Probably a ridiculous question, but...

[Snapping Twig]

I'm in the no lock camp because it comes with MIM parts, frame mounted firing pin, hit or miss QC, chatter marks in barrels and cylinders.

For me, the lock is the hallmark of such things and the outside indicator of the changes.

That and the fact that it's a insult to our intelligence as responsible gun owners.

 

[Wayne M]

One of my 617's is a lock gun and it works fine and shoots better. However......if your gun is a fighting/defensive gun AND a lock gun it's got parts in there it doesn't need, the more parts to the machine(ANY machine) the more likely something is to go wrong and chance being as it is it'll probably go wrong at the worst possible time. If the lock made the gun a better tool I'd be all for it. All it does is make it a more complicated tool.

 

[stantheman86]

The answer to IL and MIM S&W's

In all seriousness, the IL and MIM must not bother a lot of people, S&W is selling enough of them to be bringing out new models in their revolver line all the time.

 

[bennettfam]

ominous

The answer to IL and MIM S&W's

I think more than a few S&W devotees jumped ship and went over to Ruger because of these issues. But like you said, S&W seems to be selling the new ones to somebody.

 

[stantheman86]

I was a S&W fan before I was a Ruger nut, I never jumped ship, more like I just bought a 2nd ship for my Ruger revolvers!

All "locks" aside, people complain about MIM parts, which is a form of casting.......well, since the beginning Ruger has cast most of the metal parts used in their revolvers, frames, hammers, triggers, etc. and have been doing this since the 50's in the Blackhawks, since the early 70's for the Security Six series, and now for the GP100 and it hasn't stopped these guns from becoming wildly popular.

I have over 20 of each, I'm more of a fan of well made American revolvers so I'm a huge fan of both Smith and Ruger. Never had much use for any Colt stuff but I do have a few of those too....the King Cobra has "sintered" parts but that doesn't stop people from paying $800 for those now I think some people would pay $500 for a piece of cow dung as long as it had a Rampant Colt stamped in it.....

I don't have a Ruger LCR but sadly, I believe it has a lock under the grip and I think a few of their other new designs have a lock The day they start putting locks on GP100's and Blackhawks will be a sad, sad day in the revolver world for sure, let's hope that never happens.

If someone likes the new S&W designs but hates MIM and IL, get the "Plug" and track down a hammer and trigger set from the short era when Smith went to the frame mounted firing pin but still forged the internals......problem solved.

As for me, I have many rounds on my 64-7 and 617 and both are still tight as a drum, so the MIM parts should work well enough for me. The day it fails on me I'll be sure to report about it!

 

[JSR III]

Just as more information, in addition to S&W magnums, .22 caliber revolvers also had recessed chambers.

 

[DonD]

If I recall correctly it was the Airweight .357's and .500's that had lock engagement, I think these were early locks and the problem has since been remedied.

I don't think there have been any valid reports of .500s having IL issues but there have been cases of the nasty recoiling 12oz, scandium .357s having issues.

Personally, I've had 5, .500 Mags, have two currently, never had an issue with any of them after quite a few rounds. Don

 

[stantheman86]

I think the 617 is the only S&W now that still has recessed chambers, just as an "aside"

That explains why the newer J-frame .357's are coming out without the IL, I guess.......IMO this is setting a new standard that Smith is willing to make guns without locks, although I don't see them going away for other models.

A lot of people prefer the older Smiths, but if you want a .460 or .500, or a new 617 it is unavoidable.

 

[feralmerril]

To me it insults my inteligence. A lot like those safety warnings on rugers. It is the gun companys sucking up to the goverment to keep them off their backs. I suppose it also is to keep from being sued. In either or both cases its the companys kissing up to others. And just looking at those "give in`s" aggervates me. I dont need it and I but the older stuff. Come to think of it I havent bought a "new" gun in about 30 years!
Correction: Thinking about it, I HAVE bought exactly one new gun in all that time. I wanted a .357 mag rifle so recently bought a puma 92 knock off of the winchester 92 and that has that useless safety. No other options available.

 

[lagavulin62]

I may as well jump in on this tired worn out subject. many gun owners tend to be down to earth basic people with simple practical ways. not trying to stereotype but just giving a general picture. the lock represents everything contrary to common sense and practicality. added part that is supposed to be the fix for a common problem,. the gun going off when you don't want it to. but the solution has been there since the gun was invented. don't pull the trigger. so this is unnecessary and it just put in place another moving part that could fail to function properly. also it looks very ugly and just plain stupid. I like simplicity and this go against it. I know I am a litte extreme though. I have never owned a car with push buttons for example because if you want to rolll down the window you just have to turn the handle. it's been working ever since the car was invented. also I haven't owned an automatic since high school. why do I need the car to automatically shift gears for me when I can easily do it myself? .. there I'm finished. I sure didn't touch on anything new. this is nothing but a dead worn out topic.

 

[stantheman86]

Plain and simple......the lock is a "CYA" for S&W so if someone's 14 year old kid finds Daddy's 686+ under the bed and shoots his buddy with it, when the family goes to sue S&W they can say "Hey it had a lock to prevent this from happening"......there's not much else to it. S&W doesn't care if people are insulted by it and if you've been shooting since 1937 and know how to handle a revolver. They are covering their own ass against multi million dollar wrongful death suits. The same reason Ruger puts a billboard on the barrel of their guns, so when some idiot stuffs a triple proof handload in the gun and blows his face off, Ruger can say "it's right there on the gun, read the manual!" and the manual has all the CYA crap in it.

