Write to S&W! Maybe they'll change something.

[Wildpony]

Mod's if this is inapropriate for some reason please feel free to remove the thread. But I just thought it might be time that S&W heard from the people who want to buy their products.

I spent a little time writing a letter to S&W concerning their lock and my objections to it. Whether your objections are technical or cosmetic please send S&W an email and maybe we, as the consumers can actually take back a part of the industry and influence them to remove or modify the lock to one that is less obtrusive or maybe even potentially removable like the Taurus design.

Maybe if they hear from enough of us then something will change for the better. I'd even buy stock in S&W in anticipation of what I believe would be a boom in their revolver sales department if they would stop drilling holes in the side of their guns.

The new 642 with no lock is at least a glimmer of hope. Lets join together to petition them to at least give us the choice of whether we want it there or not.

 

[Crazy K38]

that is a good idea but we need more than just the few of us that read this, for them to spend money to remove the lock it would take a TON of people

 

[Wildpony]

I could be wrong but, the way I see it, they are actually only spending money to put it on there. They are simply adding machining processes and adding parts. It would actually be cheaper for them not to have it and it's not like they have to do any reverse research and development to make the fire control group run without the lock. It already works fine without it. It wasn't broke before they fixed it.

You are right, a lot more than a few of us need to read this to do anything about it. Maybe we should Sticky this thread or something like it to give everyone a chance to chime in and let S&W know that we would at least like to have the choice not to have the lock. And it might just also motivate people to write more letters.

Chances are though that as soon as they see the word lock in an email they just delete it and ignore it and have done that to a mountain of requests. But maybe somehow if they got swamped by requests, or even having to read request just long enough to decide to delete them, it would make an impact.

S&W really is badly missing the pulse of their consumers here. Whether you can tolerate the lock or not, I have found very few users who actually like it and most wish it wasn't there because its ugly and they never want to use it anyway.

 

[stantheman86]

Yes

S&W themselves are no fan of the "lawyer lock" but they feel they must put it on there due to whatever legal logic the beancounters and lawyers tell them.

I would guess for them one or two saved lawsuits from an accidental shooting where they can say "hey it's got a lock" is worth it for them to add it in.

As long as the lock in my 64-7 does not engage while I am shooting, I have no problem with it. I, like many of us, own enough older Smiths that I am not bothered by the lock and am content just not to ever use it on my 64-7. I fired mine today and it shot and functioned beautufully, as well as any of my other S&W's. I bought mine used as a shooter so a hole in the side isn't a big deal.

Now, I do object to their "re-introductions" with the lock, I mean a "new" Model 29 with the IL is just a sin.

 

[Vulcan Bob]

Thats a good idea, couldent hurt. I think I shall, I have three concerns with the new ones, one, get rid of the lock, two, get rid of the frame mounted fireing pin on the center fires and last, open thier own wood shop to make thier own grips/stocks. With the prices of the new ones they should turn out better revovers than currently offered.

 

[H Richard]

I do not totally object to a lock on a handgun, but what I object to is the location and aesthetics of the current lock. (And possibly the failure rate if on a carry/defense gun).

Other manufacturers have built in locks that are nearly invisible and just as secure. Especially Ruger where in some models you have to remove the grips to see it.

If S&W would redesign the placement of their lock, and make sure of utter reliability, I think it would much improve their marketability.

 

[DonD]

get rid of the frame mounted fireing pin on the center fires.

What's the issue here other than nostalgia? I believe S&W has used the frame mounted pin for better performance with high pressure cartridges. Could be wrong, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am.

Wonder too if the hammer block would be functional with the hammer mounted pin. Don

 

[JTA]

I would also like to write to them to bring back certain models, like the 65 with a 3 inch barrel. I am sure that the lock is CYA situation, but if enough people write to complain, I think a smart company would at least offer more lock free option (like they are doing now with some J-frames).

 

[4inch357]

The only thing that would get their attention is if everyone just stopped buying the lock guns. That is how I have been protesting them.

 

[blueknight7]

If govt. agencies would go back to wheel guns, the lock would disappear. Anyway, on agency purchased weapons, it would. Can you see the turmoil that would be caused if a one man dept. officer faced a suspect in a lethal confrontation, and the lock, somehow tied up the weapon. Or, it was left locked, when the officer walked out the door, forgetting to unlock it? The news media would have a heyday on that one, contridicting everything they had been howling about, for decades.