Perhaps if everyone who wanted S&W to start making revolvers without the lock again sent S&W a message on facebook, it would pressure them to do so. I sent S&W a little message that said:

They responded politely:

I can't help but think that if even just 1000 of us flexed our social media muscle, S&W might bend. Even if you don't think it would work, it takes all of 20 seconds to do on fb. I would urge you to do it, because I've seen several companies in the firearms industry respond positively to mass customer feedback.

My intention is not to start a debate about whether or not S&W revolvers should have locks, that subject has probably been hashed out a thousand times. I would, however, like to know if you think what I've suggested is a waste of time.

I leave you with this video I found.

Robert Farago (in the video) is the founder of The Truth About Guns. I personally wouldn't sell a firearm I consider defective but that's me.

As for the lock, I haven't had any problems after several hundred rounds.

That's precisely the discussion OP is trying to avoid.

OP: it's an excellent suggestion; you'll have to explain to much of the forum what social media is.

I agree with contacting them. I think the S&W mindset right now is that the no lock guns are limited to DAO revolvers with heavy trigger pulls. That is why you see no lock versions of only the Centennial type revolvers. So, I am not sure how much good it will do, but it cannot hurt the cause of getting them to either get rid of the lock OR offer no lock versions of revolvers, especially those that might be used for defense.

OP: it's an excellent suggestion; you'll have to explain to much of the forum what social media is. [/QUOTE]

Haha, very true. I'm only 34 and I don't have anything to do with the social sewer, never will. Maybe start a petition about the locks on Change.org

Sadly, one of the top indoor sports in this country (I would call it Number Two, but I'm a tacky old man) is litigation.

I'm sure various high-powered attorneys and PR people retained by S&W pushed the decision to make guns with locks, and would argue strenuously against doing away with them.

But the OP's idea certainly is worth a try.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

I've wondered about that possibility, but then what of the handful that don't have the lock, or S&W's entire lock-free semiauto and rifle line?

I was only half-joking about explaining social media to the membership. Sure, more or less everyone here knows what Facebook and Twitter are, but I think the average age of a typical revolver aficionado doesn't lend itself to naturally considering and organizing a social media campaign to try and effect a company's production choices.

I feel certain in suggesting that if Glock added a hated feature to their line-up, the online campaign would be swift, sizable and effective due in large part to the average age and Internet savvy of the typical Glock customer -- look what happened when the Gen4 rollout fiasco caught fire online.

There is more than enough anti-gun mentality out there and that was strengthened by the incident in Oregon.
There is absolutely no way that S&W would backtrack on the lock at this point in time regardless of the 'social media' potential 'pressure'!
They sell an abundance of choices but right now the pistols and AR styles most certainly drive the bottom line more than the revolvers - IMO.

I know they would sell a lot more guns to me if they got rid of it since I buy no-lock only.

Morning ccjcc81

If S&W was having troubles selling the lock containing revolvers
that might be effective but at that point S&W would probably
already know that info from their lacking sales of lock containing
revolvers.

S&W is selling every lock containing gun they currently make
at a very premium price so a few posts on facebook sure isn't
going to change anything.

Now if you could get ENOUGH gun purchasers to quit buying
S&W lock guns then that might have some effect on S&W's
future lock production plans. (good luck with this one)

I see no downside in contacting S & W about making revolvers the way they used to (in the case of K frames, nearly 100 years without locks), but I suspect they will not.

Some states mandate the lock, and (as noted above) if the IL versions are selling briskly there is no advantage in offering two guns with different machining processes, internal parts, etc., especially for the relative few without locks they might sell.

Expanding the no-lock J frame line, potentially easy, but with K frames they might make them with the (to me) strange rear frame contours of current models and simply omit the lock...not appealing proportions in my opinion. However, no one has accused me of being in step with modern times .

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

I think it is misguided to ask S&W to actually QUIT making firearms with internal locks.

All most of us just want S&W to offer the public an OPTION of no internal lock. Just an option, nothing more... After that, let the open market demand decide.

__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95

I suspect that even on this forum there is only a minority (enthusiastic as they may be) who think a lock spoils an otherwise perfectly fine revolver. The first person accounts of failure are few and far between (and probably the same few instances gets reported multiple times making it seem a bigger problem). Certainly those accounts are far out numbered by the instances of loose ejector rods causing failures - yet nobody demands a design change to eliminate that "defect."

That said, demanding an option would seem to be a better approach as I suspect some people actually count the lock as a positive feature.

Just in case you missed it,

Go back and re-read post #13

I hope they drop the locks then my "lock guns" will become collectible.

__________________
Be obscure, clearly.

Probably never hurts to keep asking.

FWIW, I've continued to hear rumbles that it's still a subject of some disagreement within the company. The corporate lawyers naturally have a strong say in such matters.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

I agree, and I would like to add that another reason why it is currently only the Centennial versions of the J-frames that have the option of no lock may be because these guns lack a hammer. Lacking a hammer, they also lack a hammer flag indicating the status of the firearm. Thus, one positive way to determine the readiness of the revolver is to attempt to pull the trigger. Since the design of this lock allows the lock to be actuated while the gun is fully loaded, this method of status check can lead to obvious potentially disastrous errors.

Because these models are marketed mainly as self-defense tools, S&W are leaving themselves an out. If the actuation of the lock (either through mechanical or user error) causes harm, S&W lawyers will say, "our client offers several models of firearms suitable for self defense that do not have a safe storage lock, and if that was the intent of the complainant, he could have easily purchased one of those." Unfortunately, I don't think the wants of a comparatively few customers, however loyal, would be the driving force of their decisions regarding anything to do with the IL. But it couldn't hurt to let them know what we think.

I have yet to buy a S&W with a lock, but that's because S&W has been doing other things I don't care for on their guns, like slab siding barrels, angle cutting ejector rod shrouds, stamping someone else's initials on it (JM), porting barrels, muzzle brakes, or not offering the barrel length or cartridge I want. At least with the lock I can get an aftermarket retrofit plug or make one myself to ensure the gun goes bang every time.

Since this is a discussion about using a focused social media approach to voicing product preferences to S&W, can you point to all the threads where that suggestion has already been beat to death.

Leave the IL revolvers for me ill take them.