Internal Lock - Why

[Harrison]

S&W seems to be all for cutting production costs and simplfying production whenever possible. My question, would it not cut production costs and production time to abandon the lock? It would also make current production models a bit more popular with traditional shooters.

Its not like the lock is a safety devise, it isn't. The lock does not make a loaded revolver safer to carry, or safer in any way. It is a divise which will keep the revolver from being fired at all, and nothing else. You can accomplish the same goals with a cable lock through a cylinder hole, or a regular padlock around the upper strap.

So why doesn't S&W cut production costs and discontinue their internal lock.

 

[P&R Fan]

In a word, Liability.
In the '90s there were multiple lawsuits against gun manufacturers. This nearly bankrupted a number of them. As part of their concessions several manufacturers agreed to "safety" devices. This placated some of the plaintiffs, although certainly not all of them. S&W is absolutely aware of the fact that the vast majority of their customers hate the lock and probably never use it. Unfortunately it is a by-product of our ever increasingly litigious society.
Jim

 

[PhilOhio]

I'm afraid that, in the case of S&W, it is something other than "safety" which has given us the generally despised locks. My understanding is that the gentleman who put together the most recent acquisition of the company owned/owns another company, or patents, on this locking system and was trying hard, with limited success, to sell the idea and make some money on it.

I'm sure others here have the details.

Since very few firearms owners want such a device, and since it can prevent the firearm from being quickly used in an emergency, and since the anticipation of potential emergencies is a primary reason for the purchase of many handguns, the system was not very marketable on its own merit. But then coercion or government dictates can be much more effective marketing tools.

In this case, S&W handgun customers have been forced to pay for the device or get no S&W gun. Needless to say, there is no opposition from anti-firearms politicians, as it drives up the cost of a handgun, and makes it less effective for quick, emergency use. Have you ever met a law enforcement officer who wanted one on his duty firearm? But lawyers and insurance companies have another view. Only the customer objects.

Nothing is forever. It appears to me that somebody at S&W is looking for a face saving way out of this, without just admitting that nobody wants it and the counterproductive locks should be dropped from the entire line, like yesterday.

But remember, it is federal regulators, the lawyers, politicians, and insurance companies who are forcing us to pay for all those worthless trigger locks distributed with each new firearm. We pay for them. I've got a box full. I really collect trigger locks, not guns. But manufacturers give me a free gun with each one.

 

[Inspector-Callahan]

The issue as simply as I can put it.

So why doesn't S&W cut production costs and discontinue their internal lock.

This has been discussed ad nauseum but I will provide the shortest answer possible. S&W was purchased by Saf-T-Hammer in 2002 and then later renamed itself to S&W Holdings Co. Saf-T-Hammer is in the business of selling locks and has incorporated the device into S&W guns in order to force consumers to buy them and to strengthen profits of both the locking device and the guns.

As I see the issue it is truly not about liability, and more about selling a product that the parent company produces. through the company it aquires. In other words, they are forcing you to use it and forcing you to pay for it, so they can sell two products.

As I also see it, they disguise the issue as a "safety" issue to mask thier genuine motivation of selling you a lock because S&W Holdings (aka saf-t-hammer) makes them.

See Here.. (and NOTE: "the SYNERGIES BETWEEN TWO COMPANIES" comment at the bottom of page 1 on the link below.) It's pretty clear from that statement what they are doing..

This post and the next one should answer both of your Questions.
here are 2 articles that explain from start to finish on the buy out of Tomkin Corp.
At the bottom of the first article about saf-t-hammer buying S&W you will find Mitchell Saltz name.

AllBusiness.com | Business solutions from AllBusiness.com

Saf-T-Hammer Corp. Acquires Gun Maker Smith & Wesson; Firearm Safety & Security Company...
Publication: Business Wire
Date: Monday, May 14 2001

Business Editors

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 14, 2001

Saf-T-Hammer Corp. (OTC BB:SAFH), the Scottsdale-based firearm safety and security company today announced that it has purchased Smith & Wesson Corp. from Tomkins Corp.,
D&B Small Business Solutions
Business Credit Solutions


a subsidiary of U.K.-based Tomkins PLC (NYSE:TKS), for $15 million. Smith & Wesson has total assets of $97 million and total liabilities of $53 million.

"Smith & Wesson, a brand name for 147 years, would be at the top of any list of immediately identifiable corporate logos recognized worldwide," said Bob Scott, president of Saf-T-Hammer and former vice president of Smith & Wesson. "We are proud to return this storied company to American ownership. We intend to maximize the value of the name and to fully utilize the manufacturing, marketing, and worldwide distribution assets of the company to create appreciation and value for our shareholders.