I'm sure lots of people thought the grip safety on the Lemon Squeezer pocket revolvers was stupid, but it was supposedly invented by Daniel B. Wesson after a kid shot himself.

Thank all the stupid people who shoot themselves and others because they can't follow the #1 rule of gun safety, or be bothered to teach their children and would rather sue a gun maker then admit their own stupidity....THAT is why guns have locks on them now.

Comparing 2010 to how it was back in "the day" is foolish.......we live in a "safety" generation now where people will sue because they hit a wall doing 70 and the car wasn't safe enough..... Just because a 1954 Pontiac had an all steel dashboard, no seat belts and a steering wheel that would impale people in a crash because "that's how it was when I was growing up" there's always people who think cars that have 20 airbags, infra-red cameras and crumple zones are "stupid", it because there are 40 times as many people on the roads now and a lot of them are idiots!

Back when the "good S&W's" were made young men also lined up to join the Service to fight the Nazis and Japanese. Now many kids 18-21 would rather cut their arm off than turn the PS3 off and do 3 years in the Army. Times have changed!

 

[lagavulin62]

we are getting into territory that is off the main topic maybe but....... I think stupid people making stupid decisions that endanger themselves as well as others have been around for a very long time. as long as there have been guns there have been people who accidentally shoot themselves. nothing new about that. but these lawsuits that bombard the courts and judges and juries that rule in favor of them is a recent development that is killing freedoms for us all. this is the age of "it's not my fault". without accountability freedom is at risk.

 

[bennettfam]

sign of the times...

Back when the "good S&W's" were made young men also lined up to join the Service to fight the Nazis and Japanese. Now many kids 18-21 would rather cut their arm off than turn the PS3 off and do 3 years in the Army. Times have changed!

Luckily just barely enough are signing up to keep our all volunteer military viable. My son in one of those, one year into a 4 year hitch with the Marines and is in Afghanistan right now. But your point is well taken. Times they are a changin'.

 

[lagavulin62]

I have always thought if they would allow for shorter duties, say like two years, they would have a better shot at attracting volunteers. I know the argument that short duties they run the risk not getting their money's worth from training a recruit but isn't that what extensions were for? also the enlistment is really 6 years and I always felt that was too long. I think many good men/women who are college material might join after high school if they didn't have to commit for 6 years. since many of our high school graduates are not ready for college at 18 this would be an opportunity to enlist some of that population. if they knew they could get some valuable experience out of high school, see the world, then be back at 20 to start college I think that would be a real selling point. but the military is too tied down in old ways I guess. heck they probably still require monthly haircuts.

 

[jrb_pro]

"It's ugly"? Really?

It's tiny and almost unnoticeable.

 

[stantheman86]

I graduated college with a BS degree and then did 3 years in the Active Army as an Infantryman, did 1 tour in Iraq......and I still have locks on my new S&W's

If I can handle 3 years in the service than pretty much anyone can Hell I'm getting kind of bored being out and had considered going back in.....I don't know if I'm a glutton for punishment or what......

Just trying to lighten up a tired subject, my point is people ask my S&W's have locks on them, why Ruger has the Magna Carta stamped on the barrel of their revolvers......because it's not 1943 anymore and alot of people aren't responsible, and it's a lot easier these days to find a lawyer when you screw up and blame someone else. Less kids grow up shooting and riding horses and hunting and all that, when I was in Basic at Ft. Benning most guys had never even handled a firearm before.

Just read today that a guy in NM was "cleaning a handgun" and it "went off" and shot his 4 year old son in the stomach, went through him and hit the "shooters" mother.....luckily both will survive, but I wonder if this idiot who forgot to check if his gun was loaded will try to sue the gun maker......

 

[bennettfam]

Hell I'm getting kind of bored being out and had considered going back in.....I don't know if I'm a glutton for punishment or what......

Stan, if you go back in, you ARE the man. No, you did your share. Now enjoy your Smiths, even if they do have locks.

 

[stantheman86]

Hahahaha Yeah when I say "considered" going back in, I also "considered" saving up for a Korth revolver I use the word consider alot meaning, "slight to no chance in hell"

 

[Inspector-Callahan]

SAF-T-Hammer

Plain and simple......the lock is a "CYA" for S&W so if someone's 14 year old kid finds Daddy's 686+ under the bed and shoots his buddy with it, when the family goes to sue S&W they can say "Hey it had a lock to prevent this from happening"......there's not much else to it.

It would appear on the surface to be a CYA issue, but it really is because S&W was purchased by a company that makes these locks (Saf-T-Hammer) and they figured a good way to sell them would be to force their customers to buy them.

There is no other reason. Until S&W decides to make a gun that I want to buy (without a lock) they will continue to forfeit my business. No biggie for me, its their loss. Sooner or later they will want my business. No company can simply ignore consumer demand and expect to thrive.

IC

 

[bwickens]

I can almost see the billboard now: "TRIAL LAWYERS --- SAVING YOU FROM YOUR STUPIDITY AND SHAME FOR OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS".