The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 13, 2013, 11:50 PM   #51
Frasier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2011
Posts: 190
I have two of the newer S&W revolvers, the Model 21 & 22 Classics. I bought them simply because I liked them. The classic lines of these revolvers have a certain nostalgic charm. Both are tack drivers and I sure wished my Beretta 92 could hit with the same accuracy as my Smiths.
Do I like the lock? Nope, but I really love the look and feel of revolvers enough that they were worth every penny and have no regrets whatsoever about buying them and would do so again.
Frasier is offline  
Old May 14, 2013, 12:04 AM   #52
AID_Admin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 1, 2013
Location: Midwest, USA
Posts: 323
Anyone actually LIKES the lock?!

Funny how when this tread started and the moderator said to expect "rant-and-rage sessions" I thought this is going to be a fight of two groups -pro and -against. But so far we are on the page three I haven't seen one singe post stating "Yes, I have the lock and I like it. I find it useful and well worth it." Even the most experienced and calm members say something like "It doesn't bother me, there are other parts of the gun I am concerned more with."

So, is there anybody out there who would actually prefer to have a gun with a lock rather than the one without just for the sake of lock?!
AID_Admin is offline  
Old May 14, 2013, 06:46 AM   #53
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 2,077
I'd rather not have the billboards on the barrels of my Rugers, but it didn't stop me from buying them. When Remington came out with the key lock on their trigger guard it did not stop me from buyin' them. Same goes for the lock on my S&Ws. Some models and calibers were not produced before the locks came out. If you want one, you take 'em with the hole. Some folks spend too much time lookin' at their guns from the side and not from the back.
buck460XVR is online now  
Old May 16, 2013, 12:39 AM   #54
Cosmodragoon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2013
Location: Vermont
Posts: 252
I've owned and currently own S&W guns but no revolvers yet. I ordered a 686 Plus Pro a while back but who knows when it will show up. I gritted my teeth and bore the lock because in every other way, this was my ideal .357. We'll see if it ever fails but is that really the issue we've all got with it?

Of course, a locking fail could mean the difference between life and death. Even if it is less likely than being struck by lightning, it's the fact that they gave us a raincoat with an antenna in the first place. The cons should be obvious to anyone, with or without an engineering degree. In most cases, every added part or step is an added chance for failure. This is true of the assembly within a firearm which, like the frame of your house or car, hinges life and safety on structural and operational integrity. I compare the lock to taking main support beams for your house, sawing them down the middle, and reattaching them with folded hinges. So, why did they do it? What purpose does it serve? Has anyone on this forum ever used it?

Aesthetically, it is more than just an eyesore in itself. An earlier poster hit the nail on the head when they noted the location. The ugly hole and directional printing is crammed up against an otherwise attractive moving part. Even if the above argument fails, how hard was it to put this in a discrete location?

It also must increase the cost of production as it is an extra feature. What philosophy of business says that increasing the cost of production while saddling customers with something they don't want is good?

After saying all that, it might seem silly that I've ordered one. It was months ago and I honestly wasn't thinking too deeply on the lock when I placed the order. The other thing is that I haven't seen any other current production .357 that I like better. So, we'll see how it goes.

In the mean time, there may be some positive news. I was talking with a customer service guy at S&W. He said that they are aware of customer sentiment and that future revolvers are likely to move away from the lock. He suggested I check out the 442 Moonclip with no lock that's in current production. Maybe when the gun budget recovers--if I haven't been mauled by a bear with a locked-up gun in my hand before then--I'll pick one up.
Cosmodragoon is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 04:17 AM   #55
kcub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2010
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2,020
The whole company's line of products are dead to me until they get rid of the stupid locks, autos, rifles and all.
kcub is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 11:03 AM   #56
carprivershooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2008
Location: Michigan, Upper Pennsula
Posts: 396
no big deal

I own 3 686s with the internal lock. Do I use them? No. Do I mind the little whole in the frame? no. Will I not buy another Smith & Wesson? Yes. Just because a gun has a lock does not mean it will fail just at the exact moment you need it, hell any gun could fail at the exact moment you need it. No tool is 100% fool proof and not break. The internal lock just does not matter one way or the other. I have shoot hot load through mine rapid fire and all I got was a sore hand and shoulder.
__________________
CarpriverShOOter
Finch, I don't like guns. Reese, Me either but if someone has to have guns I'd rather it be me. (Person of Interest).
No trees were destroyed in the posting of the this message
carprivershooter is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 11:40 AM   #57
mlcompound
Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2012
Posts: 33
Re: S&W lock

I have never had a problem with a 637 airweight (when i had it). I locked it a couple times just to see how it worked. I have also never had a problem withy pre lock model 60. Although, I have had several rounds of factory ammunition fail to fire (heavy primer strike and all). Therefore, I refuse to buy any new ammunition manufactured before the date of the first round that failed.
mlcompound is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 12:11 PM   #58
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,482
S&W has never admitted that the lock ever failed by locking up from recoil, but they very quietly changed the lock so it can't do what it didn't do.

I never use the lock, but then I have no small children or unauthorized persons in the house, so I see no problems. Still, I can see situations where its use would be appropriate. Oddly, it seems the heat on locks has been directed at S&W, while locks by Ruger, Taurus and others have been ignored.

