I bought my first S&W revolver back in 1995 and have been acquiring them ever since. I remember all of the lock controversy from 20 + years ago. but I guess some of the details have left me. I seem to remember the ownership at the time made some sort of a "deal" with the Clinton administration and that the company was owned by Safety Hammer at the time.

fast forward over 20 years. the Clintons have been out of office for almost all of that time. S&W is no longer owned by Safety Hammer.

other than changing out the tooling, what is to keep S&W from dropping the lock?

Maybe negative PR if they do so. Someone will come out with that S&W doesn't care about safety and doesn't care about kids.

Rosewood

One would think the new competition from Colt as well as ongoing lock-free competition from Ruger and others would at least give them cause to reconsider.

On the other hand, despite what you hear on the internet, maybe they don’t have any trouble selling them with the lock.

__________________
John 3:16 .

Quite possibly the case. We are all living in our enthusiast bubble that may be quite apart from the broader reality.

With the safety eliminated, the lock moaners would have to find a new cause to pursue, and they don't handle the slightest change well.

I'd expect the liability attorneys are involved in the continued existance. Omit the lock, have a tragedy, get sued over removing the lock.

Still, while I hardly visit their site, it appears that "classic" (non lock) versions of some models get made. I note the lack of lock on the M&P 2.0s that I've seen.

I don’t understand this, as well? Unless I’m mistaken, S&W currently produces a number of J Frame revolvers without the lock.

This I feel is the case. And as long as lock versions are profiting the company, catering to a relatively small segment of the market by eliminating the lock ( with the associated costs involved) is not worth the company time or money

That's incorrect.

At the time of the S&W "deal" with Clinton, the company was owned by the British conglomerate Tomkins plc.

The trademarks and assets (but not the corporation itself) were later purchased by Saf-T-Hammer and an entirely new corporation, Smith and Wesson Holding Company, was created, some years after which, that company was renamed American Outdoor Brands....after which Smith &Wesson and the other brands owned by AOB were spun off into independent corporations.

The first order of business for the newly formed Smith&Wesson Holding Company corporation was to abrogate all agreements made with Clinton by the previous S&W Corporation owned b the British company Tomkins PLC.

The major points the original, British owned Smith & Wesson agreed to were to build the locks into all of their weapons within two years, to implement smart gun technology, and take ballistic fingerprints of its guns.

Companies including Ruger and Springfield Armory also incorporate locks into their pistols.

I have some of each kind of Smith, no lock and lock, and use them with complete satisfaction. To me the lock is a non-issue.

They could always gripe about removing the lock and how they don’t make them like they used to.

__________________
John 3:16 .

Since 2005, if you purchase a gun in the United States, you’re going to be given a free gun lock. It’s a federal law.
Maybe it's the easiest way for them to comply with the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 which requires the licensee:
When selling, delivering, or transferring a handgun to any person other than another licensee, any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer must provide a secure gun storage or safety device to that person for the handgun.

So you are saying that the S&W holding company ended all "deals" made with the Clintons?

So that would mean that S&W is no longer held to any "agreement" to be compelled to have a lock on any firearm?

I would take that to mean that either they are choosing to keep the lock due to liability reasons, or it is too expensive to change the tooling to revert back to no lock frames.

it seems that if you could eliminate a part/stage of production, it would lower overall costs.

the public fervor over a firearms manufacturer deleting a "safety" feature would die down in short order i would think.

That's correct.

There’s also the aging factor.

Older guys like me are more likely to dislike the lock than the younger guys who have little to no experience with the non-lock guns.

For folks who’ve only known the locked guns, that’s what they buy and they’re happy to do so.

Taurus has, for the most part, quietly deleted its key lock on most, if not all, models.

This is the point that always puzzles me. From what I can see, most / all the semi autos are lock free. They make lockless versions of the 642 340 and other hammerless revolvers. I'd think it would be one way or the other????

The thing that strikes me is the cost savings they could achieve by deleting manufacturing cost(s) - less labor, less parts, charge same price = more profit.

If they must keep the lock, for whatever reason, an alternate location would work. Put it in front of the trigger guard simulating the style of the old 5 screw guns. The screw would simply lock the cylinder bolt. The lock would have a slotted head like a side plate screw, no need for a special tool. It would have a spring detent inside the frame, one full turn to “click” and its on/off. That would also prevent inadvertent lock engagement under recoil. Just a thought on how to solve both issues, function and esthetics.

RevolverGuy.Com
The History and Future of the Smith & Wesson Internal Lock

A must read.

The reality is that there is absolutely zero reason for S&W to make the change. The number of people that don't buy because of the lock is miniscule compared to the overall market. If you got away from the members of this forum and questioned them about the lock, their answer would be "what?".

[QUOTE=rockquarry;141851044]With the safety eliminated, the lock moaners would have to find a new cause to pursue, and they don't handle the slightest change well.[/QUOTe

It would create another selection of (not made anymore S&W's) collectible S&W's.

No reason to call anyone lock moaners..........CUZ in reality we all dislike the lock.........But put up with it or delete it.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

The locks are pretty effective at saving me money.

Taurus had the best idea and location..........AN unobtrusive small hole in the lower back of the hammer.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

Are there any documented cases where the IL actually saved a life?

