Lock in Smith and Wesson revolvers

charlesc · March 5, 2014, 10:47 PM

what exactly is this lock in Smith and Wesson revolvers? what problems does/can it cause? why did they put it there? Why is there no lock in other revolvers?
edit - post should have been in revolvers section, please move it there. thanks

orionengnr · March 5, 2014, 11:09 PM

This has been discussed ad nauseum.
Search is your friend.

Webleymkv · March 6, 2014, 03:34 AM

Because this has been discussed at such great length, I'll give the abridged version: The internal lock is a mechanism built into most newer (2001-date) S&W handguns which, when activated with a provided key, disables the action of the gun and prevents it from firing. While present in both revolvers and semi-automatic pistols, the revolver version seems to be the most controversial. A lock-equipped revolver can be easily recognized because of the small keyhole just above the thumbpiece.

The lock itself was born in controversy and continues to be a point of contention with many people today. A locking mechanism of some sort was part of the infamous "Agreement of 2000" that S&W under their previous owners, Tomkins PLC, entered into the Clinton Administration with though the lock that S&W actually incorporated does not technically meet the terms of the agreement since they do not use individualized keys (a key from one ILS S&W will work in any other). The lock was not actually incorporated by Tomkins, but rather by the subsequent owner, Saf-T-Hammer, to whom Tomkins sold S&W at a considerable loss due in no small part to the fallout from the Clinton agreement.

Some people continue to view the lock as the product of the Clinton Agreement and thus dislike it because they consider it a "sellout" to gun control advocates and thus resent what it represents. Still others dislike the lock because they feel that it detracts from the aesthetics of S&W handguns. Both of those views cannot really be argued because they are purely matters of personal opinion and taste.

The largest point of contention about the lock, however, is to what degree, if any, it affects the reliability of the gun. There have been a very small number of documented cases in which the lock has caused the action of the gun to seize up under recoil without being intentionally activated by the shooter. While the number of documented cases is quite small, there are many more cases of claimed "auto lock" which cannot be verified. Some claim that "auto locks" are fairly common while others, myself included, believe that they are very rare and isolated incidents and not frequent enough to be concerned with.

Another point often made by detractors of the lock is that, even if "auto lock" is exceedingly rare, the fact that it is a non-zero probability is unacceptable and therefore ILS guns should be either avoided or have their locks disabled if they are to be used for "serious" purposes like self-defense. Others, myself included, contend that the incidence of "auto lock" is, in fact, so rare that it is no more likely to cause a S&W handgun to malfunction than any of the other parts which could potentially be broken or defective.

As a final word of caution, I warn you that discussions about the ILS frequently become less-than-civil. More often than not, discussions about the lock digress to the point that childish invectives like "Safey Wesson," "Smith & Clinton," or "Hillary Hole" are thrown about and people are accused to being "apologists" for their view. That's not to say that you can't or shouldn't discuss the issue, just be aware that some who will likely join the discussion won't be reserved or polite about expressing their opinions.

**44 AMP** · March 6, 2014, 01:22 PM

A very good summation, Webley.

Quote:

Some people continue to view the lock as the product of the Clinton Agreement and thus dislike it because they consider it a "sellout" to gun control advocates and thus resent what it represents. Still others dislike the lock because they feel that it detracts from the aesthetics of S&W handguns.

This is the camp I'm in. While I was quite bothered at the time, and still today am slightly irked about it, for me, its the combination of its history, and the "in your face" location of the lock itself that causes me the most dislike.

I'm also in the camp that thinks that a lock in a gun is foolish, and requiring one by law or govt fiat is detestable.

I do not worry about the lock and don't object to a gun with a lock (which I won't be using) in a place that's not "in your face". The only one I have which does have a lock is a New Vaquero, and I think, if you are going to put one in the gun, that's the way to do it.

The hole in the sideplate, and the reshaping of the cylinder latch make the IL S&Ws look like crap to me. Just my opinion, but its strong enough that none of my money will be going for one of those guns, as long as I can get one without.

bedbugbilly · March 8, 2014, 12:46 PM

BOTH revolvers and semi-autos can have internal locks . . .

And not to be rude . . . but can someone please bury this poor horse? It's been beaten far too many times . . . .

**44 AMP** · March 8, 2014, 01:11 PM

Quote:

..but can someone please bury this poor horse?..

I'd gladly help shovel, but until S&W does something different with the IL it uses on revolvers, the corpse will stay above ground, and continue to stink.

Microgunner · March 8, 2014, 01:25 PM

I hold no such ill feelings concerning internal gun locks.
I have never purchased or not purchased a handgun based upon an internal lock.
It just plain means nothing to me, however, I have never engaged the lock on any handgun I own so equipped.
Two handguns I can think of off the top of my head that I own and are lock equipped: S&W 340PD and Springfield Armory EMP. Both are fine handguns.

salvadore · March 8, 2014, 04:07 PM

Evidently failure of the lock hasn't been a problem while in a SD mode or S&W would have been sued to bankruptcy. Right?

Webleymkv · March 9, 2014, 01:54 AM

Quote:

And not to be rude . . . but can someone please bury this poor horse? It's been beaten far too many times . . . .

The reason that the issue won't die is that, quite simply, there a some people who just like to complain about it. While I won't name names, there are a few people I can think of on this forum and others who seem to only post when they can bash current production S&W's. That being said, I should point out that the people I'm referring to haven't posted in this particular thread yet and everyone who's posted here thus far has shown an unusual degree of civility for a S&W lock thread.

