and recessed too.
We can always dream.

"recessed"?

Un-noob me again. haha

Makes as much sense as a key-lock on the brake pedal of your car. Sure you don't have to use it, but you wouldn't want it to "accidently" lock you out when you REALLY wanted to use the brakes!

"Recessed" refers to the cylinder on older magnums where metal encased the cartridge rim. Sturdier and better but not neccessary. Just an example of old time craftmanship gone away.

__________________
Jon

"Pinned and recessed" refers to the way that Smith made its revolvers prior to 1982. Before 1982, all of Smith's barrels had a pin put through them, just in front of the point where the barrel meets the frame. That method of stabilizing the barrel was eliminated. "Recessed" refers to the way in which Smith manufactured the cylinders of its Magnum revolvers. Prior to 1982 there was a recess in each Magnum chamber that caused each round to be seated flush with the chamber's rear face. That function was dropped after 1982, today, the rounds seat just behind the face of the chambers.

There are those who lament the end of the pinned and recessed era as a sign that the quality of Smith's revolvers has deteriorated. I'm not one of those. I own 'em pinned, pinned and recessed, and unpinned and unreccessed and I can't distinguish a difference in performance or accuracy between the older and newer models.

The issue of the lock has been the subject of about a million threads on this forum and about two billion posts. Forum members tend to divide into two camps: those who see the lock as absolute proof that Smith sold its soul to the devil; and those who couldn't care less. Count me in the latter category, the subject of the lock is an enormous yawner to me. I have owned several Smith revolvers with locks and have never encountered the least problem with any of them, at least not lock related. Presently, I own a 625JM with, yes, a lock. Love that gun.

I think as a general rule the older guys like me don't like some of the new things S&W is doing. Like MIN parts, no pins in the barrel, no recessed cylinders, and locks. So I only buy used guns when I buy a S&W. S&W still has to sell guns so I think more young people buy new guns. This is a good thing. I want to make it clear that I am not talking about every one. Don

__________________
"Don't worry be happy"

YOU NEED TO READ THE THREAD AT THE TOP OF THIS SECTION.

It's mostly in the heads of gun cranks and curmudgeons who have been shooting S&W's since Moses walked the Earth Like everything else, cars, tools, etc. the "old stuff is always the best".....depends on your perspective.

It's also now something for dealers and collectors to use to jack up the values of their "better" Pinned and Recessed,non-MIM and lock-less revolvers.

I'll admit, the newest MIM and IL revolvers lack that "something" that stuff like my 586, 10-5, K-22,and other older Smiths have. But for performance, my 617, 64-7 and 10-14 shoot pretty darn well, are reliable and I have no doubt will last me the rest of my lifetime. I have many rounds through my 617 and quite a few through the 64-7 and neither has "locked" up on me.

I'll let the "collectors" scramble for 38/44's and K38's, I will buy used MIM and IL 10's,67's,686's and 64's, all day for $300 since they are so "worthless"

I have two Performance Center 627's. One with and one without. Other than visual, no differance to me.

I'll check it out. Thanks.

The internal lock along with the MIM parts, not pinning barrels, not recessing cylinders, and other issues in newer Smith and Wessons to me is a slow but steady watering down and diminishing of what used to be a no-compromises type of philosophy of a by gone era of S&W.

Now, don't get me wrong S&W still does make high quality guns but it is not like it used to be.

I own 3 internal lock guns and 10 pre-lock guns and nearly every single pre-lock gun I have is more refined and smoother in function than my IM guns.

__________________
"I'm just a dog chasing cars."

If you think you're a NOOB then be sure to read the sticky's at the top of the forum before posting; this goes for any internet forum.

I've been around internet forums a long, long time (1996 or so when things were just getting started). No worries there.

I briefly read some threads, but I've been around forums so long where I actually know about the subject matter than I just have an "auto-pilot" function to skip stickies. haha. Not a good habit to have here.

I'll take the good with the bad with new S&W's, I also like the older ones and have dozens of them, but once in a while like to buy a NIB one to sample some of the "new" Smith & Wesson. My 64-7 is pretty much perfect and is a tack driver, on the other hand my 10-14 is going back for warranty work for failure to carry up..........but, my 617 is perfect and has brought me 1,000's of rounds of joy in my backyard for plinking and small game hunting. I also have a K-22, obviously the K22 is slicker and better looking, but both of them shoot very well.