"We also plan to increase the company's revenues through expanded branding activities and strategic acquisitions that will compliment the company's current product lines. As part of the synergy between our two companies, we plan to incorporate Saf-T-Hammer products into the firearms manufactured by Smith & Wesson."

The stock purchase agreement between Saf-T-Hammer and Tomkins encompasses all assets including patents, trademarks, intellectual property, distribution rights, machine drawings, inventory, equipment and physical assets of Smith & Wesson, including its corporate headquarters in Springfield, Mass.

Under the agreement, Saf-T-Hammer will pay $15 million in cash, with $5 million paid upon closing and the balance due in May 2002. As of the close, Smith & Wesson's total assets were approximately $97 million, which includes two manufacturing facilities. The main facility is a 660,000 square foot plant on 160 acres located in Springfield. The other facility is a 36,000 square foot plant in Houlton, Maine. Total liabilities are approximately $53 million, which includes a 10-year note payable to Tomkins for $30 million due in May 2011.

"Tomkins' motivation to sell Smith & Wesson as part of its refocused worldwide operation, presented an extraordinary opportunity for Saf-T-Hammer. It took a tremendous amount of creativity and diligence from both companies to craft the terms of this transaction. We're excited about the prospects afforded by this unique union of a firearm safety and security device developer and a firearm manufacturer that is synonymous with Americana," said Mitchell Saltz, chairman of Saf-T-Hammer Corp.

 

[photoman]

Zzzzzzzzzz

 

[DonD]

PLEASE!!!! Not yet another anti lock thread. Those who hate the lock won't change, those who like newer guns won't change. It's been discussed beyond the ability of most to keep their lunch down.

LET IT BE, no one will change. S&W (this coming from an engineer I know) is well aware of the general dislike for the ILS. Don't hold your breath for a company wide change. Don

 

[Inspector-Callahan]

?

I don't think this was a another "anti-lock" thread? I think the OP was asking a general information question with genuine curiosity, for which a few responses were given.

If anyone doesn't like the topic, then feel free not to repond.

I really don't see why there is such animosity and derogatory comments?

IC

 

[hamr56]

lawyers and liberals

 

[.357magger]

I really don't see why there is such animosity and derogatory comments?

IC

Because there is a sticky at the top of this section, about 40 gazillion pages, that details all the details from dehead to details.

That and the fact that this comes up about once every week and a half and seems to ALWAYS devolve into a "I don't care about the lock" and "I'll never buy a gun with a lock" comments.

But there shouldn't be animosity I agree and I think the posters were more hoping to avoid the above devolution.

Just my .02

 

[DonD]

If anyone doesn't like the topic, then feel free not to repond.

I really don't see why there is such animosity and derogatory comments?

IC

I don't think anyone was antagonistic, don't view my remarks as such. It's just a dead topic, really not worth rehashing. This user's forum isn't going to change anything with S&W. The world is full of cover your *** issues, this is S&Ws.

Of course, you're right, I didn't have to open this thread but it's simply a waste of bandwidth. Don

 

[stantheman86]

The IL is a non-issue that just gives a lot of people something to gripe about.If it weren't the lock, it would be something else..... A lot of heartburn over nothing, and some people can never be satisfied.

About 10 minutes and a plug from Bullseye Smith and it's problem solved.

I hear that LEO's with a dept. letter can order any S&W they want with no lock, but this has not been confirmed.

I am a shooter, not a collector, so if collectors want to keep buying up all the older Smiths and keeping them in safes, I'll leave them to it. The "boycotters" are missing some great shooting guns. I for one am just glad S&W is still making revolvers.

Otherwise, If you want a new production US made revolver with no lock, here's your only other option.....

 

[snubbiefan]

It's just a shame that Smith let Taurus beat-it-to-the-punch on the internal lock. Say what you want, use it as a boat anchor, or a door stop if you want too, but the Taurus in-the-hammer safety was the place to put it.....if you had to put one in the gun in the first place.

No...I am not a Smith-basher, or a Taurus promoter....just sayin' that's all.

 

[Old cop]

While I don't care for the IL, I own newer guns with them and none have failed me. My most recent purchase, during the $50 rebate last year, was a 638. Even several rounds of Buffalo Bore +P does not make the IL engage itself under fire.

I wish S&W would discontinue it, but only because it's UGLY!

 

[Doc TH]

Lock

While I personally do not care for the lock, on certain occasions it makes me feel more comfortable when my grandkids are around. A curious and inventive small kid can get into lots of trouble very easily. I know I did.