What is the "Lock" on S&W revolvers

[monk d]

For quite a while now I have been reading about the 'lock' on later S&W revolvers and not many seem to be happy about them at all, and some don't seem to care one way or the other.

Can you tell me what it is, what it does, why is it considered detrimental, and so forth?

[cslinger]

INCOMING!!!!!!!!

----Small keyhole on left side of frame above cylinder latch.
----designed to lock the gun action should you wish to leave it unattended.
----you SHOULD NEVER leave a gun unattended or unsecured so why the hell do I need a lock, but I digress.
----Undeniably ugly
----Verifiable instances of it locking under heavy recoil. Not the best design. Probably less likely than any other common failure but it is a part not necessary in the first place.
----Legal baggage as far as why it was put there in the first place. S&W playing footsies with the Clinton admin.
----Did I mention ugly on what should be very pretty revolvers.

All in all probably much ado about not much but most of us hate em.

[lamarw]

The lock is seen on the left side of the frame of newer S&W revolvers just above the cylinder release. It is intended as an internal lock to prevent the revolver from firing. It uses a key which can deactivate the firearm to keep children and others from accidentally and/or intentionally firing the gun.

The hatred of some is due to the appearance of the hole for the lock, and the claim by many that when unlocked the lock can possibly slip into the locked position. This would disable the firearm when needed at a critical time. There are stories of it locking up especially with larger caliber firearms with heavier recoil during firing.

There are other manufacturers who also use similar intended locks. An example is some Bersa semi-auto pistols. I am sure there are others.

If you search the internet you will find procedure to deactivate the locking mechanism and even a plug sold to fill the hole which is an eye-sore to many avid S&W fans. Many even find the plug a damnation.

[CajunBass]

I've never seen where it's any uglier than any other pin or screw in the side of the gun. As a matter of fact, some older S&W's have a pin in just about the same place. Of course if you think it's ugly, well, you just think it's ugly and I won't try to change your mind.

The rest of the stuff has been hashed over so much I won't even bother. I've owned and still own guns with and without it. I can't think of a practical use for it, but won't jump off a bridge over it.

[monk d]

No I am not a troller in spite of my low post count. Over the years I have had two 686s, a 19, and now my wife has a 65-2. All of these were/are older I guess, not sure when they started putting them on, my first 686 was bought in the mid to late 90s I guess that would be the newest one.

I remember a while back when S&W sold to a foreign (I think it was French) company, late 80s to early 90s maybe, and for a long time I would not consider buying one. I had my 19 then and it was the only wheel gun I owned at the time

The thing that concerns me is the verifiable lock ups during heavy recoil that was mentioned. The whole reason for asking was that I was thinking about getting either a new 686 357 or a newer 44 mag. I had a Ruger Vaquero in 44 mag and it beat me up, but I have smallish hands and can't handle the N Frame. I a guy I know has a model 29 (in excellent shape) in 44 mag with a 10 5/8 inch barrel for $750 and I was considering getting that and having the barrel cut down to 6 inches. I am not sure of the frame on that, maybe L, but it fits fairly well with the grips he has on it.

Just to add info, all of mine were used except the one 686 I bought new in the late 90s. it had a 2 1/2 inch barrel and with full power loads it beat my wife up too bad so it did not last long in the line up. The 65 we bought last year at a gun show, probably made in the early 80s, I think it was a former police gun, 4 inch barrel and shoots great

[Wishoot]

Takes all of 15 minutes to remove the lock if you are so inclined. The hole is still there of course, but a worthless safety mechanism that has the potential to cause a serious failure is gone.

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by monk d

The thing that concerns me is the verifiable lock ups during heavy recoil that was mentioned.

AFAIK, there have been very few actual verified lock-ups, and those few have been with lightweight guns chambered in heavy-recoiling cartridges. The vast majority of "reports" are merely second-hand accounts that've been re-told so many times the truth behind them is dubious at best. The Lock should be a non-issue with with a 686 or 29, but, as others point out, it's easily removed if it concerns you.

