A new twist on the lock question.

[powerkicker]

I know many of us have strong feelings about the lock on the functional level, but I object to it strongly asthetically as well. I wonder how many folks won't have a lock gun just because they're ugly? Even if the lock was 110% reliable, I still wouldn't shell out top-dollar for a needlessly blemished revolver.

If S&W is going to keep the lock, maybe make it less conspicuous like Taurus does? I'd buy a Taurus over a comparable lock S&W for that reason alone. The Taurus lock works and isn't so hideous. Anyone else dislike the lock for cosmetic reasons alone?

 

[powerkicker]

I know many of us have strong feelings about the lock on the functional level, but I object to it strongly asthetically as well. I wonder how many folks won't have a lock gun just because they're ugly? Even if the lock was 110% reliable, I still wouldn't shell out top-dollar for a needlessly blemished revolver.

If S&W is going to keep the lock, maybe make it less conspicuous like Taurus does? I'd buy a Taurus over a comparable lock S&W for that reason alone. The Taurus lock works and isn't so hideous. Anyone else dislike the lock for cosmetic reasons alone?

 

[Lubbock Louie]

The cosmetics, not necessarily alone. Yep.

 

[NFrameFred]

Engineered correctly, so that the failure of the mechanism did not disable the firearm, and hidden to where it didn't affect the aesthetics of the gun . . . I'd buy one.

 

[Wayne M]

Good point. I've never had a problem with the CONCEPT of the lock itself, its just that it is too visible and on the J,K, and L frame it has altered the classic lines of the gun.

 

[18DAI]

Yep, they are ugly too! Regards 18DAI.

 

[Cartouche]

Yea really. At least Ruger hid theirs under the grip panel.

 

[stevieboy]

Well, after having been a member of this Forum for a few months I've discovered that there are two kinds of revolver afficianados in this world: those who care passionately about the lock (and, to a lesser extent, MIM parts); and, those who don't.

Count me in the latter faction. I bought my first revolver about 2 years ago. At the time I knew nothing about locks vs. pre-locks and, so, the presence of the little hole above the cylinder release bothered me not one iota. In fact, it didn't occur to me that the gun HAD a lock 'til I read the instruction manual. I promptly put the key in a desk drawer, where it resides today, and forgot about the entire issue. Since then, I've purchased a number of revolvers, both pre- and post-lock. Again, without thinking about the lock at all.

I guess I'm amazed at the passion that all of this stirs. I simply can't relate to it and I wonder: of all of the revolver owners out there, how many really care about the lock, or is this just inside baseball that's being discussed (endlessly) on this Forum?

 

[David Kachel]

The ugliness of the lock is not its visual appearance. It is what it represents... the toe of Nancy Pelosi and friends.

Every S&W purchased with a lock is another affirmation for the anti-gun crowd and is the orifice through which they urinate on the Constitution; WITH the help and submission of Smith & Wesson. For this reason alone, it is far too ugly to ever even consider owning a gun with this abomination.

 

[David Kachel]

Originally posted by stevieboy:
...count me in the latter faction. I bought my first revolver about 2 years ago. At the time I knew nothing about locks vs. pre-locks and, so, the presence of the little hole above the cylinder release bothered me not one iota...

And then there are those who bought their first revolver AFTER 1968. At the time they knew nothing about the 1968 Federal Firearms Act and so the presence of this intrusion on and insult to their liberty and constitutional rights didn't bother them one iota... if you arrive at the scene of a massacre after it has been cleaned up, this does not mean the massacre never occurred.

EVERY injury to liberty no matter how small should be viewed as egregious and dealt with accordingly.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Sporting12]

Hi All.
Well,put me in the Don`t Care column.
Sure the guns look better without it,and I would rather not have it,but I don`t think it`s really THAT bad looking.
Just my opinion.
Best Regards, Pete

 

[cREbralFIX]

My main problem with the lock is unintentional engagement. Apparently, it will engage under heavy recoil. That leads me to the next question: what does wear on the parts do to it? I shoot many, many rounds per year. If I'm going to carry the gun, and the gun has a high round count on it, will the lock engage by itself?

I just don't trust it.

It is ugly, but then again, I think stainless revolvers are ugly too.

 

[NMPinNYC]

I bought my first S&W revolver in 1986. I have bougt maybe a dozen since. I see no need for the damn lock thrust into the side of a revolver, and I hate how it looks, and I hate what it represents. It is offensive to me on all those levels. Unless I experience a great change of heart, there will be no lockable S&W's in my future.

 

[Leonard]

I agree I do not trust it. I opened up a 442 and the lock mechanism is very flimsy. If you remove it and use your gun it is something they will try and use against you in court. S&W is obviously more concerned about loosing lawsuits for building an unsafe product than the consumers well being. I will not buy another new Smith with a lock. If enough people took that attitude they may be forced to build non lock guns.

Len

 

[Bailey Boat]

Originally posted by Leonard:
I agree I do not trust it. I opened up a 442 and the lock mechanism is very flimsy. If you remove it and use your gun it is something they will try and use against you in court. S&W is obviously more concerned about loosing lawsuits for building an unsafe product than the consumers well being. I will not buy another new Smith with a lock. If enough people took that attitude they may be forced to build non lock guns.

Len

Then hopefully my stance will be the straw that breaks the camel's back (doubtful) because I REFUSE to own one with a lock. All of my Smith's are pre lock and a post lock will never know the warmth of MY hand or my caring heart. S&W went too far left on this one......

 

[deanodog]

I have no Problem about buying one that I cannot get without it. Show me a good deal on some with locks that sell cheap by those who hate them.

 

[ishootblanks]

The lock is ugly where S&W put it AND is not 100% reliable.

 

[Lenshappy]

Fugly

 

[shawn mccarver]

Originally posted by powerkicker:
I know many of us have strong feelings about the lock on the functional level, but I object to it strongly asthetically as well. I wonder how many folks won't have a lock gun just because they're ugly? Even if the lock was 110% reliable, I still wouldn't shell out top-dollar for a needlessly blemished revolver.

If S&W is going to keep the lock, maybe make it less conspicuous like Taurus does? I'd buy a Taurus over a comparable lock S&W for that reason alone. The Taurus lock works and isn't so hideous. Anyone else dislike the lock for cosmetic reasons alone?

Don't assume the Taurus lock is problem free. I "heard" they tested it extensively and found that it had a very high failure rate. If it has to have a lock, I prefer one that works better than the Taurus junk.

 

[BUFF]

There is no such thing as a "comparable" Taurus!