S&W getting rid of internal lock?

[Gun 4 Fun]

People, please re-read my post. I didn't post up another net legend. I did post what I just read on another forum. The man there is fairly new there, and wasn't trying to start another rant. He simply mentioned reading an article in G&A.

I simply asked if anyone had read it, and what it really says. I then pondered on how nice that would be if true. What is and what will be, are still two seperate issues, and remain to be seen.

 

[luis]

Well, this has turned into another "I hate the lock" thread. Look, folks, these discussions are a waste of time. Smith isn't going to remove the lock from its revolvers, for several reasons. First, because a few dozen gripers on forums like these don't amount to a measurable percentage of their overall market. I don't take issue with the passion that many of you display, or your sincerity, but you are less than a drop in the bucket when compared to the great mass of gun buyers. In case you haven't noticed, Smith's lock-equipped guns have sold well and continue to do so.

Second, because every other revolver manufacturer (and a few semi-auto manufacturers as well) have now equipped their guns with locks. Ruger, Taurus, they all have locks. One can quibble about whether Smith's lock is uglier than Taurus' or whether it would have been a better marketing strategy to put the lock under the grips as does Ruger. But, the bottom line is that for liability reasons if for no other, Smith will never stop equipping its guns with locks so long as its competitors equip theirs.

Finally, because Smith's products are more profitable with locks than without them. Smith, if you haven't noticed, is owned by the company that manufactures Smith's locks. That means that the parent company gets to equip every revolver sold with a lock. The parent's sales to Smith are direct profits for the parent and I have no doubt that Smith passes on to the consumer the cost of equipping each of its revolvers with a lock.

So again, no offense meant, but this is truly beating a dead horse. And, those of you who are inclined to take hope in internet tales like the "Smith's going to remove the lock" fairy tale need to take a deep breath, accept reality, and move on.

Oh, and as an aside, I just acquired a 1973 36 no-dash. A sweet gun if ever I saw one and, for those who care, no lock.

While I agree with you on most points I would like to point somethings out. Ruger saw the light on internal locks and has limited its use. The Ruger New Vaquero in both blue and stainless and the Blackhawk in blue are the only revolvers that have the lock. They got some many letters and phone calls against the locks that they stopped at those models.

Some pistols still have locks but my dealer just got a batch of MKIII 22s without locks. They might have done the same as Remington.

 

[OldLawman]

No locks ? Possible sighting

I was at a local gun show this weekend, and would (almost) swear I saw a new model - in the Classic mode - without a lock. I did a double take, and it still looked like it did not have a lock. I think it was something like a M24 .44 Spec.

Certainly the first non-Centennial no-lock gun I have seen.

 

[Frankie2blue]

They really ought to start issuing some of the Performance Center guns without them. Of course if they did, I would be in trouble or at least I would have a negative cash flow for a while.

 

[Y-T71]

I just went through Aug-Sept-Oct-Nov issues cover to cover and saw no mention of this subject at all.

Bummer cause I was really hoping it's true.

 

[batmann]

It's too bad that with the internet someone can pretty much post anything, like this IL thing, just to get a response.
The best way to handle these is to just let them die instead of the typical "I wish" or "they would sell a ton of them". They already sell a ton of them and whether we like it or not, the IL is here to stay.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

I wonder if he was reading one of their periodicals?
I will get back on that forum and see if I can find that post again then ask him where he read it.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Well, I got ahold of him, and he said that it was his mistake. It was actually in the March/ April edition of American Handgunner.

 

[Armed012002]

Don't and won't. Matter of fact just ordered one of them M442 "frame leftovers".

BTW, can anyone explain where this seemingly endless supply of no-lock J frames is coming from? Why would Smith sell them if the lockers were so profitable? Couldn't they make more money by drilling a hole in the side and putting in a lock? One more lock sale for SAF-T-LOK,nuther penny and three quarters profit.

Good point.

So which it true?

Is Smith & Wesson skipping the "drill the hole" step in manufacturing 442/642 frames or selling off a stockpile of old frames?

If S&W starting putting internal locks in their revolver frames around 2001, these old frames are around 8 years old. That's a long time to keep a stockpile of unused frames.

 

[18DAI]

The "left over frames" story came from the fanboys.

They had to come up with some explanation for the appearance of current production lock free revolvers, despite their claims that "S&W is forced to put locks on all their revolvers!!" "States require locks!!" "S&W will never be able to legally go back to making lock free revolvers!" "The lock is here to stay!".

Evidently they were wrong. Regards 18DAI.

 

[Dpris]

I checked with my regular contact at S&W last month about the lock issue again & was told "The lawyers won't let us" drop the locks.
Things could always change, but for right now they are not going away.
Denis

 

[bk43]

Finally, because Smith's products are more profitable with locks than without them. Smith, if you haven't noticed, is owned by the company that manufactures Smith's locks. That means that the parent company gets to equip every revolver sold with a lock. The parent's sales to Smith are direct profits for the parent and I have no doubt that Smith passes on to the consumer the cost of equipping each of its revolvers with a lock.

