Current No Lock J frames from S&W
- Thread starter Dogmann
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Ray1970
Member
442 and 642 are the only ones I have seen recently. Not sure if they offer anything else.
Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will chime in.
Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will chime in.
Pretty sure that all of the internal hammer revolvers are offered without the lock . . .
photoman
Member
642 and 442 are the only ones I can think of. The 640 and 649 have the lock.
silversnake
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 524
I've seen the 43C and 351C without locks fairly recently
629shooter
Member
Off the top of my head, M&P340, 640 Pro Series, 340PD, 442, and 642.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
These are all i know of
photoman
Member
I really do "need" one of those 640 Pro's. 
Coyote56
Member
Will S&W remove that idiotic lock on the J frames if you mail them the gun?
Bosquebass
Member
I think the idea is that the trigger on DAO models that have no lock is too hard for a small child to pull therefore they are "safe".
I agree, it makes no sense.
The locks don't bother me as much as they seem to bother others but that doesn't mean that I like them at all.
I didn't like it when the car companies moved the ignition switch from the dash to the steering column and made it lock either but I kept buying cars.
I just ordered a new J-Frame with a lock on it so I guess that means I'll keep buying guns too.
Flattop5
Member
I won't buy a Smith and Wesson revolver with a lock. Nope. No way. And I know many people who feel the same way.
Smith and Wesson is only hurting their business with their ridiculous "lawyer locks." Just once, can't the consumers win, instead of the overpaid ambulance-chasers winning? It doesn't seem like too much to ask. Choose freedom, S&W. Take off the (quasi)legal chains, S&W. It will feel so good when you do!
---------------
Smith and Wesson is only hurting their business with their ridiculous "lawyer locks." Just once, can't the consumers win, instead of the overpaid ambulance-chasers winning? It doesn't seem like too much to ask. Choose freedom, S&W. Take off the (quasi)legal chains, S&W. It will feel so good when you do!
---------------
Kernel Crittenden
US Veteran, Absent Comrade
S&W is scared of revolvers with single action triggers. Its so light. It trips with virtually no travel. (In other words, it's a great trigger). There's no decocker or manual safety mechanisms.
Because of this fear, every revolver that can be cocked into single action has the Internal Lock System (ILS). Every one, without exception. (Note: it's a lock, not a safety).
The Centennial action cannot be cocked into single action. Hence, it is possible for S&W to sell a Centennial action revolver without an ILS.
Apparently, it is acceptable to S&W to sell high capacity semiautomatic pistols with no lock, safety, or decocker whatsoever.
Last edited:
2ndAmendmentNut
Member
Current No Lock J frames from S&W
Only double action only J frames to my knowledge. I have a 340 no lock and 351.
Like many, I wish S&W would offer no lock variants on all their guns and save the locks for California. I would buy just about anything they offered in Scandium. Always thought the Night Guard line was a really innovative but would never trust my life to one with a lock after I had a model 360 fail on me at the range.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Only double action only J frames to my knowledge. I have a 340 no lock and 351.
Like many, I wish S&W would offer no lock variants on all their guns and save the locks for California. I would buy just about anything they offered in Scandium. Always thought the Night Guard line was a really innovative but would never trust my life to one with a lock after I had a model 360 fail on me at the range.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
"-------but would never trust my life to one with a lock after I had a (lock) fail on me at the range."
I reckon that pretty much says all there is to say about locks---they're all bad and some are worse than others.
Vote with your dollars.
Ralph Tremaine
I reckon that pretty much says all there is to say about locks---they're all bad and some are worse than others.
Vote with your dollars.
Ralph Tremaine
Cal44
Member
Locks aren't required in California. I have a 642 no lock version I bought new at a LGS a few years ago.
Gun stores near me have 351c and 43c 's in stock right now without locks.
I'm tempted to pick up a 43C. Nice little gun, and light as a feather.
I really do "need" one of those 640 Pro's.
Watch Grabagun...they sold the Pro for $599 today. They have been changing the price daily. $599 over the weekend, $702 two days ago...$599 today..now $699 but out of stock. They have been coming backing in stock every day or two.
I agree...They are forcing me to buy my 1st Ruger after 5 Smith revolvers. Must be nice to give away the amount of business they have because of the IL.
AZretired
Member
No, nut you can remove it yourself.
Interesting, that S&W sells only "hammerless" revolvers without the IL. As noted above, that is not entirely logical! But it means S&W must have some openness to the idea of change...
IL threads tend to get locked... but I'd like to add a new thought to the discussion. What if S&W got their "Saf-T-Lock" legacy staff to design and engineer a lock with an entry port on the front strap, behind the trigger guard? Many people -- me included -- don't like the aesthetics of the IL. It could be placed mostly out of sight.
The new design could also incorporate a failsafe design. There have been few reports of IL failures, but just enough -- apparently all with light weight revolvers -- to put the dread in potential buyers. And I've looked at the mechanism, and have to admit the little spring and lever are puny.
So a better design would be one that is both more reliable and hidden. Does anyone really lock their revolver? Not many, but there are times it might be worth doing (e.g., while storing the revolver, in cases where you are really unsure who might come upon it -- kids? a non-gun person?).
Anyway, not to tempt the "lock this thread" folks, and I admit IL threads get tiresome, but if we can't get S&W to go back, maybe they can go forward, and do a better hidden lock...
IL threads tend to get locked... but I'd like to add a new thought to the discussion. What if S&W got their "Saf-T-Lock" legacy staff to design and engineer a lock with an entry port on the front strap, behind the trigger guard? Many people -- me included -- don't like the aesthetics of the IL. It could be placed mostly out of sight.
The new design could also incorporate a failsafe design. There have been few reports of IL failures, but just enough -- apparently all with light weight revolvers -- to put the dread in potential buyers. And I've looked at the mechanism, and have to admit the little spring and lever are puny.
So a better design would be one that is both more reliable and hidden. Does anyone really lock their revolver? Not many, but there are times it might be worth doing (e.g., while storing the revolver, in cases where you are really unsure who might come upon it -- kids? a non-gun person?).
Anyway, not to tempt the "lock this thread" folks, and I admit IL threads get tiresome, but if we can't get S&W to go back, maybe they can go forward, and do a better hidden lock...
Last edited:
OLDSTER
Member
642-1
The 642-1 has no IL. This one is only 3 years old; they are still available
The 642-1 has no IL. This one is only 3 years old; they are still available
