Skinny on the internal lock from the horse's mouth

[Texas Star]

S&W has been sold before. As long as Saf-t-Lock (sp?) owns them, we'll have the lock...and I won't buy their guns.

American industry seems determined to lose business through limited common sense, arrogance, and a lack of empathy with their customers.

T-Star

 

[pbslinger]

They probably know that used guns are a better value than their new ones and don't even try to compete with them.

They must not care for the long time S&W buyer market, even though they seem to make a few moves that indicate they do. They have gotten close to attracting this market with a few heritage models, which is an even greater abomination to have a lock than most guns.

They seem to be thriving making higher profit guns such as the M&P auto, and the current revolver line. The guns many of us want must not be profitable to make, or they are stubborn business wise.

 

[Forester]

We are a loud, vocal minority. The average gun buyer doesn't care or know the difference. S&W sales are up, their stock is up and they could care less about us grumpy dinosaurs.

 

[Andy Griffith]

Originally posted by BlackAgnes:

Rugers, Colts, and many other brands are sold here everyday which have no locks--not to mention the full line of S&W autos.

I hate to bust your bubble, but the new Ruger single actions and Mark III's all have locks internally in them- they are just "out of sight."

Don't forget that also H&K pistols, Springfield Armory pistols, Taurus handguns and some NAA revolvers have the lock. I may be leaving some out...

 

[Jazman]

Don't know how he can say California is a problem, I bought one of the new 642 no-locks last year with no problem.

 

[cmort666]

Originally posted by Steave:
I'm as anti-lock as most folks, I don't own a S&W with a lock and never will. I would be more likely to purchase one, however, if it were redesigned so it wasn't such an eye sore.

Exactly. The lock has two REAL problems.

1. It's hideously ugly, and necessitates design changes that make the gun even more unattractive.

2. It's dangerously unreliable in a self-defense gun.

I don't see a lot of people complaining about the mainspring housing lock on the Springfield M1911s. I've never heard of any complaints about it activating without user intent and you can safely remove it in a couple of minutes merely by changing mainspring housings. If S&W would change their design to a reliable, unobtrusive one, people would still complain, but probably not 1/100th of the people who do now.

But this is now a passive-aggressive thing with S&W. Even if states (which actually don't) required a lock, they certainly don't require THAT lock. At this point keeping THAT lock is just a finger in the eye of wouldbe purchasers of S&W revolvers.

I wouldn't spend $7.00 at Wendy's if every time I ate there, the girl at the counter said, "Here's your burger, you stupid son of a *****." Why does Smith & Wesson think I'm going to spend $1,000 or more when they say to me, "Here's your crappy lock, you stupid son of a *****."

 

[cmort666]

Originally posted by K.38:
Gator I hope your kidding. I've seen some Cobra guns and they are junk.

Now if USFA would start making good copies of the old S&W guns that would be something.

And copies of the old Colt D/As too. I traded an average condition Colt Official Police back about '84 to get my 4" Model 29-2. Who knew Colt would stop making D/A revolvers... ENTIRELY? I've been kicking myself on that one for years.

 

[Andy Taylor]

While CA does mandate a lock, the internal lock on a S&W revolvers doesn't cut it. It has to be an external trigger lock.

 

[Andy Taylor]

As long as put the lock on the revolvers, I stopped even looking at them.

+1000 Lynnie

 

[cmort666]

Originally posted by WHO CARES:
Assuming we will never have any serious reform in the court/lawyer financial relationship, what about a lock more like the one Ruger is using where it is under the grip and out of sight? It's available to those that feel the need? Would they consider the change? Would we accept guns with a hidden lock? Seems like there may be some common ground here.....

Most people would accept that. Seemingly S&W would NOT. They're determined to rub your face in that lock... even though you can get an M&P auto without it. They're like the King of Sardinia-Piedmont who started a war with Austria in order to fight for some piece of territory that Austria wanted to GIVE him.

 

[Andy Taylor]

I don't see a lot of people complaining about the mainspring housing lock on the Springfield M1911s. I've never heard of any complaints about it activating without user intent and you can safely remove it in a couple of minutes merely by changing mainspring housings. If S&W would change their design to a reliable, unobtrusive one, people would still complain, but probably not 1/100th of the people who do now.

I didn't even realize it was there until I got my Mil-Spec home and was browsing the manual. The MSH was swapped out in fairly short order. No problems. I am very happy with the gun and would buy it again. Just wish I had known about it prior to purchase. shrug

 

[44forever]

If I want a lock, I'll go to a hardware store or a locksmith, not a gun store or gunsmith. I can be at least twice as stubborn as S&W. I don't have to buy a gun with a lock built into it (from ANY manufacturer) and won't, WON'T, WON'T.

 

[Jim Shugart]

Great! I love it! A new Internal Lock thread.

Lee will be beside himself.

 

[glypnir]

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
Great! I love it! A new Internal Lock thread.

Lee will be beside himself.

And I can't even detect an argument, and it's gone to 3 pages, all preaching to the choir. So I'll provide a bit of an argument and see if we can get to 20.

Get the popcorn.

The way I see it, working for a US manufacturer myself, is that both the right and the left expect US manufacturers to hold up the ideals of their particular faction.

On the left, we expect them to be environmentally sensitive, union friendly, blah, blah, blah.

On the right, you expect them to hold up the 2nd ammendment, and probably a lot of other things.

And if they don't, you get a hissy fit, and buy somewhere else, often from foreigners. This is especially true of the biggest ones, GM and S&W are examples, because they are the biggest targets.

Now, I figured out a long time ago, as an engineer, that engineering is always 90% politics. You never, never, never get the best engineering solution. You get the best political solution.

I think that S&W makes nice revolvers. The internal lock is a dumb thing technically, but politically it's there. Nothing is perfect. All things considered, I still prefer the S&Ws to other revolvers, even with the lock.

If I was going for a conspiracy theory, I would opine that the folks who bash the lock want S&W to abandon the consumer market so that their S&Ws will go up in price the way Colts have.

Good thing I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

There you go, the next 17 pages are yours.

 

[Jeb Stonewall]

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
Great! I love it! A new Internal Lock thread.

Lee will be beside himself.

If we don't bitch about the lock every once in a while S&W might get the wrong idea and think we forgive them!

 

[oldRoger]

I remember an old Army saying; if they ain't bitchin' about the chow, they ain't happy.

 

[G-Mac]

Originally posted by SWID:He listed about five police states (Ca, New Jersey, NY, etc.) and said that they could not sell guns there without locks...

That's total BS. NY has no such law.

 

[44wheelman]

Okay, so why doesn't RSR or Lipsey's, or Lew Horton put a no-lock gun out?

 

[cmort666]

Originally posted by 44wheelman:
Okay, so why doesn't RSR or Lipsey's, or Lew Horton put a no-lock gun out?

Who're they going to buy it from? If it's going to be an S&W, S&W has to make it, and they'd rather stick their finger in your eye to prove who's boss than make some money.

 

[reerc]

Locks ain't profitable?

Says who?

S&W stock page

As long as they're making money, I don't think they give a rat's arse what we here on this forum think.