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 12:32 PM   #59
Grant D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Location: Brazos County, Texas
Posts: 792
I have seven Smith and Wesson snub's, five without, two with locks,I have no problem with them.
Grant D is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 06:19 PM   #60
kcub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2010
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2,020
I've had handguns and small children.
You need a button combination safe, not a lock on the gun.
kcub is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 07:51 PM   #61
Cosmodragoon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2013
Location: Vermont
Posts: 252
James K, as I noted above regarding aesthetics, think on where Ruger or Taurus put their locks. It is in a more discrete location. So while it may present the same small increase in risk, it is out of sight and out of mind for most of us.

Speaking of aesthetics, buck460XVR is right about the Ruger barrel billboard. While possibly less damning than the visible lock, it is both ugly and stupid. Why blemish something of such value with something so ridiculous?

I don't own a Ruger revolver but I've been considering one. General advice seems to be that they all benefit from a trip to the smith when you first get them. Couldn't all that nonsense be buffed out or something?
Cosmodragoon is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 12:28 PM   #62
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,482
Ruger put on that "billboard" under a court-ordered settlement; had they not done so, the suit could have bankrupted the company. So you might consider that the choice would be a Ruger with the markings or no Rugers at all, ever. You can be irate over our "justice" system but you can either work to change the system or you can move to another country.

S&W was also under legal pressure from the Clinton administration, which was trying to shut them down; part of the agreement was a lock. Even though S&W is under new management, the company still is legally obligated to carry out their agreement. Whether S&W did it the best way is arguable, but at least its use doesn't involve removing the grips. And we can still buy S&W's.

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 08:16 PM   #63
Cosmodragoon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2013
Location: Vermont
Posts: 252
I wasn't familiar with the back story on these features but aggressive, immoral, and unconstitutional regulation on so many levels has retarded the market and saddled us with problems like these. James K raised the best point of the thread. All of us should be actively engaged in defending our rights and the market that relies upon them.

There are a number of good organizations working on this that would love to have your help. Some do it through lobbying the officials in office now. Others, such as the John Birch Society, focus on educating and organizing the electorate that votes for them. Either way, it takes serious effort and long-term dedication to stop the "progress" of those trying to violate our rights. It takes even more to undo the damage they've already done.
Cosmodragoon is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 08:39 PM   #64
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,482
"I wasn't familiar with the back story on these features..." It does help to understand the reasons for actions, even if we don't agree with the result.

One thing that won't help is boycotting the companies, telling everyone not to buy their products, or making terrorist threats against S&W as one nutcase on another site did.

The first duty of any company to its owners or share holders is to stay in business and make a profit. Both S&W and Ruger did that. I wish it were not necessary to bow to pressure from the loony fringe antis, but we cannot always have the world as we want it.

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 08:50 PM   #65
pete2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 813
I own 3 late model S&W with the lock. One is an Airweight .38+P. No problem with the lock in any of them. The overall quality of the newer guns is not as good as the older guns with the firing pins on the hammer. The quality seems to have started downhill when they quit pinning the bbls. They are still my favorite revolver even tho you may have to do a little work on them, even send it back for warranty work. Nothing like a Smith. I wouldn't worry about the lock.
pete2 is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 09:18 PM   #66
redrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 829
I think they should make all of their models with the option of lock or no lock like they do with some of the J frame models. Then I might buy a new S&W again.
redrick is offline  
Old May 18, 2013, 04:32 PM   #67
North East Redneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2012
Location: Berkshire Hills
Posts: 504
I have a 442 with the lock. Never touched the lock, never will. I don't like it being there. But overall I'm not to worried about it failing. I've shot plenty of +P through the gun. No problems yet.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Goal Member
SAF Member
North East Redneck is online now  
Old May 18, 2013, 05:02 PM   #68
cookie5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 1, 2011
Posts: 201
The lock assembly has a tit that stops the hammer. You can take the lock parts off grind the tit off and reassemble the lock parts and the lock will not be a problem. I do that to all my S@W revolvers with the lock. You can't beat S@W or Ruger revolvers for the value for the dollar.
cookie5 is offline  
Old May 18, 2013, 08:21 PM   #69
Dave T
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2000
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 1,143
In my first post on this thread I said:

Quote:
There have been claims that the ultra-light guns with the plug have locked up when maximum loads are fired through them.
I meant to say "...ultra-light guns with the IL...". Obviously guns with the plug can't lock up. Sorry if that confused anyone. It was confusing to me when I re-read it a little while ago.

Dave
__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD Ret
Dave T is offline  
Old May 18, 2013, 08:53 PM   #70
spaniel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2008
Posts: 189
I don't doubt the people who claim they have had a gun with the lock, lock up.

The lock is dumb.

I own a 329PD with a lock, which should be the worst offender. I can say that with near-max loads and 240gr bullets, I have had zero issues.
spaniel is offline  
Old May 19, 2013, 07:39 AM   #71
HKGuns
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2005
Location: Bora Bora
Posts: 886
Quote:
First of all, most of us don't have them.
Baloney. I own both types.
HKGuns is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12783 seconds with 9 queries