New Classic 29 offerred by S&W... Integrated Lock ?
- Thread starter wrightd
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
scott625b
Member
No
NFrameFred
Member
Well, it does have the lock. Whether they ruined it or not is a matter of opinion . . . .
scott625b
Member
If the lock was there when you purchased the gun how could it be ruined? No one I know would purposely purchase a defective firearm. If the lock appeared after you bought the gun, then it may be ruined and you should get your money back.
This post is just too weird.
animalmother
Member
+ 1, 29-1.
It doesn't matter if the gun comes with the internal lock or you add it later. Either way the gun is ruined.
powerkicker
Member
Is the gripframe round or square?
Andy Taylor
Member
yes to both.
stevieboy
Member
Oh, sigh. Again with the lock business. I guess I'll just have to remind myself each time I fire my post-lock Smiths (all of which shoot superbly) that they've been ruined.
tulsamal
Member
I will agree that it is subjective whether or not the ILS "ruined the gun."
However, I will say it "ruined the potential sales" of the gun!!
I find myself wondering all the time how many of these new M29's would have sold to old farts like myself if there was no ILS? Or how many of those new M21's and M22's they would have sold? I guess I can only "know for sure about one of each" but I strongly suspect they would have been a heck of a lot more successful without the hole! And that's what's going to happen to any future "Classic" types. How can they be "Classic" if they aren't mechanically the same as the originals? I can live with a lessor finish on new reproductions since that keeps the cost in line but mechanically they need to be interchangeable with the old ones!
Apparently it takes all kinds of people but the ILS on "Classic" designs bothers me a lot more than when it is on some new modern one. Surely to God S&W could have a Classic line of old guns without the lock?!?!
Gregg
bk43
Member
The Classic line is an attempt to marry current technology with desireable features from days gone by. Nothing more, nothing less. I think they did a very good job but that is just my opinion and YMMV. It is not reasonable to expect them to be identical to the older guns. And the crotchety old curmudgeons would find an excuse not to buy them even if they didn't have the lock so the answer to your questions are none.
Bob
Dog Easy
Member
You gotta ask yourself a question. Do I want a lock? Well, do ya Punk?
tom turner
US Veteran
Revolvers shouldn't lock.
They are supposed to go "bang" when you pick it up and pull the trigger.
I wouldn't recommend purchasing a parachute either that had a lock on the ripcord.
Nice new revolver, but I'm gonna have to confine my Smith purchases to the pre-2001 models until they remove that glaring defect.
No problem either, S&W made millions of 'em before introducing the defect . . . and finding nice ones is HALF THE FUN as owning and shooting them!
T.
They are supposed to go "bang" when you pick it up and pull the trigger.
I wouldn't recommend purchasing a parachute either that had a lock on the ripcord.
Nice new revolver, but I'm gonna have to confine my Smith purchases to the pre-2001 models until they remove that glaring defect.
No problem either, S&W made millions of 'em before introducing the defect . . . and finding nice ones is HALF THE FUN as owning and shooting them!
T.
Match10
Member
((Raises hand))
I knowingly bought a defective 642 of recent manufacture. ...but it's OK now! I have removed said locking device. It will now go "bang" every time I pull the trigger with no question. If I intend it to be "safe", I will unload it and place it into one of my gun safes.
Perfect!
steve hammer
Member
OK does anyone have any facts on revolver sales pre and post locks? Does Smith sell at least as many revolvers as they did before the dread lock appeared?
Match10
Member
Oooooo! ((Raises Hand Again))
They have lost at least ONE sale I know of... Mine.
tulsamal
Member
But see, that wouldn't tell you anything. You don't have a control group. If they introduced the ILS and sales stayed the EXACT same, it isn't correct to say, "the ILS didn't affect sales" because you don't know what sales would have been without the ILS!
I'm perfectly willing to believe there are hordes of the unwashed masses who don't care and continue to buy the new guns. But are they your target audience when you "reintroduce a classic design?" Don't you expect a big chunk of sales to be to older folks who failed to buy an original back in the day and would love a chance to rectify that problem?
Look at the new M21 and M22. Do we really expect the raging hordes of Glock owners to line up and buy them? (Nothing against Glocks, I have two.) You will sell some of them to twenty year olds but surely your market will mostly be to the older aficionados. I was _thrilled_ when I heard S&W was going to remake the M21 and M22. There was no doubt whatsoever that I was going to buy both. Until I discovered that they weren't the five screw, FP on hammer, no ILS guns I had been expected.
So no, we can't say _for sure_ how much the ILS has affected sales. But it defies logic to say that it hasn't affected the sales of the "classic style" reintroductions!
And for no good reason that I can see. US Firearms doesn't put an ILS on their SAA copies! How much more "inherently dangerous" can a handgun design be than an original style SAA? No transfer bar, a safety notch that isn't really a safety notch, etc. But US Firearms continues to make them true to the design. Because that's what their customers want! Sometimes I despair that S&W (and Ruger) just don't get the whole "the customer is always right" viewpoint!
Gregg
Similar threads
- Locked
