I want to find a decent 629 that I can use for a defense carry. Obviously none of the new models with the IL are anything one would want to bet your butt on, so I have to find one from before. Just wondering how long ago they started with that?
What year did they start using the IL?
- Thread starter 1972
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 27,669
- Reaction score
- 21,360
Looks like 2001-'02, depending on the model.
Stainz
Member
The 629-6 started in 2001 - with the IL. If you want one less the IL, I suppose that would mean a -5 or earlier. FYI, S&W has yet to spend their first dime defending a lawsuit over the IL.
Stainz
Stainz
Thanks Stainz. I'll start looking for a -5.
I'm sure the IL issue has been kicked around many times so I don't want to dwell on it. For me personally however, it just defeats the purpose of a revolver. Traditionally, the advantage to a revolver was that all you had to do was point, pull the trigger, and it would go "bang". No slide to rack, no hammer to cock, no magazine to check, no safety to disengage, and nothing to jam. Just point and pull the trigger. Essentially there was almost nothing to go wrong. Now there is "the lock". Is it on? Is it off? Will it lock up when it's not supposed to? To me, and it's just my personal opinion, these new revolvers are worse than a sem-auto. At least on a semi-auto you can flick the safety off or clear the gun by racking the slide. With the lock you don't have a chance. Can you imagine needing the gun, in a hurry, in the dark, and finding the lock engaged? You're dead. I'm an old retired Police Sergeant. Admittedly old school, but you couldn't get me to carry one of these new IL revolvers on duty for love or money. I guess they're okay for plinking or target shooting. Whatever. This is just my opinion. To each as he best sees fit.
I'm sure the IL issue has been kicked around many times so I don't want to dwell on it. For me personally however, it just defeats the purpose of a revolver. Traditionally, the advantage to a revolver was that all you had to do was point, pull the trigger, and it would go "bang". No slide to rack, no hammer to cock, no magazine to check, no safety to disengage, and nothing to jam. Just point and pull the trigger. Essentially there was almost nothing to go wrong. Now there is "the lock". Is it on? Is it off? Will it lock up when it's not supposed to? To me, and it's just my personal opinion, these new revolvers are worse than a sem-auto. At least on a semi-auto you can flick the safety off or clear the gun by racking the slide. With the lock you don't have a chance. Can you imagine needing the gun, in a hurry, in the dark, and finding the lock engaged? You're dead. I'm an old retired Police Sergeant. Admittedly old school, but you couldn't get me to carry one of these new IL revolvers on duty for love or money. I guess they're okay for plinking or target shooting. Whatever. This is just my opinion. To each as he best sees fit.
Broker50
Member
1972, I agree, I don't care for the lock either, but, let me say, it's a 10-15 min job to remove or disable it. I wouldn't let the lock keep me from buying a later, easier to find 629. The only revolver I have that came with the IL is a 44 Mountain Gun. Notice I said came with, doesn't mean it still has it. One of the forum members, Bullseye Smith, sells a plug to fill the hole, if you're so inclined. Good luck with your search.
I'll throw in an irrelevant but related bit of info to the discussion about S&W internal locks here...
It's widely thought that the IL's came about because Smith "sold out" to the Clinton administration.
That's partially true, because S&W really did sell out in 2000, but adding internal locks wasn't part of the sell-out, although S&W did agree to some kind of "lock" to be added, the specifics weren't noted at the time.
The IL lock sell-out happened the next year in 2001 with a "literal" sell-out of S&W to a company named... wait for it...
"Saf-T-Hammer".
Ta-daaa. Take a wild guess which modification the new owners decided to immediately add to the S&W line of revolvers.
The next year (2002), Saf-T-Hammer changed it's name to... wait for it...
"Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation" which removed any reference of "Saf-T-Hammer" from the operation.
Just thought that curious minds would want to know. If Smith is ever sold again, who knows; maybe the IL locks would go a way since it would be cheaper to make the guns without having to pay royalties for using the IL lock's patent.
Just wishin' and hopin'.
This is the relevant part of the timeline:
It's widely thought that the IL's came about because Smith "sold out" to the Clinton administration.
That's partially true, because S&W really did sell out in 2000, but adding internal locks wasn't part of the sell-out, although S&W did agree to some kind of "lock" to be added, the specifics weren't noted at the time.
The IL lock sell-out happened the next year in 2001 with a "literal" sell-out of S&W to a company named... wait for it...
"Saf-T-Hammer".
Ta-daaa. Take a wild guess which modification the new owners decided to immediately add to the S&W line of revolvers.
The next year (2002), Saf-T-Hammer changed it's name to... wait for it...
"Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation" which removed any reference of "Saf-T-Hammer" from the operation.
Just thought that curious minds would want to know. If Smith is ever sold again, who knows; maybe the IL locks would go a way since it would be cheaper to make the guns without having to pay royalties for using the IL lock's patent.
