I'm sure this has been asked before, but why is the 442 the only j frame being produced with a "no lock" option? Are these a sprint run of sorts, is tooling an issue? Just curious.

The M&P 340 is available without the Hillary hole. I have one. Excellent gun.

642 is also. I wish th 638 was.

As far as I know, the only J frames offered so far without the lock have been the "hammerless" Centennial guns like the 642.

The frame on the exposed hammer models was changed--the radius of the curve on the frame where the hammer slot is is very different. It's the same on the K frame. The change in the lovely contours of the frame are my biggest objection to the lock--which of course can be disabled if you wish.

This may have something to do with it.

Of course the N frame appears to be unchanged--maybe they'll do a run of lockless N frames?

I was in one of the local gun shops I frequent today browsing...it's the only one open on Sunday, and man were they busy. The owner told me he was going to be getting in a few 442s and 642s without the lock...so I asked him to save me one. He said they sell very quickly...their price on them is $383 (seemed good to me.) Maybe S&W is starting to listen to their customers? It would be nice for them to offer both frames...with and without locks...so the customer could choose.

Also, I believe the Model 40 doesn't have a lock...it's the new version of the old "lemon squeezer." I bought one a couple of years ago, and it didn't have a lock. I think the grip safety prevents the use of the lock on the side plate.

So is it possible to get any of the current Centennial models without a lock?

Can someone explain the issues with the lock on the revolvers? I am a new 642 w/lock owner, can the lock be engaged with the vibration of shooting?

The M632-2, which is another "Centennial type" also comes without a lock.



For those of you not familiar with the 632's they are a 6 shot J-Frame chambered for the
.327 Federal Magnum cartridge that will also handle .32 S&W, .32 S&W Long & .32 H&R Magnum rounds.

The 632-1 is more like the Model 60 and I have yet to see those offered
without a lock and thanks to Cooter Brown's previous post I now know why.

__________________
Ogy

This is a matter of significant debate...some don't like the lock because it is seen as a capitation to anti-gun elements; some don't like the lock because it is ugly (why did S&W ever decide to put a hole in the side plate?); and, some don't like the lock because there have been instances of the lock engaging unintentionally under recoil or when dropped...the concern being that it could render the revolver inoperable when it is most needed. The instances of this are rare, but they have happened. Of course, there are some who do like and use the lock...the rest either ignore it or remove it.

There are companies who put locks on revolvers that are not obtrusive and do not engage unintentionally...Taurus puts theirs on the hammer, and Ruger puts theirs under the grip at the base of the frame.

I have a recently acquired 632-2. It is very similar to the other "hammerless" J frames. I suspect the lack of a lock on the "hammerless" Js is due to configuration and not any other reason. The geometry of the hammer-trigger-sear relationship is different than in "hammer" J frames, as is one of the reasons that I like the Centennial models action so much. BTW the 632-2, called a "pro" model for some reason is a really dynamite revolver and is the only one that has come close to getting me away from my 940s which I regard as the best J frames ever made. It is very accurate, and if what it did to some water jugs is any indication, it should totally ruin a bad guys day. And its recoil is on a par with the 940, or a little less.
As far as future locks are concerned, I had the oppertunity to speak with some S&W folks at the factory a while back and the word that I heard was "look for locks", they are not going away. It would be quite a legal struggle for S&W to explain why they put locks on most of their guns, then took them off.

One of S&W's newest, the BG38 Bodyguard, does not have a lock either. Maybe they have finally figured out we don't need a lock.

As goofy as the mood of collectors can be, if we fast forward 30 years I wouldn't be suprised if handguns with a lock will be the "desired" style for collectors.

Edmo

Who would it be a "legal struggle" with, and why would they have to explain it to anyone?
The explanation is simple: "Our customers wanted guns without the lock and we are in business to sell guns."

The lock is there because safety hammer who bought the company put it there, it's their lock design. They did it because they hoped it would let them sell more guns. They hoped it would increase California sales, and it looked like other states were going to require drop and safety tests, and it looked like the CPSC (consumer product safety commission ) was going to start regulating guns, and would require a built in lock. The Feds/ States had already passed legislation requiring locks be sold with guns, and it looked like they were going to require built in locks.

I have a 642 with lock, I removed the mechanism as I could not visually tell if the gun was locked or not ( I never locked it), and since it was a carry gun I needed to know it was unlocked without pulling the trigger to find out.