Total hogwash and the idea that the products are more profitable with the lock is false. I'm not going to get into the history but Smith & Wesson is a widely held public company traded under the symbol SWHC. There is no Saf-T-Hammer and hasn't been for many years. Saf-T-Hammer never made any locks and there are no fees paid to anyone by S&W for the IL.

Hating the IL or MIM parts or anything else about current S&W products is anyone's personal decision. And all of us has a right to that others should respect. However, that does not mean you are entitled to just make things up to back up your position.

Bob

 

[Cruiser RN]

We can only hope that S+W comes to their senses and gets rid of the lock.I heard that the lock company was one of the owners of S+W.If that is the case it will be a cold day in hell before they disappear.God Bless...Mike

 

[davemercer]

I checked with my regular contact at S&W last month about the lock issue again & was told "The lawyers won't let us" drop the locks.
Things could always change, but for right now they are not going away.
Denis

Why can Smith produce limited runs of 442s and 642s without the locks and not other models? Seems if the lawyers would "object" on a liability basis it would be across the board for all models.

 

[WildCard ZX6R]

Why can Smith produce limited runs of 442s and 642s without the locks and not other models? Seems if the lawyers would "object" on a liability basis it would be across the board for all models.

+1

Seems like those "non-existant" lost sales from people like me who refuse to buy a S&W with IL might be carrying a bit more weight than some would like to believe.

 

[Dpris]

Can't answer that one beyond noting that a year or so ago when I was asking them if the 442s & 642s would be regular offerings & around long enough to justify a write-up, I was told "No". That meant they anticipated selling existing stocks fairly soon & implied they were not going to keep those lockless guns in regular production.

I have not asked directly how or why those frames came into being, but I'd speculate foreign contract overruns.

And- Saf-T-Hammer no longer exists as a separate entity. It was a name used to broker the sale from Tompkins. There are no "royalties" or licensing fees.
The "company" that manufacture's S&W's locks is S&W.

Denis

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Lawyers shmoyers. Money talks BS walks. It's that simple. If they can gather back in those who have left them for Ruger and other such places, they will. It's all about the benjamins. The fact is, they know they are hemmoraging money to their competition. Why else did they bring back the classic series?

One or two screwed up states won't be the rule, but rather the exception to their bottom line, and they will do what is most profitable for them.

I don't know if it will happen or not, but we can only hope that they took off the old brown earmuffs, and are starting to see the light.
Somone ealier made a point about Smith selling to a lot of uninformed consumers, and I think that is at least partially true, judging from what I see happening at the gunshops. Still, that doesn't mean they are stupid consumers. They are hearing things about all of the "issues" with Smith, Ruger, etc., and are coming to forums like this in record numbers to learn. The word is getting out about the locks and such. I hear first time buyers asking about it. If it was such a secret, or only known to those of us here on the forum, how are they hearing about it?

 

[ladder13]

Total hogwash and the idea that the products are more profitable with the lock is false. I'm not going to get into the history but Smith & Wesson is a widely held public company traded under the symbol SWHC. There is no Saf-T-Hammer and hasn't been for many years. Saf-T-Hammer never made any locks and there are no fees paid to anyone by S&W for the IL.

Hating the IL or MIM parts or anything else about current S&W products is anyone's personal decision. And all of us has a right to that others should respect. However, that does not mean you are entitled to just make things up to back up your position.

Bob

+1................... Just how much does that POS lock cost to manufacture, about 10 cents? That really adds alot to the bottom line eh?

 

[davemercer]

Can't answer that one beyond noting that a year or so ago when I was asking them if the 442s & 642s would be regular offerings & around long enough to justify a write-up, I was told "No". That meant they anticipated selling existing stocks fairly soon & implied they were not going to keep those lockless guns in regular production.

I have not asked directly how or why those frames came into being, but I'd speculate foreign contract overruns.

And- Saf-T-Hammer no longer exists as a separate entity. It was a name used to broker the sale from Tompkins. There are no "royalties" or licensing fees.
The "company" that manufacture's S&W's locks is S&W.

Denis

What is also strange is that no lock 442s and 642s are listed on the Smith website. No suggested retail price, directs you to your dealer.

 

[stevieboy]

Total hogwash? I don't think so. The fact that Smith is a publicly held company doesn't mean for an instant that an entity doesn't own a majority of the stock. And, rather obviously, it is in the interest of that entity to equip all of Smith's revolvers with locks, because it makes them. I'm not going to waste my time belaboring this issue except to say that Smith wouldn't sell lock equipped revolvers if the entity that owns the majority of its stock didn't think that doing so was profitable. I repeat what I said in an earlier post. The few dozen people who whine on this and other forums about the terrible lock (and MIM parts, etc.) represent a tiny minority of the gun buying public. So tiny, in fact, that Smith and other manufacturers have no problem in ignoring your opinions. Having said that, I'd like to add that I'm not "pro lock". I am, however, a realist, unlike some.

And, finally, to get back to what this thread is all about, the "Smith is discontinuing the lock" story is simply an urban legend. No such article was written, at any time, in any of the gun mags. Sorry, but that's the truth. Like it or not, the lock is here to stay.