Does anyone know of any plans for S&W to drop their integrated lock ??? It's the only reason I haven't purchased any new S&W revolvers. Since S&W fans don't seem to like it very much, wouldn't S&W want to get rid of it in order to increase sales ?
Future plans for the Integrated Lock ?
- Thread starter wrightd
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Does anyone know of any plans for S&W to drop their integrated lock ??? It's the only reason I haven't purchased any new S&W revolvers. Since S&W fans don't seem to like it very much, wouldn't S&W want to get rid of it in order to increase sales ?
Jeff Quinn
Member
Wrightd,
Where you are screwing up is that you are thinking logically. That would seem to be the obvious thing to do.
Where you are screwing up is that you are thinking logically. That would seem to be the obvious thing to do.
Given that Saf-T-Hammer owns Smith & Wesson and there is a patented Saf-T-Hammer integral lock installed in all their revolvers....I think the chances of the lock going away anytime soon...very sadly... are slim to none.
bk43
Member
S&W is publicly held and trades under SWHC(see NASDAQ:SWHC). Any patents relatng to S&W products are held by S&W.
Bob
Bob
The last I heard Saf-T-Hammer owned S & W as per the following link, albeit in 2001. Did a change occur?
http://multichannelmerchant.com/printchannel/production...g_smith_wesson_sold/
Smith & Wesson Sold
Andy Taylor
Member
M40's, M642's and M37's can all be had currently without the lock. Let's hope the trend continues.
scott625b
Member
OK boys, here are some hard facts from the BATF statistics listing revolver sales from S&W.
Year Number
2000 130,587
2001 92,325
2002 118,047
2003 120,398
2004 146,089
2005 158,146
2006 185,078
If anything is causing a total decrease in sales, it is probably the cost of gasoline and its efffect on discretionary spending. These figures are collected in January of the listed year.
Year Number
2000 130,587
2001 92,325
2002 118,047
2003 120,398
2004 146,089
2005 158,146
2006 185,078
If anything is causing a total decrease in sales, it is probably the cost of gasoline and its efffect on discretionary spending. These figures are collected in January of the listed year.
stevieboy
Member
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.
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.
Revolver King
Member
I own all of the above and have never once had a problem with any of their IL and have shot them in competition for some time now. I have total trust in them and will continue to do do. That being said I will continue to carry a Glock for personal defense.
Wyatt Earp
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 996
- Reaction score
- 16
+1
Match10
Member
Be that as it may, I have defeated and removed all locks from my weapons. I care not for Safe-T-Yammer. The gun is meant to go "bang", when loaded. When it is not loaded, it is placed in my safe. Given the choice beween a new gun with a lock, and a well-cared-for used gun without, the used gun will win my heart. I see no advantage to having a "Clinton safety" added to a safe weapon.
I can safely say that S&W has lost business from me. Until the lock, I had never bought a used revolver or pistol. I do now and will continue. That's two sales this year they did not get.
I can safely say that S&W has lost business from me. Until the lock, I had never bought a used revolver or pistol. I do now and will continue. That's two sales this year they did not get.
bk43
Member
More an evolution than a change. Saf-T-Hammer was a shell owned by a couple rich guys in Arizona. Since purchasing S&W in 2001 it has evolved into a publicly held company now called SWHC. Control of the company has been gradually shifting from the few old farts in Arizona to an elected board as the debt used to purchase it is being redeemed.
Given the way things were going when S&W was bought from the British in 2001 it is very likely that the company would not even exist today were it not for Saf-T-Hammer and the IL.
Bob
Denver Dick
US Veteran
There is no doubt that the guys running S&W are smart. With the intro of the 460, 500 and the Classic line, they are capturing many folks. Take the Classic Line for moment. I have read and heard many folks who are basically anti-lock who bite the bullet and purchase because the guns look good and they want a new "Classic." However, if the Classic Line did not have the IL, sales might be double or even more. Frankly, it's hard to compare what the sales of revolvers might be if the locks came off.
Frankly, I hate the lock, but the fact that S&W puts them on new revolvers is a non-issue for me. Even here in the People's Republic of California I am able to find 99%+ or NIB pre-lock, pre-MIM revolvers, and ususally at a darn good price when compared to the new IL guns. Now, if I was one of those guys who MUST have a .460, .500 or Classic, well then I might feel differently.
So, S&W's love of the IL doesn't bother me or interfere with my collecting at all. In fact, it will probably help my collection go up in value over years even faster than it would otherwise. Heck, from a collector's perspective, I guess I should be cheering S&W's committment to the IL.
Frankly, I hate the lock, but the fact that S&W puts them on new revolvers is a non-issue for me. Even here in the People's Republic of California I am able to find 99%+ or NIB pre-lock, pre-MIM revolvers, and ususally at a darn good price when compared to the new IL guns. Now, if I was one of those guys who MUST have a .460, .500 or Classic, well then I might feel differently.