[Real Gun]

I have The Plug installed in 7 guns. I don't plan to buy any more, as if I needed any, but that alone should not stop someone from buying a gun with a lock.

You have to admit that continued hate mongering over the lock system does a nice job of elevating prices on older pre-lock models.

[9x19]

The lock also required a change to the contour of the rear of the frame behind the cylinder... not drastic, but noticeable to old folks like me.

[cslinger]

Honestly even though it has happened I would argue that you are just as likely if not more so to have other action component fail or the cylinder being out of spec or any number of other issues that could render the gun inoperable. That Said I do hate the damn things.

Also as was said it's fairly trivial to remove the mechanism or alter the locking flag etc. if you so desire.

If they produced what you want before the lock or produce a model without it I would probably go that route myself. If not then I wouldn't sweat it that much as they're are plenty of things to go wrong in the lock work that nobody worries about on a regular basis.

[Skans]

Basically it's a tiny little hole near the cylinder latch. Not even 1/1000th as ugly or intrusive as the grip safety on 1911's and similar guns. No 1/100th as hideous as the chamber-indicator on a Ruger LC9. Nor, 1/10th as annoying as the trigger dingus on Glocks and Glock-a-likes.

The bottom line - People just don't the internal S&W lock on principal; and I can't really blame them for that. It is still basically useless junk on a double-action revolver even though not nearly as intrusive as the other horrendous safety devices mentioned above.

[44 AMP]

Some people don't like the idea of a lock, on general principle. For a lot of us, the lock on S&W revolvers is particularly onerous.

In some circles, its known as the "Hillary Hole".

Basically, the Clinton Administration had a list of features and business practices they wanted to see on handguns. A lock. Loaded chamber indicator. Magazine disconnect. Hidden serial#s. These were to be included in new gun designs, and any that could be, should be applied to existing gun designs .

Their "deal" also included a bunch of other restrictions about how the guns could be sold at retail, even including language to bar minors from even being there, etc.

What they offered the gunmakers was, that, if they went along with the deal, the gunmaker would be immune to the pending lawsuits from the various City Mayors groups. AND, they hinted at preferential treatment for the gunmakers's products if future purchase contracts (something that they couldn't do, in effect, a lie to the gunmakers).

S&W was owned, at the time, by Thompkins LLC, a British holding company. THEY decided S&W would be the first on the Clinton's bandwagon. SO, we got the Hillary Hole.

As it turned out, S&W was the ONLY gunmaker to get onboard with the Clinton deal.

S&W shooters, who love the classic look of the S&W line suddenly got not only a stupid, unneeded hole, but also a drastic change in the look of the cylinder latch as well, which "spoils" things. AND, WE DIDN"T GET AN OPTION, or a VOICE in the matter. It was "lock models only, take it or leave it."

And a LOT of us left it. S&W sales tanked. Their stock dropped hugely, and Thompkins LLC wound up selling S&W for a LOSS!

Sadly for the purists, the people who bought S&W were heavily involved in that lock as well, and it was kept. I think S&W should offer identical guns with, and without that lock for a few years, and let the market decide which ones to keep, but that's just me...

I'm not opposed to having a lock built in (provided it can be ignored), I've got a Ruger with a lock in it, and its of no concern to me at all. But the Hilary Hole S&W lock was just such an "in your face" insult to not only our sense of style and history, but our right to free choice as well, that I cannot, and will not forgive it.

Personally, I think you are an idiot if you USE a lock on a loaded gun. Internal or aftermarket. And an unloaded gun is not dangerous.

Lock up (secure) guns IN something,, I'm fine with that. But don't lock a loaded gun.

[RickB]

I've never had an issue with the lock, but I did have to return the gun to S&W due to a large crack in the trigger.
I'm in the camp that dislikes the lock, but don't really think it does much harm to the gun's overall reliability.

