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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Rabbi said:
I've never seen credible evidence of the locks spontaneously locking.
As far as the guns, the revolvers Smith makes today are the best ones they have ever made. The combination of better materials and better manufacturing techniques has yielded guns with trigger pulls that would have taken a lot of expensive gunsmithing in the past.
I'm past the brady hole and looking hard for a Model 60 Pro.
Click to expand...

Rabbi I must confess that I disagree with you. The older revolvers were of a higher quality, internally and externally than today's S&W coming off the line. I have not had one trigger job done on any of my 16 Smiths and all of them have Very Good to Outstanding trigger pulls, both DA and SA. I've also never had ONE of them lock up on me as I thoroughly maintain my firearms.

The IL is S&W's COWARDLY reaction to a non existant problem. If everyone would practice firearms safety and properly store their guns we would not have this issue.

My 870 riot loaded with OO buck will do much more damage to a human at 7 yards than any hangun cartridge and it doesn't have a lock. My mind is the lock. Neither do my Springer 1911, BHP, Sig 228, Beretta Vertec, H&K P7..... have locks on them.

If you see ONE of the IL revolvers (686) lock up as I did with 158 gr. Speer Gold Dot's .357 mags it'll make a believer out of you. Thats all it took for me to become a anti lock S&W owner/operator.

Here is an article for everyones reading concering the lock and the NRA's firearm safety rules.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2009/09/03/
http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

Granted it doesn't happen alot but the 1 time it does could have you 6' under.

Regards,

Roger
 
Last edited:
The Rabbi said:
As far as the guns, the revolvers Smith makes today are the best ones they have ever made. The combination of better materials and better manufacturing techniques has yielded guns with trigger pulls that would have taken a lot of expensive gunsmithing in the past.
I'm past the brady hole and looking hard for a Model 60 Pro.
Click to expand...

That's my attitude. Very knowledgeable people like John Taffin (if you don't know who he is, your firearms background is lacking) say that the current S&W revolvers are made to tighter tolerances and with much better/stronger materials than in the past.

Yes, older ones had more hand polishing and probably better bluing but those things really drive up the price of firearms.

Joed49 wasn't complaining about those who dislike the IL, he's just commenting about the never ending IL whining threads discouraging new shooters. The search function will give them hours of "I hate the IL" discussions to browse through.

One of the purposes of this newer revolver area was to keep IL complaint threads OUT of it and that hasn't worked. Don
 
JamesArthur60 said:
I'll bet for every customer who refuses to purchase an IL revolver, five will jump at the chance. S&W will not go broke because some hard headed consumers will not buy a revolver with a built in safety feature. Personally, I prefer older made revolvers, so the IL is not an issue for me. Let's get real here. Attorney's/politicians/insurance companies rule this country. They make the rules. I'm sure it pisses off S&W that they have to place those locks on their firearms. They read the forums, they hear the bitching. They're following outlined procedures, by people wearing $2000.00 suits who probably do not and have not fired a weapon. EVER! But, you have to admit, it's still a quality made revolver with an excellent warranty.
Click to expand...
I only have one of the new S&W revolvers. Its a model 10-14 4 inch. I like the revolver but the gun still does not have the smooth action like my older Smiths. Your right. The politicians and attorneys own this country. Even though my model 10 has the new interlock I still have too buy a cable lock and install it when I am transporting the revolver. This is in California. It does not make sense. It really boils down to government trying to control more of our lives. To add to this post I recently bought a brand new revolver. I was looking at another L frame revolver. I have a pre-lock 686-3 4 inch. My gun store showed me a new 686P and a Ruger GP100. After handling both revolvers and thinking if I bought the 686 I would have to deal with another interlock revolver I made my decision. I bought the Ruger GP100. I also saved about $150.00. The Ruger trigger was just as good as the new 686. Now both revolvers did not have the triggers my old Smiths do. I believe those days are gone. But given the options today on new revolvers I am inclined to buy a Ruger. At least I do not have too deal with the interlock with the Rugers.
One old fellas opinion,
roaddog28
 
Last edited:
Oh, goody. Not only do we have the umpteenth thousandth "I hate the lock and every product innovation since 1982" thread, but to make matters complete, we have the usual hurling of insults.
 
DonD said:
One of the purposes of this newer revolver area was to keep IL complaint threads OUT of it and that hasn't worked. Don
Click to expand...

Amen.

Wish I knew what the answer was but I surely don't.
 
Lock

stevieboy said:
Gee, what's it been -- two whole weeks without an "I hate the lock and every other product change since 1982" thread? Just think, nine years of griping and Smith still manufactures and sells more revolvers than anyone else.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but they would sell EVEN MORE revolvers if they had no locks on them IMHO!

Like many have said, as long as there are good examples of pre-lock guns to be had, I'll stick to those.
 
stevieboy said:
Oh, goody. Not only do we have the umpteenth thousandth "I hate the lock and every product innovation since 1982" thread, but to make matters complete, we have the usual hurling of insults.
Click to expand...

Things at Smith went downhill when they did away with the screw by the trigger guard. Darn guns have never been the same since.
 
Smith isn't worried about those with a fetish for pre-lock firearms. I have some of both types. They all work. Those with locks have NEVER posed ANY reliability issues.
 
Camster said:
....I wish we had a separate forum for the lock rantists.
Click to expand...
+ 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
 
Last edited:
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!
 
Joed49 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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 :D . 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.
 
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.
 
Wayne said:
It's funny after not being on for awhile, that the discussion still continues.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
tom turner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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"
 
tom turner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Last edited:
Joed49 said:
Over, and over, and over.

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

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.
 
Joed49 said:
Oh joy, yet another thread for the Mimwits and lockjaws.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Model520Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
The Snub Nosed Sniper
Replies
14
Views
4K
mc5aw
mc5aw
F
Weighing the options to lighten one's wallet
Replies
26
Views
4K
Flipside
F
M
Some newbie questions about revolvers
Replies
22
Views
3K
mdehoogh
M
S
HELP!! I AM BEGINING TO WEAKEN!!
Replies
22
Views
3K
Kent J
K
exfebee
The "Plug" for a S&W J-Frame
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
91K
RichCapeCod
R

Latest posts

Back
Top