So, S&W's love of the IL doesn't bother me or interfere with my collecting at all. In fact, it will probably help my collection go up in value over years even faster than it would otherwise. Heck, from a collector's perspective, I guess I should be cheering S&W's committment to the IL.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,020
- Reaction score
- 7,101
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. It was actually offered on S&W and other makes, but when very few were ordered, it was discontinued. The Saf-T-Hammer lock is not the same as the internal lock now installed on revolvers.
I am all for the free market, and it seems that a good compromise is to offer each model with or without the lock. I would speculate that few with locks would be sold, and then only in places where it is required. When almost none are sold with locks, except where legally required, most of them could be discontinued, just as has happened with the M&P auto.
WaterburyBob
Member
I never thought the management of S&W were "chuckleheads", and I don't care how many people like the lock or how small a minority us lock-haters are; I will NEVER buy a S&W gun that has that ugly lock.
I'm not anti-lock - my HK's have locks. I just have a problem with the placement of the lock, which makes a beautiful revolver ugly. 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.
There's more non-lock, pre-MIM revolvers out there than I can ever think of buying before I check out of this existence, so they can make all the new guns with locks they want and it won't affect me. It will actually make my non-lock guns worth more.
I'm not anti-lock - my HK's have locks. I just have a problem with the placement of the lock, which makes a beautiful revolver ugly. 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.
There's more non-lock, pre-MIM revolvers out there than I can ever think of buying before I check out of this existence, so they can make all the new guns with locks they want and it won't affect me. It will actually make my non-lock guns worth more.
pinkymingeo
Member
I don't understand why some guys continue to link the IL and MIM as the great evil of our generation. Think what you will of the IL, MIM parts are simply a product evolution. They are not cheap, work beautifully, and don't look bad at all. Hate one thing at a time, why don't you?
bk43
Member
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
Sgt 127
Member
I may, or may not, speak for the majority here. I buy guns based on performance and looks. I'm somewhat of a tradionalist. If I could not see the hole in the side of a new S&W, I doubt it would bother me much. The people building the guns are now, designing a gun for performance. The lock is simply part of the design they think needs to be on there, and, the appearence is secondary.
Years ago, unless you wanted a Pinto revovler, all the parts matched, color wise, on a revovler. They were all the same even shade of blue, nickel or stainless in later years. We would have had a fit if the barrel was purple, the frame black and the cyliner blue. Smith and wesson built guns and finished them the way we wanted them to look and, how the old guys at S&W thought a gun should look.
We also didn't play video games and play with transformer toys. We played with simpler toys and thought color TV was pretty cool.
I remember the first run of 642's was cancelled because Smith thought the collor match between the stainless parts and anodized frame wasn't close enough.
Now, its acceptable, even desired by the new generation of shooters, to have a matt silver frame, a flat grey cylinder, rubber grips, dark grey pins showing through the frame and a hole drilled in the side of the gun. Different generation, different ideas of what looks good, or, is even acceptable.
I would argue that the current crop of Smith and Wessons is mechanically as good, or better, than anything they have put out in years, particularly in the area of heat treats, use of exotic metals etc.
But, to me they look funny, especially that damned hole in the side of the gun. I might overlook alot of things, but, that hole is a glaring example of the fact that they are being designed to meet the expectations of a different generation of shooter, not collectors.
The current runs of "retro" models are marketed to the same new generation of shooters that want the looks of the old guns, not the traditional collector. That market is going to be much bigger than those of us looking for a classic.
Years ago, unless you wanted a Pinto revovler, all the parts matched, color wise, on a revovler. They were all the same even shade of blue, nickel or stainless in later years. We would have had a fit if the barrel was purple, the frame black and the cyliner blue. Smith and wesson built guns and finished them the way we wanted them to look and, how the old guys at S&W thought a gun should look.
We also didn't play video games and play with transformer toys. We played with simpler toys and thought color TV was pretty cool.
I remember the first run of 642's was cancelled because Smith thought the collor match between the stainless parts and anodized frame wasn't close enough.
Now, its acceptable, even desired by the new generation of shooters, to have a matt silver frame, a flat grey cylinder, rubber grips, dark grey pins showing through the frame and a hole drilled in the side of the gun. Different generation, different ideas of what looks good, or, is even acceptable.
I would argue that the current crop of Smith and Wessons is mechanically as good, or better, than anything they have put out in years, particularly in the area of heat treats, use of exotic metals etc.
But, to me they look funny, especially that damned hole in the side of the gun. I might overlook alot of things, but, that hole is a glaring example of the fact that they are being designed to meet the expectations of a different generation of shooter, not collectors.
The current runs of "retro" models are marketed to the same new generation of shooters that want the looks of the old guns, not the traditional collector. That market is going to be much bigger than those of us looking for a classic.
hitecrednek
Member
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?"
Now I just ask "when are they going to re-design it so that it isn't so ugly?"
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
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.
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
Member
RonS, here's a 625-3 4". They hit the Classifieds from time to time. Beats modifying a 28.
Andy Griffith
Member
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!
I just can't stand working guns with those "clothing catchers" on them!
yankee7809
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 996
- Reaction score
- 16
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.
Similar threads
- Locked
