LOCK- ..can't get past "the hole".

[Camster]

....I wish we had a separate forum for the lock rantists.

 

[DonD]

....I wish we had a separate forum for the lock rantists.

+ many on that and "nothing new is good" approach. MIM parts for example are used in many very high tech, critical applications, try Sandia National Laboratories, one of the developers of that technology. Haven't heard of any of them failing.

All this anti new technology reminds me of car issues. Those who say "they don't build them like they used to!" You're right and for that, we can be grateful.

Old 1965 Mustang in line 6 cylinders had pathetic acceleration and got WAY less than 20 mpg. New 435HP Corvettes can get 30 mpg at posted limits on an interstate and positively DESTROY any LEGITIMATE muscle car of the 60s in any performance test, all with miniscule emissions, great brakes, superb handling and great air conditioning. Love those old single digit mileage muscle machines.

Anyone notice the recent crash test of a 1959 full size Chevy vs a 2009 Chevy Malibu which was noticeably lighter? The 1959 would have killed the driver. The Malibu driver would have been uninjured. Yes, the good old days, they're SO much better. Don

 

[1aafan]

I do have pre and post lock S&Ws. Only two with the IL and they now have the "plug". And by the way, my 327Pc with the blued plug looks GREAT without the IL!!

For me its two things, aesthetics and reliability.

First, the lock is ugly. Other companies like Ruger put the locks where they are not so obvious.

Second, even if it's only 1 in a million that the lock malfunctions, it's Zero chance without it!

And the real original reason for the IL is not toadying to antigunners, when SafeTLock bought S&W, they put their design in them.

And now they are in a difficult position. If there is any data on a malfunction and S&W knew of it they will lose the inevitable future lawsuit.

If they take them out they have to give some reason and again, a possible future lawsuit depending on the excuse.

I like the earlier smiths for quality of finish and the feel of rarity in the limited PC guns I own.

This is not a new subject, just ask a Winchester Collector about pre-64 rifles!

 

[Bullseye Smith]

Some people just reject change, we all do to some extent. But there are a good number of people on here that just go from topic to topic complaining about the lock and the MIM parts. I've watched new S&W owners come here to learn more about the new revolver they just purchased and get ripped apart because they bought something with a lock or MIM part. Understandably they leave after a few visits never to return.

We're in a disposible society where there are probably more plastic and aluminum guns than steel being produced. Manufacturers are doing anything to cut costs just to stay in business. At this point I'm amazed that S&W is even producing revolvers in steel and could care less about the lock and MIM parts.

I agree, If you don't like the lock - just don't buy it or cry about it, your loss and our gain. Old Navy is also right in his statement . IL is here to stay right now so live with it. S&W is the best out there on the market. Of course you guys don't buy a Chevy or Ford because they broke down like your S&W, so now you buy the inports.

 

[Wayne]

It's funny after not being on for awhile, that the discussion still continues. My take is still the same. I do not trust the lock, as it is an added possible failure to a defensive weapon. The gunsmith at the local range has had several brought to him that have locked up while people were shooting them, that is a fact. Any gun can fail, but this is an added unnecessary possibility. I had one and sold it.

Now if you are buying one just for fun to bang around at the range go ahead, but I would not have it as my main defensive gun.

I think if anybody ever shoots a person with a revolver with the lock disabled is up for a bigger legal fight, then if it was'nt.

I also feel that if anybody gets shot/killed while trying to defend themself with revolver that failed because of the lock, S&W will have a huge lawsuit against them.

 

[Joed49]

It's funny after not being on for awhile, that the discussion still continues.

Over, and over, and over.

I think I finally figured out what is needed to fix the problem.

The locks came out in 2000 I believe. The firearm time period should be 1980 to 2000 instead of 1980 to present. Add a separate section for the 2000 to present time frame firearms.

Make the lock subject a sticky that can be read and not responded to.

Last (and my favorite), anyone bashing the lock and MIM is banned from the forums.

One of the things I liked about the last software this forum was on was you could add users to a group that was ignored. God, I miss that feature!

 

[Evil One]

I wont hesitate to buy a wheelgun with the lock.
I also wont hesitate to remove the lock as soon as I get it home.
While they are a thing of beauty, they are a tool first and foremost... And the S&Ws that I have bought have been some amazing tools.
I wont deny myself one of the best revolvers on the market, due to a piece that takes less than 5 minutes to remove.
I like N frames... I like fixed sights... I like .44s and larger...
Finding this combination without the lock is VERY hard... and when you do, its out of my price range in general.
Dont get me wrong, if I had 2 identical revolvers... same price, same specs, one with and one without the lock... I would leave with the lockless gun.