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

S&W shooters, who love the classic look of the S&W line suddenly got not only a stupid, unneeded hole, but also a drastic change in the look of the cylinder latch as well, which "spoils" things.

<psssst>...the cylinder release latch was changed to the new design (a functional improvement, IMO) before The Lock was introduced.

[g.willikers]

The lock failure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsIWXd_9xPE
The explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzKh5Y0TaY0
How to remove it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVPYgohVCNM

[bedbugbilly]

Just remember . . . Smiths are not the only handguns with locks . . .

A lot of folks get bent out of shape over them . . . I do have some that have a lock but I just ignore them - never had a problem with any of them. Ruger, Bersa, Smith, etc.

To each their own . .. that's what makes the world go around!

[monk d]

thanks guys. I totally appreciate the info. There is a lot of good stuff here. I have heard the lock referred to here and on other forums with mostly negative implications.

I guess my concern is if I were carrying in the woods where potential dangerous game was, in my neck of the woods it would be black bears, possibly a two-legged predator, and I had to draw down and the darn lock "locked up" for some reason I would be in a pickle, which unfortunately, I could NOT shove into the Hillary hole. Not that any pickle I have on a more permanent basis would ever be guided in that direction intentionally. 'Scuse me while I throw up at the thought

My EDC is a 1911 and has been for 21 years, but I like the idea of a wheel gun for the woods and I thought I would like to upgrade to a 44 mag. I have never hunted in the Northwest, but I understand the potential of brown bears, and I hope to get out that way for elk one day soon. Not getting any younger

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by monk d

I guess my concern is if I were carrying in the woods where potential dangerous game was, in my neck of the woods it would be black bears, possibly a two-legged predator, and I had to draw down and the darn lock "locked up" for some reason I would be in a pickle

If you're going to worry about that, it'd only be fair and helpful to think about revolver reliability in general, a point cslinger eluded to above (and quoted below). There are many things that can (and do) take a revolver out of commission, and happen much more frequently than The Lock has ever shown to, yet most don't give them a second thought. Use good ammo, keep your gun clean and lubed, all things threaded tight, and your Dremel away from it, and you're highly unlikely to ever have an issue. That's true for a new and vintage revolvers alike.

Originally Posted by cslinger

I wouldn't sweat it that much as they're are plenty of things to go wrong in the lock work that nobody worries about on a regular basis.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I only own one S&W with the lock, a Model 617-6 that shipped in 2003. I only bought it as a lark, I was shooting a steel plate match at the time and I needed to put 8 rounds on target in 15 seconds. Couldn't do that with my six shot Model 17-3.

Here is what the lock looks like from the outside. The key fits into the hole to lock or unlock the gun. I don't think I even have the key, I have left the lock disengaged.






Here is what the parts look like on the inside.





Here is a photo of my Model 17-3 that was made in 1975. It is a classic S&W K frame revolver. This is the gun the 617 is based on.





If you look carefully, in this photo of the 617 you can see the profile of the frame near the hammer has been altered to add the parts of the lock.



Personally I have no issue with the lock because I have no desire to own anything made recently by S&W. I'm one of those snobs who only likes the classics. Not interested in guns with locks and MIM parts. This Model 617 is probably the only modern Smith I will ever own.

[monk d]

Yes I see the difference in the frame, less curved. It's also the first time I have noticed the lock. I have not owned one with the lock. So the point is to load the gun, then lock it so nobody can snatch it or a child can't inadvertently get it and fire it. How stupid is that. You get pulled into a situation, then have to find the key, unlock it, and only then you go to work. Wow.

My kids are grown and grew up with guns, and still have respect. They knew if they went near anything without my permission or knowledge and I found out about it, they would be skinned alive, same respect my dad taught me and my brother

Sorry I must have been living under a rock, at least when it comes to this. I mean I knew it existed but never paid attention. I am no novice, I have a fair collection/variety, mostly long guns, only four handguns, but it is still growing

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by monk d

Yes I see the difference in the frame, less curved.