Just wishin' and hopin'.
This is the relevant part of the timeline:
carl3989
Member
Very informative Decker.
Thanks for sharing that. As always follow the money trail.
Thanks for sharing that. As always follow the money trail.
Stainz
Member
Actually, the IL wasn't designed or implemented into the S&W revolvers until G.W. Bush's tenure - 2001. The off shoot of the Clinton puckering up was likely the lockable box becoming standard - and a shot case included, too. The latter was a requirement of CA, MD, & NY - and thought to become universal. Not wanting a 3-states & 47-states version of their revolvers, they added the spent case - and, eventually, the IL, too.
I don't like paying for stuff I don't want or need - like a plastic lockable box, cable lock, useless instruction manual, spent case, or IL. I do like their revolvers - especially the new ones. I put up with the stuff I don't want. If I get tired - or afraid - of the IL, I'll defeat it - problem solved - and I still have modern S&W's.
I have to add this - pg 19 of Instruction Manual REV101904 - in bold red letters in the middle of the page: WARNING THE REVOLVER WILL FIRE IF THE TRIGGER IS PULLED! No parts diagram any more... but all kinds of cautions - including warnings to keep your fingers away from the B/C gap during firing. They did defend against a fellow who didn't heed that with his .460 Magnum - and lost fingertips - then unsuccessfully sued them. Darwin was an optimist.
Stainz
I don't like paying for stuff I don't want or need - like a plastic lockable box, cable lock, useless instruction manual, spent case, or IL. I do like their revolvers - especially the new ones. I put up with the stuff I don't want. If I get tired - or afraid - of the IL, I'll defeat it - problem solved - and I still have modern S&W's.
I have to add this - pg 19 of Instruction Manual REV101904 - in bold red letters in the middle of the page: WARNING THE REVOLVER WILL FIRE IF THE TRIGGER IS PULLED! No parts diagram any more... but all kinds of cautions - including warnings to keep your fingers away from the B/C gap during firing. They did defend against a fellow who didn't heed that with his .460 Magnum - and lost fingertips - then unsuccessfully sued them. Darwin was an optimist.
Stainz
Last edited:
.357magger
Member
Plug, Plug, Plug, Plug, Plluuuuuggggggggg.
Nuff said and I do carry former IL models for ccw. Note the word former.
Just a non issue from that point on for me.
Nuff said and I do carry former IL models for ccw. Note the word former.
Just a non issue from that point on for me.
I'll have to look into that "kit" to remove the thing. I'm still going to have to find a -5 for carry, but I also have a newer model (with IL) that was a gift. I just use it for target and play, but it would still be good to remove that silly gadget.
The "money trail" is the thing that confuses me. S&W or whoever must have known they would be throwing away essentially all law enforcement and military support by going to that lock. Makes you wonder why they would voluntarily alienate 99% of their professional clients. Very strange. Event he company that invented the stupid thing. Why try to flog something if in the end it's going to lose you money.
The "money trail" is the thing that confuses me. S&W or whoever must have known they would be throwing away essentially all law enforcement and military support by going to that lock. Makes you wonder why they would voluntarily alienate 99% of their professional clients. Very strange. Event he company that invented the stupid thing. Why try to flog something if in the end it's going to lose you money.
Broker50
Member
1972, part of it is the hardware company that bought S&W is a "lock" company. As someone once said "when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail". The new SWHC has made some terrible business decisions, IMHO, including but not limited to the IL, offering only round butt frames , etc. The RB only makes no sense at all to me, I can't prove it but I believe 85-90% of those buying 4" or longer barrel revolvers would rather have square butt (look at all the pics here of conversion grips), no they're not the same as having a real square butt revolver. They've tried to get in the long gun business mfg overseas, while they seem determined to NOT build handguns the public actually wants to buy. I am a former stockholder of SWHC, no more.
I hear you. I guess that's what I was thinking as well. I mean if you are in the hand gun business, why in heck would you deliberatly build something you KNOW the people you want as customers don't like. Makes no sense. Theymust have some real morons running that outfit.
stantheman86
US Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,479
- Reaction score
- 531
I have one of the first IL revolvers, a 64-7 made in 2001.......for what that's worth
Don't think of it as a lock, think of it as an oil and Action Blaster hole after you remove it
Don't think of it as a lock, think of it as an oil and Action Blaster hole after you remove it
one eye joe
US Veteran
1972, THIS OLD SOLDIER IS WITH YOU.........
bk43
Member
That's because there is none. There never have been any royalties, payments, use of the patent, etc. issues involved with this deal. Which is logical if you think about it...why would a company pay royalties to itself? DUH, I don't think so.
Any money that changed hands with S&W had to do with stock and warrants. Although you might consider the IL to be a related issue to some transfers there is no direct quid pro quo.
Bob
Similar threads
- Locked