Jim

 

[roaddog28]

I have not had a problem with my interlock model 10-14. My whole issue with the lock is in a lot of states like California even if you have a handgun with a interlock you still have to have a cable or trigger lock to store the gun or carry the gun in your vehicle to the range. Again, my take is this was strictly politicians and lawyers doing the same things they do to control the Americans lifes. Unfornately, Smith & Wesson bought into the game. Mim parts don't really bother me. I can take them or leave them. Just about every industry has started using different materials to make goods. This is to cut costs and make money. My only objection to Smith and Wesson going to interlocks on guns is it creates another possibility of a persons gun failing to function. And in a life or death situation that could result in a sad ending.

roaddog28

 

[pdmcghinnis]

I could decry the lock if I thought it would make any difference. I have personally witnessed the lock engage on several 620's during qualifications for a particular agency here in NC for whom I used to work. My personal opinion, and it's worth exactly what you paid for it, is that I will never carry a S&W revolver with the lock as currently designed and promoted by S&W. I will continue to buy pre-lock models and carry them with confidence.

Perhaps we should suggest a redesign of the lock. It would be a compromise of course. We would still have a lock but one we could live with. Perhaps S&W could change the lock design to make it reliable and move it to a more inconspicuous location.

I can't suggest any specific changes. I'm just a cop and know nothing about mechanical engineering, gun design or tv repair.

 

[tom turner]

For fun and amusement, I just read this entire thread . . . but imagining the thread was about the slow and steady giving up of our gun rights rather than accepting the damn Clinton-coerced Internal Lock, at a time when previous owners of S&W caved in to political arm-twisting.

In that context, it is easy to see why we keep giving up our gun rights. Too many people willing to happily compromise, or blissfully ignorant to the reasons the damn IL was introduced in the first place . . . and the IL wasn't introduced to make the guns more reliable, that's for sure.

 

[Bullseye Smith]

For fun and amusement, I just read this entire thread . . . but imagining the thread was about the slow and steady giving up of our gun rights rather than accepting the damn Clinton-coerced Internal Lock, at a time when previous owners of S&W caved in to political arm-twisting.

In that context, it is easy to see why we keep giving up our gun rights. Too many people willing to happily compromise, or blissfully ignorant to the reasons the damn IL was introduced in the first place . . . and the IL wasn't introduced to make the guns more reliable, that's for sure.

AMEN BROTHER, I have a hard time saying things, but I have to say you done a well. Lee should make your statement a sticky all by its self. Great "JOB"

 

[Sportsterguy]

For fun and amusement, I just read this entire thread . . . but imagining the thread was about the slow and steady giving up of our gun rights rather than accepting the damn Clinton-coerced Internal Lock, at a time when previous owners of S&W caved in to political arm-twisting.

In that context, it is easy to see why we keep giving up our gun rights. Too many people willing to happily compromise, or blissfully ignorant to the reasons the damn IL was introduced in the first place . . . and the IL wasn't introduced to make the guns more reliable, that's for sure.

Good job Tom for speaking the truth. The SHEEP are among us and part of the problem as you stated!

I owned the 686 that locked up as I previously posted. Sent it back for the free repair and promptly sold it.

I promise this is my last post on this topic. NOT!

 

[manny25]

i hate the lock it makes nice guns look ugly

 

[Markcuda]

Last (and my favorite), anyone bashing the lock and MIM is banned from the forums.

Then this site would have very few members, me included

 

[Wayne]

Over, and over, and over.

Last (and my favorite), anyone bashing the lock and MIM is banned from the forums.

I don't agree with you there as the lock DOES FAIL. Many inexperienced on S&W need to at least know that this DOES HAPPEN, important if you are using it for self protection. Otherwise operating revolvers stop because of the lock.

I do agree it gets a little stupid at times in the discussions, and people should refrain from crapping up a thread that is not specifically warranted for a response.

 

[WVfishguy]

Oh joy, yet another thread for the Mimwits and lockjaws.

I had no idea this thread would continue for 7 pages. But I am more surprised at the name calling. If I don't like a particular thread, I just ignore it.

 

[CTM]

As a newbie around here, and to revolvers, I am very happy to have learned that the lock can, and has, caused the gun to lock up.

So...I like this thread, and I don't want to see anyone banned because of their beliefs.

I only own guns for self defense, and they all get their turn in the carry rotation, I cannot afford anything contributing to the posibility that the gun won't go bang when I most need it!

I will do my best to not buy one with the IL in the first place, just principal, but if I do, the lock will be removed immediately.

 

[raveneap]

I like Smiths. My old "pre-lock" Smiths are excellent. My new "lock" Smiths are too. I think the quality of the older units may be a bit better (what isn't?). I have a 586 no dash that's smooth as butter. But my newer Smiths are fine too. The day I get a new Smith the key goes in the file in case I ever want to sell/trade (perish the thought) and then it's forgotten. And I agree, people aren't slowing down in purchasing Smiths. I ordered a new 4" 617 in early August. Finally arrived the last day of this past October.

 

[Super Trucker]

It doesn't affect functioning very often, but when it does, you may not have time to get the key out.

Old Buddhist saying: Forewarned is forearmed.

Take 30 minutes and remove the lock, then you can throw away the key and consider yourself forearmed with a new gun in your collection. Don't let the anti's beat you.

 

[357larry]

Will never buy a revolver with the IL or a 2 piece barrel. Just my 2 cents worth. Everyone else is welcome to have their own opinions.