I would rather have a less fit and finished revolver with a lock and MIM that still performs, and most importantly made in the USA!

If S&W "pulled a Winchester" and sold out to Japan, and all S&W revolvers were made by Miroku we'd all be missing those "shoddy" IL and MIM made in USA revolvers real quick!

You don't know what you got until it's gone!

If you don't like the 'lock' and don't plan on using it, there is an inexpensive remedy. It's called 'the plug'. For a little over $20.00 you can remove the misbegotten lock and fill the evil hole with 'the plug'. Works like a champ, and puts your mind at ease.
Disclaimer: I have no horse in the plug race. Don't know the manufacturer, no stock in the company, I don't get a commision or discount. I paid full price for my plug and it was worth every penny.

+1 My sentiments exactly. Here's what the lock plug looks like installed:

I just choose not to use the lock, I still have all the keys for my 3 IL S&W's in the little baggies. I stuck one of the 2-key baggies in my range bag "just in case".

The cases of locks failing have been so few, it is probably as frequent as other mechanical failures. If I recall correctly it was the Airweight .357's and .500's that had lock engagement, I think these were early locks and the problem has since been remedied.

I object to it on the grounds that it's another politically mandated safety measure - and one that should be left to the individual gun owner. Rather like the inscription on the slide of the S&W 1911. Sort of like "Handguns for Dummies" ......

I gotta say, I only own 1 Smith with the lock, a 617-8.
I'd prefer it not to have the lock but to be honest, when I'm shooting it and loving its accuracy, I temporarily forget about its having the lock.

The whole lock thing - aside from the airweight .357 issues - seems to be more mind over matter for the most part. It seems to be more "I don't like that it's there" versus "it really matters".

I'm in the no lock camp because it comes with MIM parts, frame mounted firing pin, hit or miss QC, chatter marks in barrels and cylinders.

For me, the lock is the hallmark of such things and the outside indicator of the changes.

That and the fact that it's a insult to our intelligence as responsible gun owners.

One of my 617's is a lock gun and it works fine and shoots better. However......if your gun is a fighting/defensive gun AND a lock gun it's got parts in there it doesn't need, the more parts to the machine(ANY machine) the more likely something is to go wrong and chance being as it is it'll probably go wrong at the worst possible time. If the lock made the gun a better tool I'd be all for it. All it does is make it a more complicated tool.

The answer to IL and MIM S&W's

In all seriousness, the IL and MIM must not bother a lot of people, S&W is selling enough of them to be bringing out new models in their revolver line all the time.

I think more than a few S&W devotees jumped ship and went over to Ruger because of these issues. But like you said, S&W seems to be selling the new ones to somebody.

__________________
Jon

I was a S&W fan before I was a Ruger nut, I never jumped ship, more like I just bought a 2nd ship for my Ruger revolvers!

All "locks" aside, people complain about MIM parts, which is a form of casting.......well, since the beginning Ruger has cast most of the metal parts used in their revolvers, frames, hammers, triggers, etc. and have been doing this since the 50's in the Blackhawks, since the early 70's for the Security Six series, and now for the GP100 and it hasn't stopped these guns from becoming wildly popular.

I have over 20 of each, I'm more of a fan of well made American revolvers so I'm a huge fan of both Smith and Ruger. Never had much use for any Colt stuff but I do have a few of those too....the King Cobra has "sintered" parts but that doesn't stop people from paying $800 for those now I think some people would pay $500 for a piece of cow dung as long as it had a Rampant Colt stamped in it.....

I don't have a Ruger LCR but sadly, I believe it has a lock under the grip and I think a few of their other new designs have a lock The day they start putting locks on GP100's and Blackhawks will be a sad, sad day in the revolver world for sure, let's hope that never happens.

If someone likes the new S&W designs but hates MIM and IL, get the "Plug" and track down a hammer and trigger set from the short era when Smith went to the frame mounted firing pin but still forged the internals......problem solved.

As for me, I have many rounds on my 64-7 and 617 and both are still tight as a drum, so the MIM parts should work well enough for me. The day it fails on me I'll be sure to report about it!

Just as more information, in addition to S&W magnums, .22 caliber revolvers also had recessed chambers.

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

I don't think there have been any valid reports of .500s having IL issues but there have been cases of the nasty recoiling 12oz, scandium .357s having issues.

