Future plans for the Integrated Lock ?

[hitecrednek]

I used to ask "when is the lock going away"

Now I just ask "when are they going to re-design it so that it isn't so ugly?"

 

[MajorDude]

I just have to say that this is a great thread with a lot of good points and information that I really hadn't considered before.

 

[Chief_Wiggum]

I personally do not care for the lock, nor do I own any guns with locks, nor will I purchase a S&W with a lock.

It's not that I have a literal dislike for the lock, but rather a dislike for what the lock represents. The lock was put on the gun, not to please actual S&W customers, but instead to pacify a group of people who will _never_ own a S&W product. Imagine McDonalds eliminating beef from their menu becauase vegetarians demanded it. McDonalds doesn't sell hamburgers to vegetarians and S&W doesn't sell guns to anti-gunners. What kind of business sense is that?

Given a choice, no S&W enthusiast would choose a gun with a lock over one without. Instead they accept the lock because it comes with an otherwise excellent product. S&W may still be increasing sales each year, but they certainly would sell even more guns if they could add people like me to their customer base.

 

[RonS]

If there were any lock free alternative for a new gun in the caliber and features that I want I would buy it. (Or even a better lock, one that does not look like a rusty drywall screw sticking out of a walnut bookcase.) I am probably going to buy a new 625JM, but the last couple of days I have been wondering if it would be possible to convert a 4" model 28 to .45 ACP without a bank loan. I figure I am going to spend $700-800 on the JM, and if I could find a sound but scruffy HP to have converted for a couple of hundred that would leave a nice bit for a rebore.

 

[pinkymingeo]

RonS, here's a 625-3 4". They hit the Classifieds from time to time. Beats modifying a 28.

 

[Andy Griffith]

I just want them to make more fixed sight revolvers! The selection of them at this time is better than in years past...

I just can't stand working guns with those "clothing catchers" on them!

 

[yankee7809]

I doubt the lock will ever go away, however I do wish that it would have been a better,less obvious and more attractive design. It really does take away asthetically from a beautiful classic design. And that to me is the greatest crime of all.

 

[cdr]

Taurus puts their IL in a much less obtrusive place.....directly under the hammer assembly along the backstrap. It doesn't bother me nearly as much there cosmetically, but the thought of a lock on a revolver is still unacceptable to me.

 

[dsf]

As a practical matter, if they desired to do so how could Smith & Wesson eliminate the IL without exposing themselves to a lawsuit the first time someone accidentally shot themself? Hoping for a modification of the IL may be reasonable, I always thought Taurus got it right by mounting the device on the hammer. Of course the "problem" with that is people can remove & replace hammers, you really can not remove and replace the Smith IL.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by sailing1801:
As a practical matter, if they desired to do so how could Smith & Wesson eliminate the IL without exposing themselves to a lawsuit the first time someone accidentally shot themself?

The same way they have defended themselves from the many lawsuits I am sure they have been a target of due to negligent discharges in the days before the lock.

 

[dsf]

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp:

Originally posted by sailing1801:
As a practical matter, if they desired to do so how could Smith & Wesson eliminate the IL without exposing themselves to a lawsuit the first time someone accidentally shot themself?

The same way they have defended themselves from the many lawsuits I am sure they have been a target of due to negligent discharges in the days before the lock.

You don't think they'd get caught up in "This wouldn't have happened if you (Smith) hadn't gotten rid of the lock to save manufacturing costs" charges from the dear departed's attorney? I'd just as soon say "sorry you shot yourself, pay attention next time" but it doesn't always work that way.

 

[f2]

Originally posted by stevieboy:
Scott625b beat me to the punch but I'll throw in my two cents anyway: those of you who are anti-lock commit two logical errors every time you post about the subject. First, you assume wrongly that Smith is managed by a bunch of chuckleheads who have no sense for business. And, second, you assume even more incorrectly that your anti-lock sentiment represents the views of the majority.

But, the objective evidence proves you to be wrong on both counts. First, Smith obviously is a very well-managed company. Smith is a company whose sales have grown EACH YEAR since they installed the lock. That says something for Smith's business acumen. It is, in fact, a tribute to the fact that Smith continues to manufacture great products which it markets expertly.

Second, Smith's fan base continues to grow and they are not deterred by ILs. Take me for example. I purchased my first handgun -- a 686 with a lock -- two years ago. I bought it because, after doing a lot of research beforehand, I decided that it was the best gun for my needs. And, I liked it so much that I've purchased several Smiths (some with, some without, locks) since. I suspect I'm typical and that people like me are the reason for Smith's success.