__________________
213th FBINA

Disabling a "safety devise" can get you in a lot of legal trouble if someone gets hurt. And the liberal press would have a field day every time someone accidentally gets shot with a "post safety lock removal" S&W firearm. IMHO, the present company is having to live with a "sin" committed by previous ownership.

I wonder just how many S&W revolvers have NEVER had the lock activated?

Rick has best idea. Outside of eliminating. I can understand the reluctance of SW to completely remove IL. In the meantime Colt, Ruger, Charter Arms, Taurus, Henry, Korth/NH, Manuhrin either don’t have it or have it in more palatable location. I’ve acquired many of these. Hopefully SW might entertain Ricks really great suggestion.

From what I've read and seen on line the new Colts aren't much competition for S&W and, they don't have the real kings of the hill the 460 and 500 Mags. Don

I thought those cartridges and the guns were novelties rather than popular big sellers.

Probably 90%+ of them, only on day they were bought to see how it works...

When I spoke with their marketing guy at the symposium, I said that from a purely manufacturing cost savings, removing the lock makes sense. He agreed, but he dont run the joint.

Robert

__________________
Robert
SWCA #2906, SWHF #760

One word: Lawyers.

That said, are they having any problem selling all that they make?

__________________
Only a cold warrior

While I absolutely abhor the "hole" and can't bring myself to purchase a Smith that has one, does anyone suppose the same argument was made when seatbelts were made mandatory?

__________________
1 Samuel 13:19 ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Or locomotives switched to diesel.

SO YOU SAY.............NAME ONE(Just one case S&W applicable)..........Just one.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

I activated the lock on my 629 once...ONLY once! Go back a couple weeks and you'll see my post about this faux pas! A couple replies were borderline "You stupid idiot!" but most of you treated me humanely!
So, I received quite a few "I removed the locks on all mine" and I wonder if that could come back and bite someone in the butt, legally or whatever? If no issues have risen, the one on my 27-9 "Classic Series" or whatever it is, is coming out!

Correct!
I bought a smith in 2005 which came with a Master Lock. I still use the lock. The price of the lock was built into the selling price I paid. The money for the lock went to Fortune Brands Master Lock.
They must provide a lock.
They make the lock which they provide.
S&W are not as bad as auto manufacturers which load down vehicles with "mandatory" safety devices for which they have lobbied and by which they profit.

__________________
696-6906-457-38-3913-CS40-411

Of course they did. "I'll be trapped in a burning car" or "I'll be trapped if I run off the road into water and I'll drown," "They'll wrinkle my clothes, They're uncomfortable, and so on and so on. Then it started all over when shoulder belts were introduced. And impact resistant bumpers. And color TV was going to give us all radiation poisoning.

__________________
John 3:16 .

...if the locks were optional.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Pre-lock guns are an Elegant weapon of a more civilized age....

and no, locks aren't safety devices, any more than the lock to your car is. If I recall correctly that has been successfully argued in court. Mas, IIRC....he has done a lot of expert witness work.

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

Correct, in this context they’re merely political statements.

__________________
213th FBINA

Pistol producers have to supply a means of securing (AKA childproofing) a firearm.

It would cost S&W to eliminate the lock. Their solution is vastly cheaper than including a separate lock for the gun and meets the requirements of the law. It is just that simple, whether you like it or not.

AND while I'm on the topic of like it or not, it doesn't matter whether you like the lock or hate it, it is what it is and complaining about it will earn you a ding and possibly a vacation from the forum. I have already taken the time to clean up this thread and do not wish to do so again.

Legitimate conversation about the lock and it's reason for being is acceptable. Bellyaching about it is not.

__________________
So many S&W's, so few funds!!

They’d be smart to delete the locks on Performance Center models where they charge more money and those guns are more geared towards people looking to shoot a lot versus strictly home defense / self defense guns.

Seat belts ARE safety devices. The first car I owned with them was a 1960 Tbird. The real complaints came when their use became mandated.

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

Sir, I must point out that S&W includes a padlock with all of its guns anyway, so eliminating the internal lock would save on intricate machining, the tiny extra parts, the keys, etc. The IL is not a substitute for a padlock, just an additional method to secure the weapon. So, their solution actually costs more money than just throwing in a cable lock since the cable lock is in there anyway.

if we continue to chirp on this subject the foreign company that buys Smith&Wesson will probably delete the lock. Then the ones with locks will probably be worth much more . Second guessing a company's motives are easy, running a company and turning a profit is a difficult thing.

While you could end up in court any attorney worth their fee could produce a lot of evidence that the locks are ineffective due to the fact that almost no one ever engaged them. Hard to blame something on a device that is never used

Tom, for what is worth, all new S&W revolvers that I purchased over the last decade or so, J, K, L and N, each came in their S&W box with a separate lock, a cable lock like most other new handguns, so two locks and two sets of keys for each. I do not think that having a childproof lock is necessarily the reason for keeping the frame lock. Maybe S&W have a large stock of parts for the frame lock and it may be of no economic sense for them to change. Many new models appeared after the lock and may have parts designed for the lock. The J, K and L frame shapes are changed to accommodate the lock, hammers are changed, etc. May cost more to remove than to keep, that's my guess. For one I am glad S&W continued making revolvers and having the lock is insignificant in comparison.