Personally, I've had 5, .500 Mags, have two currently, never had an issue with any of them after quite a few rounds. Don

I think the 617 is the only S&W now that still has recessed chambers, just as an "aside"

That explains why the newer J-frame .357's are coming out without the IL, I guess.......IMO this is setting a new standard that Smith is willing to make guns without locks, although I don't see them going away for other models.

A lot of people prefer the older Smiths, but if you want a .460 or .500, or a new 617 it is unavoidable.

To me it insults my inteligence. A lot like those safety warnings on rugers. It is the gun companys sucking up to the goverment to keep them off their backs. I suppose it also is to keep from being sued. In either or both cases its the companys kissing up to others. And just looking at those "give in`s" aggervates me. I dont need it and I but the older stuff. Come to think of it I havent bought a "new" gun in about 30 years!
Correction: Thinking about it, I HAVE bought exactly one new gun in all that time. I wanted a .357 mag rifle so recently bought a puma 92 knock off of the winchester 92 and that has that useless safety. No other options available.

I may as well jump in on this tired worn out subject. many gun owners tend to be down to earth basic people with simple practical ways. not trying to stereotype but just giving a general picture. the lock represents everything contrary to common sense and practicality. added part that is supposed to be the fix for a common problem,. the gun going off when you don't want it to. but the solution has been there since the gun was invented. don't pull the trigger. so this is unnecessary and it just put in place another moving part that could fail to function properly. also it looks very ugly and just plain stupid. I like simplicity and this go against it. I know I am a litte extreme though. I have never owned a car with push buttons for example because if you want to rolll down the window you just have to turn the handle. it's been working ever since the car was invented. also I haven't owned an automatic since high school. why do I need the car to automatically shift gears for me when I can easily do it myself? .. there I'm finished. I sure didn't touch on anything new. this is nothing but a dead worn out topic.

Plain and simple......the lock is a "CYA" for S&W so if someone's 14 year old kid finds Daddy's 686+ under the bed and shoots his buddy with it, when the family goes to sue S&W they can say "Hey it had a lock to prevent this from happening"......there's not much else to it. S&W doesn't care if people are insulted by it and if you've been shooting since 1937 and know how to handle a revolver. They are covering their own *** against multi million dollar wrongful death suits. The same reason Ruger puts a billboard on the barrel of their guns, so when some idiot stuffs a triple proof handload in the gun and blows his face off, Ruger can say "it's right there on the gun, read the manual!" and the manual has all the CYA **** in it.

I'm sure lots of people thought the grip safety on the Lemon Squeezer pocket revolvers was stupid, but it was supposedly invented by Daniel B. Wesson after a kid shot himself.

Thank all the stupid people who shoot themselves and others because they can't follow the #1 rule of gun safety, or be bothered to teach their children and would rather sue a gun maker then admit their own stupidity....THAT is why guns have locks on them now.

Comparing 2010 to how it was back in "the day" is foolish.......we live in a "safety" generation now where people will sue because they hit a wall doing 70 and the car wasn't safe enough..... Just because a 1954 Pontiac had an all steel dashboard, no seat belts and a steering wheel that would impale people in a crash because "that's how it was when I was growing up" there's always people who think cars that have 20 airbags, infra-red cameras and crumple zones are "stupid", it because there are 40 times as many people on the roads now and a lot of them are idiots!

Back when the "good S&W's" were made young men also lined up to join the Service to fight the Nazis and Japanese. Now many kids 18-21 would rather cut their arm off than turn the PS3 off and do 3 years in the Army. Times have changed!

we are getting into territory that is off the main topic maybe but....... I think stupid people making stupid decisions that endanger themselves as well as others have been around for a very long time. as long as there have been guns there have been people who accidentally shoot themselves. nothing new about that. but these lawsuits that bombard the courts and judges and juries that rule in favor of them is a recent development that is killing freedoms for us all. this is the age of "it's not my fault". without accountability freedom is at risk.

Luckily just barely enough are signing up to keep our all volunteer military viable. My son in one of those, one year into a 4 year hitch with the Marines and is in Afghanistan right now. But your point is well taken. Times they are a changin'.