Face it guys, you comprise a minority of those people who buy and use Smith products. No disrespect meant, those of you who believe that pre-lock, pre-MIM, or even pre-stainless Smiths are the epitome of the revolver manufacturing art, are entitled to your opinions. But, in fact, you are simply outvoted by the hundreds of thousands of others who have voted in favor of Smith's decision by buying its products.

Brand new Smith & Wesson owner here. Just purchased two brand new J frames as a matter of fact, both have no IL lock, one of them has forged parts, the other MIM, bringing my total to eight (8), all no-locks. As of right now, I won't buy or own an IL Smith. I like to have total confidence in my guns.
<span class="ev_code_WHITE">zzz</span>

 

[photoman]

Originally posted by Chief_Wiggum:

It's not that I have a literal dislike for the lock, but rather a dislike for what the lock represents. The lock was put on the gun, not to please actual S&W customers, but instead to pacify a group of people who will _never_ own a S&W product. Imagine McDonalds eliminating beef from their menu becauase vegetarians demanded it. McDonalds doesn't sell hamburgers to vegetarians and S&W doesn't sell guns to anti-gunners. What kind of business sense is that?

I think McDonalds and S&W would sell hamburgers and guns to anyone that would pay for them. But I know what you mean...

Given the choice, I'm sure a few out there would select an IL gun over a non-IL gun. I just can't imagine there would be many.

It doesn't really matter at this point as S&W is only offering a ~very small~ selection of revolvers without the IL so we'll never know.

p.s. The current selling of non-IL revovlers by S&W puts to rest the "legal liability concern" theory of why S&W puts IL's on new revolvers.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Originally posted by bk43:

Originally posted by shawn mccarver:
Saf-T-Hammer had a lock that consisted of a key operated screw that was installed through the trigger guard so that when "locked" it prevented trigger travel to the rear.

I believe you are thinking of the Saf-T-Trigger which I don't think has ever come up here before. Now that it has, I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

Bob

You may be correct as to the name of the product. I was referring to the name of the company that made the product.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:
If they would move it to the back of the hammer or the bottom of the grip or someplace else that didn't glare at you, I wouldn't mind it.

At the SHOT Show the year the IL was introduced, I talked to Herb Belin, at that time in charge of revolver production at S&W, about placement of the lock on the hammer (like Taurus) so that a simple hammer change could be made and so the side of the revolver would not have a hole in it.

Herb explained that extensive testing at the factory using VERY high speed photography showed that the hammer is subject to VERY high stress upon firing (even in a lower power caliber), and a hammer mounted lock fails at an increased rate. When a hammer mounted lock fails the hammer cannot come to full cock, thereby disabling the revolver. Mounting on the side supposedly made the revolver less apt to "lock up" in the way a hammer mounted safety could fail. In other words, stress to the hammer could not affect the lock as the lock was on the frame. That is probably a much simpler explanation of what I was told, and my apologies to Herb if I have not explained it correctly in proper terminology, but the factory considered and tested the "on the hammer" option for placement of its lock.

Now, I suppose that anyone can argue any way anyone wants to, but the logic of it seemed sound and I don't like the lock any more than most of you, however, I don't let its presence distract me from otherwise good decisions.

 

[MJB]

There is another thing that the sales statistics can't tell us. That thing is how many customers have purchased a used Smith or some other gun that is not a new IL Smith?

There's really no way to compile the stats on that but I'll tell you this. I bought a pre lock 686 used instead of a new one. Why? I believe its a better gun, YMMV.

 

[460v LAC du FLAMBEAU]

Regarding S&W public stock ownership, there are approx 47 million shares outstanding. Since the late October, 2007 share price collapse from $22/share to current $5.00/share these outstanding shares have changed hands atleast 3 times.

Bottom line...Saf-T-Hammer has no control or major ownership in S&W now.

 

[batmann]

I get a chuckle every time this well worn topic comes up.
I always like it when someone chimes in with "I picked up my IL, MIM mega magnum S&W and the lock fell out in my hand, but it really shoots great."
Guys, they are here to stay like it or not.

 

[f2]

Originally posted by batmann:
I get a chuckle every time this well worn topic comes up.
I always like it when someone chimes in with "I picked up my IL, MIM mega magnum S&W and the lock fell out in my hand, but it really shoots great."
Guys, they are here to stay like it or not.

Like this one?

 

[cdr]

Originally posted by batmann:
Guys, they are here to stay like it or not.

Thankfully, so are the S&W revolvers from the 50's, 60's, 70's and early 80's.....I'll stick with those.