I'd take a new GP-100 (or Redhawk) over a new S&W L-frame (or N-frame) but I'd take a pre-lock S&W over either. And for the folks who are so adamant on their superior moral high ground... it's not about the lock and it's not about the politics. The lock is simply a dead giveaway-like a neon light saying that it's a much newer MIM-filled revolver that simply doesn't arrive in my hands as as much gun for my money.
I owned one lock revolver and it was okay, but didn't rival any of the ones I've kept. I've seen a very good friend come up with a handful of lock revolvers and each of them is, IMO, inferior in double action trigger execution, every one of them. (the single action seems quite good...but I rarely shoot a DA revolver in single action)
As to the lock itself, it's almost hard to believe that Taurus implemented and executed a BETTER system for the same result than Smith & Wesson could manage. S&W should be embarrassed.
I'll also admit that like MANY folks, I'm nostalgic. Things from my formative years will nearly always hold a special attraction for me. So I love Smith & Wesson revolvers built from the early to late 1980's. They look and feel right to me. Earlier ones are terrific -- and later ones simply don't interest me nearly as much. And S&W revolvers with the ILS? They don't interest me at all.
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.