__________________
Jon

I have always thought if they would allow for shorter duties, say like two years, they would have a better shot at attracting volunteers. I know the argument that short duties they run the risk not getting their money's worth from training a recruit but isn't that what extensions were for? also the enlistment is really 6 years and I always felt that was too long. I think many good men/women who are college material might join after high school if they didn't have to commit for 6 years. since many of our high school graduates are not ready for college at 18 this would be an opportunity to enlist some of that population. if they knew they could get some valuable experience out of high school, see the world, then be back at 20 to start college I think that would be a real selling point. but the military is too tied down in old ways I guess. heck they probably still require monthly haircuts.

"It's ugly"? Really?

It's tiny and almost unnoticeable.

I graduated college with a BS degree and then did 3 years in the Active Army as an Infantryman, did 1 tour in Iraq......and I still have locks on my new S&W's

If I can handle 3 years in the service than pretty much anyone can Hell I'm getting kind of bored being out and had considered going back in.....I don't know if I'm a glutton for punishment or what......

Just trying to lighten up a tired subject, my point is people ask my S&W's have locks on them, why Ruger has the Magna Carta stamped on the barrel of their revolvers......because it's not 1943 anymore and alot of people aren't responsible, and it's a lot easier these days to find a lawyer when you screw up and blame someone else. Less kids grow up shooting and riding horses and hunting and all that, when I was in Basic at Ft. Benning most guys had never even handled a firearm before.

Just read today that a guy in NM was "cleaning a handgun" and it "went off" and shot his 4 year old son in the stomach, went through him and hit the "shooters" mother.....luckily both will survive, but I wonder if this idiot who forgot to check if his gun was loaded will try to sue the gun maker......

Stan, if you go back in, you ARE the man. No, you did your share. Now enjoy your Smiths, even if they do have locks.

__________________
Jon

Hahahaha Yeah when I say "considered" going back in, I also "considered" saving up for a Korth revolver I use the word consider alot meaning, "slight to no chance in hell"

It would appear on the surface to be a CYA issue, but it really is because S&W was purchased by a company that makes these locks (Saf-T-Hammer) and they figured a good way to sell them would be to force their customers to buy them.

There is no other reason. Until S&W decides to make a gun that I want to buy (without a lock) they will continue to forfeit my business. No biggie for me, its their loss. Sooner or later they will want my business. No company can simply ignore consumer demand and expect to thrive.

IC

I can almost see the billboard now: "TRIAL LAWYERS --- SAVING YOU FROM YOUR STUPIDITY AND SHAME FOR OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS".

The whole Saf-T-Hammer thing has been debated for a while, some people think it's an internet myth. Myself, I'm not too worried about it either way.

Think of it this way, NOW is a great time to get some great deals on used IL and MIM S&W's.....if for nothing else as range guns or plinkers. The early MIM and IL guns from the early 2000's that have been living in sock drawers and under beds are starting to find their way onto the used market as guys' wives tell them thet need to "sell some of these guns" so they become trade fodder. They are not collectible, there's little demand for them used, and people gobble up the "good old ones" so the IL and MIM's are easy to get dealers to give up just to move them out of the "used pile" in the store. I have seen a 686+ for $350 or so in almost new condition a few months ago, I wasn't looking for one, but that would have been a good buy looking back. I got my security trade-in 64-7 for $300 and the 10-14 for $350 in near new condition. 64-8's for $350 are out there too. I mean, nearly new guns with some handling marks, for the same prices people are gladly paying for holster scoured 10-5's with lots of rounds on them!

I think I must be curmudgeonly because I gotta stick with the old ones for both collectin' and usin'. No locks, MIM, two-piece barrels, frame-mounted firing pins (except for .22s) in this house.

Quite correct, NM definitely doesn't lack for brainless individuals. Last I heard, they hadn't decided if they would charge the jerk. As we all know, a dumb AD wouldn't have been too serious if he hadn't violated the prime directive of never pointing a gun at someone/something you don't wish to destroy. Don

I'll admit, ONE time and one time only, when I was 23 (about 7 years ago) I had an AD with a CZ-85 9mm in my basement.....I had a brain fart and pulled the mag out, and for some unknown reason pulled the trigger and "BANG" a bullet took a chunk out of the concrete floor.......note I said "floor" because the gun was pointed down at the ground and not at a (person, window,ceiling) and thus the only injury was to my ego.......that is the first and will be the only time I ever fail to clear a weapon, that was my warning! I don't care if I clear a pistol, go upstairs for 2 minutes, I come down and clear it again if I'm gonna clean or work on it. Those gremlins have a nasty habit of putting live rounds in guns people "swear was unloaded!"