I realize both guns in DJ's post are 22s with frame-mounted firing pins, but be aware that part of the difference in curvature on CF guns is the result of switching from a hammer-mounted firing pin to a frame-mounted firing pin, which necessitated additional room at the top of the curve to fit. Like the cylinder release, this switch happened before The Lock was introduced.

At any rate, one doesn't have to use The Lock. I don't know anyone who does. Just keep the gun as clean and maintained as any pre-lock gun, and it'll run as reliably.

[James K]

That lock, to put it mildly, sure aroused some hard feelings, including vicious rants and death threats. Things seem to have died down now, but not long ago I read yet another ridiculous story about thousands of people killed when their S&W's locked up.

Jim

[tipoc]

From 44 AMP:

S&W was owned, at the time, by Thompkins LLC, a British holding company. THEY decided S&W would be the first on the Clinton's bandwagon. SO, we got the Hillary Hole.

This information is incorrect.

In 1999 S&W, owned by the British owned Tompkins, was losing a good deal of money on their revolvers. Bob Scott, a vice president of business development at S&W pushed the idea of installing locks in their revolvers. In 1999 he resigned and joined a holding company called Saf-T-Hammer. In the following years it developed an internal hammer for S&W revolvers. The company had no production facilities only an office and money from investors and an inside track at S&W. It was formed with the intention of producing locks for S&W revolvers and other safety products.

In 2000 S&W entered into an agreement with the Clinton Administration:

On March 17, 2000, Smith & Wesson made an agreement with US President Bill Clinton under which it would implement changes in the design and distribution of its firearms in return for "preferred buying program" to offset the loss of revenue as a result of anticipated boycott.[7] The agreement stated that all authorized dealers and distributors of Smith & Wesson's products had to abide by a “code of conduct” to eliminate the sale of firearms to prohibited persons, dealers had to agree to not allow children under 18 access, without an adult, to gun shops or sections of stores that contained firearms.[7]

As expected, thousands of retailers and tens of thousands of firearms consumers boycotted Smith & Wesson.[8]

There was a boycott of S&W after the agreement was signed.

In Jan. 20th 2001 William Jefferson Clinton left office.

In March 2001 Tompkins sold S&W for a low price to Saf-T-Hammer. Saf-T-Hammer's President was Bob Scott. Saf-T-Hammer was created to buy S&W and install locks in guns.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Smith+......-a057591283

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/st...COVIDIEN%20PLC

In 2001 the first guns with internal locks were sold.

The truth is that Clinton was out of office and Tompkins no longer owned S&W so no agreement between them was in place. Hillary Clinton had no role in any of this at any time.

Tompkins and the Clinton administration are partly to blame. But mostly it was because money could be made by the owners of S&W by putting locks on the guns. Hillary Clinto did not force them to.

However the new owners of S&W would install the locks and make money.

Robert "Bob" Scott became a vice President at S&W again.

You can read some of the many articles published on this at the time:

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/s...14/daily1.html

http://hunting.about.com/library/weekly/aa010515.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_...nton_agreement

tipoc

[Skans]

Would I rather have a S&W without the lock? Yes. Would I also rather have a 1911 without the grip safety? Yes and double yes! The bottom line is that the "Hillary Hole" is less intrusive (to me anyway) than a big fat grip safety squirming in the web of my hand. I don't have to touch the Hillary Hole....if I don't want to.

[Frankly]

Verifiable instances of it locking under heavy recoil.

If memory serves, this whole thing got started by someone with an ax to grind who speculated that it could happen. The rumor mill quickly escalated that to it did happen. Influenced by the snowballing myth, folks who'd forgotten they'd locked their guns began swearing up and down that it had indeed happened to them. At some point, S&W felt the pressure and tested to see whether they could even make it happen. As I recall, they couldn't.

Let's just agree the lock is ugly and leave it at that.