What is keeping S&W from deleting the lock?

[daveyc]

I bought my first S&W revolver back in 1995 and have been acquiring them ever since. I remember all of the lock controversy from 20 + years ago. but I guess some of the details have left me. I seem to remember the ownership at the time made some sort of a "deal" with the Clinton administration and that the company was owned by Safety Hammer at the time.

fast forward over 20 years. the Clintons have been out of office for almost all of that time. S&W is no longer owned by Safety Hammer.

other than changing out the tooling, what is to keep S&W from dropping the lock?

 

[rosewood]

I bought my first S&W revolver back in 1995 and have been acquiring them ever since. I remember all of the lock controversy from 20 + years ago. but I guess some of the details have left me. I seem to remember the ownership at the time made some sort of a "deal" with the Clinton administration and that the company was owned by Safety Hammer at the time.

fast forward over 20 years. the Clintons have been out of office for almost all of that time. S&W is no longer owned by Safety Hammer.

other than changing out the tooling, what is to keep S&W from dropping the lock?

Maybe negative PR if they do so. Someone will come out with that S&W doesn't care about safety and doesn't care about kids.

Rosewood

 

[MSD2343]

One would think the new competition from Colt as well as ongoing lock-free competition from Ruger and others would at least give them cause to reconsider.

 

[CajunBass]

On the other hand, despite what you hear on the internet, maybe they don’t have any trouble selling them with the lock.

 

[MSD2343]

On the other hand, despite what you hear on the internet, maybe the don’t have any trouble selling them with the lock.

Quite possibly the case. We are all living in our enthusiast bubble that may be quite apart from the broader reality.

 

[rockquarry]

With the safety eliminated, the lock moaners would have to find a new cause to pursue, and they don't handle the slightest change well.

 

[WR Moore]

I'd expect the liability attorneys are involved in the continued existance. Omit the lock, have a tragedy, get sued over removing the lock.

Still, while I hardly visit their site, it appears that "classic" (non lock) versions of some models get made. I note the lack of lock on the M&P 2.0s that I've seen.

 

[Sixgun100]

I don’t understand this, as well? Unless I’m mistaken, S&W currently produces a number of J Frame revolvers without the lock.

 

[MajorD]

Quite possibly the case. We are all living in our enthusiast bubble that may be quite apart from the broader reality.

This I feel is the case. And as long as lock versions are profiting the company, catering to a relatively small segment of the market by eliminating the lock ( with the associated costs involved) is not worth the company time or money

 

[Oldsalt66]

I bought my first S&W revolver back in 1995 and have been acquiring them ever since. I remember all of the lock controversy from 20 + years ago. but I guess some of the details have left me. I seem to remember the ownership at the time made some sort of a "deal" with the Clinton administration and that the company was owned by Safety Hammer at the time.

fast forward over 20 years. the Clintons have been out of office for almost all of that time. S&W is no longer owned by Safety Hammer.

other than changing out the tooling, what is to keep S&W from dropping the lock?

That's incorrect.

At the time of the S&W "deal" with Clinton, the company was owned by the British conglomerate Tomkins plc.

The trademarks and assets (but not the corporation itself) were later purchased by Saf-T-Hammer and an entirely new corporation, Smith and Wesson Holding Company, was created, some years after which, that company was renamed American Outdoor Brands....after which Smith &Wesson and the other brands owned by AOB were spun off into independent corporations.

The first order of business for the newly formed Smith&Wesson Holding Company corporation was to abrogate all agreements made with Clinton by the previous S&W Corporation owned b the British company Tomkins PLC.

The major points the original, British owned Smith & Wesson agreed to were to build the locks into all of their weapons within two years, to implement smart gun technology, and take ballistic fingerprints of its guns.

Companies including Ruger and Springfield Armory also incorporate locks into their pistols.

 

[biku324]

I have some of each kind of Smith, no lock and lock, and use them with complete satisfaction. To me the lock is a non-issue.

 

[CajunBass]

With the safety eliminated, the lock moaners would have to find a new cause to pursue, and they don't handle the slightest change well.

They could always gripe about removing the lock and how they don’t make them like they used to.

 

[cougar015]

Since 2005, if you purchase a gun in the United States, you’re going to be given a free gun lock. It’s a federal law.
Maybe it's the easiest way for them to comply with the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 which requires the licensee:
When selling, delivering, or transferring a handgun to any person other than another licensee, any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer must provide a secure gun storage or safety device to that person for the handgun.

 

[daveyc]

That's incorrect.

At the time of the S&W "deal" with Clinton, the company was owned by the British conglomerate Tomkins plc.

The trademarks and assets (but not the corporation itself) were later purchased by Saf-T-Hammer and an entirely new corporation, Smith and Wesson Holding Company, was created, some years after which, that company was renamed American Outdoor Brands....after which Smith &Wesson and the other brands owned by AOB were spun off into independent corporations.

The first order of business for the newly formed Smith&Wesson Holding Company corporation was to abrogate all agreements made with Clinton by the previous S&W Corporation owned b the British company Tomkins PLC.

The major points the original, British owned Smith & Wesson agreed to were to build the locks into all of their weapons within two years, to implement smart gun technology, and take ballistic fingerprints of its guns.

Companies including Ruger and Springfield Armory also incorporate locks into their pistols.

So you are saying that the S&W holding company ended all "deals" made with the Clintons?

So that would mean that S&W is no longer held to any "agreement" to be compelled to have a lock on any firearm?

I would take that to mean that either they are choosing to keep the lock due to liability reasons, or it is too expensive to change the tooling to revert back to no lock frames.

it seems that if you could eliminate a part/stage of production, it would lower overall costs.

the public fervor over a firearms manufacturer deleting a "safety" feature would die down in short order i would think.

 

[Oldsalt66]

So you are saying that the S&W holding company ended all "deals" made with the Clintons?

So that would mean that S&W is no longer held to any "agreement" to be compelled to have a lock on any firearm?

I would take that to mean that either they are choosing to keep the lock due to liability reasons, or it is too expensive to change the tooling to revert back to no lock frames.

it seems that if you could eliminate a part/stage of production, it would lower overall costs.

the public fervor over a firearms manufacturer deleting a "safety" feature would die down in short order i would think.

That's correct.

 

[Rpg]

There’s also the aging factor.

Older guys like me are more likely to dislike the lock than the younger guys who have little to no experience with the non-lock guns.

For folks who’ve only known the locked guns, that’s what they buy and they’re happy to do so.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Taurus has, for the most part, quietly deleted its key lock on most, if not all, models.

 

[LoadedRound]

Still, while I hardly visit their site, it appears that "classic" (non lock) versions of some models get made. I note the lack of lock on the M&P 2.0s that I've seen.

This is the point that always puzzles me. From what I can see, most / all the semi autos are lock free. They make lockless versions of the 642 340 and other hammerless revolvers. I'd think it would be one way or the other????

 

[Shutthefrontdoor]

The thing that strikes me is the cost savings they could achieve by deleting manufacturing cost(s) - less labor, less parts, charge same price = more profit.

 

[Rick Sanborn]

If they must keep the lock, for whatever reason, an alternate location would work. Put it in front of the trigger guard simulating the style of the old 5 screw guns. The screw would simply lock the cylinder bolt. The lock would have a slotted head like a side plate screw, no need for a special tool. It would have a spring detent inside the frame, one full turn to “click” and its on/off. That would also prevent inadvertent lock engagement under recoil. Just a thought on how to solve both issues, function and esthetics.