More No Lock revolvers coming!

It's certainly a positive development but I'm not enthusiastic about the current models being offered.

I already have a couple of no IL J Frame .38's and they can keep the ultra lightweight .357's.

I'd also like to see their entire classic line built without the IL.
 
Tom K said:
I disagree. It isn't just the lock parts and the machining for the hole and slot. The profile of the frame where the hammer is, is different on the J and K frame guns. It has a flatter curve compared to the older guns, and just looks wrong. It's ugly, and just omitting the lock won't change that. They would have to go back to the original frame profile to make the guns acceptable to me.

The N frame guns don't have this problem, or if they've changed the profile it's so slight that I don't notice it. For those guns, they could just leave out the lock and it'd be okay.
Click to expand...
Have to agree with you. Even past the lock-to me the newer Smiths just don't have the flowing lines as the old ones did-I've got enough -4's in stainless 4" configurations in the various frame sizes and calibres to keep me happy for a long time. What I WILL buy when it comes out however is a no lock 638/438.
 
What does the I in IL represent...I think I just thought of it Internal lock....wow, I'm brilliant... :D Hope they become widely available soon. Someone told me only one distributor has them nationwide, is that true?
 
Yes, cause I understand there have been cases where the revolver was rendered inoperable while firing due to it's presence.
 
Good news guys, pulled the trigger on a new 442 NO LOCK at Buds for $438.00!!!
 
This thread may have just derailed my savings for a new 1911. Doh! I must have a NO LOCK 340PD.
 
TOM K hit the nail on the head. The new J,K,L frames have been changed to accommdate the IL. No lock, great, but switch back the old style frame. The new style frame with or without a lock is FUGLY! The centennial models are the only ones that are same. The models listed, without locks, are all centennials or did I miss something.
Does anyone have info on a DA/SA without the lock? If so, what style frame old or new?
 
AnthonyF said:
I already have a couple of no IL J Frame .38's and they can keep the ultra lightweight .357's.
Click to expand...

Agree with exactly what you are saying AnthonyF. But, I doubt I'll ever find a no-lock 342. It seems to me that it was the perfect frontpocket carry revolver. So I'll settle for a new no-lock 340PD.

I just won't buy .357 Magnum round and I'll never have to worry about firing .357 Magnum round through it.
 
Mine didn't worry me either until it locked up the first cylinder full of ammo.
I definitely need one without a lock.
Well.............I always need another anyway. It's just a great excuse.
 
Tom K said:
I disagree. It isn't just the lock parts and the machining for the hole and slot. The profile of the frame where the hammer is, is different on the J and K frame guns. It has a flatter curve compared to the older guns, and just looks wrong. It's ugly, and just omitting the lock won't change that. They would have to go back to the original frame profile to make the guns acceptable to me.

The N frame guns don't have this problem, or if they've changed the profile it's so slight that I don't notice it. For those guns, they could just leave out the lock and it'd be okay.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. They look wrong. I could see the difference in the contour of the frame at the hammer from a mile away. Ugly. They need to return to the same frame when they remove the lock or I, for one, will not get a new revolver.
Yeah, I'm old school, but so are many here.
 
I don't see the "old" frames coming back.......if they keep the new "high back" frame but delete the lock people will still be unhappy, sometimes you gotta be happy for small favors:)
 
I already have all I need in air/light weight no-IL for cc in .38sp. The 43c might get me down the road depending on price, but like a SA/DA better.
 
Joni_Lynn said:
Well.............I always need another anyway. It's just a great excuse.
Click to expand...

There you go! :)

I have never had a lick of trouble with my 340PD but admit I do not shoot it a lot. Almost all of my practice with the gun is done with rather mild handloads using 125-gr bullets and a small charge of 700X. Not too likely they are going to trigger any lock problems. That thing is too mean to enjoy shooting with full-charge .357s! :D
 
I just ordered my 442 NO LOCK. Curious, does the RUGER LCR have an IL?
 
okie john said:
I am going to be in so much trouble when the no-lock N-frames come out.

I guess my kid can pay for his own college education, just like I did.
Okie John
Click to expand...

same with my kids... I paid my own way, builds character.

and here i was just about to send off a gun to Bowen to have made what i want when i hear this news. Any word on N frames ?

maybe i should double down on S&W stock instead seeing as how sales may well be going up soon !
 
So is this an "official" thing, that S&W is dropping the IL, or just a "I heard from some guy" type thing:)

I won't believe it until I see it, when I see new Smiths on the gun store shelves with no IL.

I'll gladly suck up all the used IL S&W's when everyone dumps them! Used 686+'s for $300 sounds about right, I'll just pop the locks out of them and use them as range blasters=)
 
Last edited:
If S&W wants to sell me a new gun, make a 628 or 627 with no lock, that looks as close to the old one as possible (Normal barrel), and I WILL buy it. And if you want me to buy a semiauto, make some new stainless ones! Until then, I will keep buying old steel, non locked revolvers and semiautos. My latest is a 4506-1, should be here Monday.
 
Curse you guys, getting my hopes up like that. I just Google image searched every model in the original post. Not one has an exposed hammer.

I thought someone at S&W had come to their senses.

If they come out with a lockless 625 or 25 in .45 ACP I will buy it, till then, I'll stick with single actions and 1911s for my shooting.
 
Needs a hammer mounted firing pin, a recessed cylinder, a pinned barrel, and no lock to be a classic revolver.
 
If the rumors are true, and they seem to have some foundation, you can probably expect to see more internal hammer revolvers offered without the lock.

The last I heard, though, their legal advisers were apparently leaning heavily toward not removing the lock from any revolvers which had an external hammer.

S&W is still selling their ILS-equipped revolvers to an eager public, but it seems they've finally realized there's still a strong market among their older customer base for revolvers without the ILS.

I was told they were surprised by the speed with which the older 642-1 & 442-1 frames sold when they cleared out their parts vault and used them to make new guns. It apparently got them thinking. ;)

Now that they've apparently released a model of the M&P 340 without the ILS, I may just have to buy another one. :)

I bought a second 642-1 when they released that first run made from older frames to complement my original 642-1. I like J-frames. A nickel M40 is another one which interests me, too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dogmann
No Lock smiths
Replies
12
Views
2K
snubbiefan
S
S
RSR has 642s with NO INTERNAL LOCK
Replies
10
Views
4K
davemercer
D
C
Next revolver should be........
Replies
14
Views
3K
CigarGuy
C
RedBerens
  • Locked
My name is Red, and I Own an IL Revolver...
5 6 7
Replies
207
Views
16K
SmithNut
S
T
New revolvers without IL?
2
Replies
51
Views
8K
massman55
M

Latest posts

Back
Top