GaryED50 · March 9, 2014, 02:27 AM

I mostly just ignore it.. Often forget its there

Gary

Real Gun · March 9, 2014, 10:12 AM

I think buyers of new production guns should be allowed some pride and enjoyment of ownership. The locks as a real problem are way overblown.

Doug S · March 9, 2014, 10:31 AM

I don't have a strong opinion about the gun locks, one way or another, but I do know that when I was a new gun buyer, the many gun forum lock debate threads, caused me (and probably still cause) a fair amount of "paranoia" in purchasing my first revolver. Just the thought of a self-defense gun locking up, gives me cause for concern, but with that said, I think the Internet magnifies the "possibility" of such an event many times more than is likely in reality. Kinda like Glock kabooms, low serial number Springfield receivers blowing up, MIM, etc., etc.

Obambulate · March 9, 2014, 05:22 PM

I just think the implementation of the lock by S&W was dumb, and they've had many years to rethink this design but chose to keep it.

Rugers have a lock, but you have to remove the grips to access it. Funny how nobody ever complains about the Ruger lock. That's because it's not in a dumb place that ruins the aesthetics.

Also, if a child picks up the locked S&W, it's obvious even to a little kid where the lock is, and that it requires a key. If he picks up the locked Ruger it's not so simple. He's got a gun where none of the controls work, and no obvious way to change that.

To S&W's credit, they have made some Centennial style J-frames without the lock. It does make for a much nicer looking gun. They should at least relocate the lock.

Nanuk · March 9, 2014, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Evidently failure of the lock hasn't been a problem while in a SD mode or S&W would have been sued to bankruptcy. Right?

The lock on mine broke

It just does not work anymore.

Microgunner · March 9, 2014, 06:05 PM

You're not supposed to remove the grips on a Ruger revolver to use the lock, you're supposed to remove the grip to drill an access hole that then allows permanent easy access to the lock.
This gives the owner the option of a usable lock or the appearance of no lock.

Real Gun · March 10, 2014, 09:12 AM

Quote:

I just think the implementation of the lock by S&W was dumb, and they've had many years to rethink this design but chose to keep it.

Rugers have a lock, but you have to remove the grips to access it. Funny how nobody ever complains about the Ruger lock. That's because it's not in a dumb place that ruins the aesthetics.

Also, if a child picks up the locked S&W, it's obvious even to a little kid where the lock is, and that it requires a key. If he picks up the locked Ruger it's not so simple. He's got a gun where none of the controls work, and no obvious way to change that.

To S&W's credit, they have made some Centennial style J-frames without the lock. It does make for a much nicer looking gun. They should at least relocate the lock.

But why do buttinsky people feel compelled to repeat this case over and over and over and...? Maybe they bemoan how it, among other factors, raised the prices of the older guns.

NotMeNotYou · March 10, 2014, 01:07 PM

Speaking for myself, I dislike Trigger/Magazine disconnects, a seemingly much earlier attempt to render a perfectly serviceable weapon useless.

gyvel · March 10, 2014, 01:30 PM

I bought a Smith & Wesson 1917 .45 ACP replica, and, although I'm not thrilled about the lock, what bothers me more after removing the sideplate is the absolute cheap look of all the cast parts Truthfully, they look like they belong in a cap pistol.

Anyway, having seen how the lock works, it's easy enough to disable it and plug the hole.

charlesc · March 10, 2014, 10:37 PM

how do you disable the lock?

Buzzcook · March 10, 2014, 11:13 PM

Quote:

how do you disable the lock?

Don't lock it.

Nickel Plated · March 11, 2014, 06:32 AM

I can understand the view of the matter as one of principle about S&W selling out to the Clintons. But that was then and this is now. Same as Ruger. As for the lock itself. It would not bother me one bit buying a gun with a lock. No, I don't like it being there. That's why I disable it.

Quote:

how do you disable the lock?

Basically open the sideplate, remove the hammer and other internal parts to get to the lock. Then just remove all the parts associated with the lock. Voila, no lock. There's a place online that sells plugs to close the hole. Pre-finished to match some of the common S&W finishes

Here's a vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K7V4ev3Ti0

gyvel · March 11, 2014, 04:11 PM

Quote:

There's a place online that sells plugs to close the hole. Pre-finished to match some of the common S&W finishes

I had his link, but lost it. Would you by any chance, have it?

skidder · March 12, 2014, 02:02 AM

Quote:

I do not worry about the lock and don't object to a gun with a lock (which I won't be using) in a place that's not "in your face". The only one I have which does have a lock is a New Vaquero, and I think, if you are going to put one in the gun, that's the way to do it.

I agree with you on the lock location.

In case you didn't know this, Ruger does listen to their customers about the locks. I just purchased a 5109 New Vaquero with a 512 S/N and NO LOCK! I've heard this from others also.

Sarge · March 12, 2014, 04:57 AM

I find them disgusting, abhorrent and would never buy one... well maybe a 22-4, or a 637 like my wife just bought...

Excellent little airweight snub and yes, she'll likely have the lock neutered and plugged.

Airman Basic · March 12, 2014, 05:56 AM

Heck, prices as they are, I wish I could afford a Smith of any age!

March 5, 2014, 10:47 PM	#1
charlesc Senior Member Join Date: October 30, 2013 Posts: 128	Lock in Smith and Wesson revolvers what exactly is this lock in Smith and Wesson revolvers? what problems does/can it cause? why did they put it there? Why is there no lock in other revolvers? edit - post should have been in revolvers section, please move it there. thanks

March 8, 2014, 12:46 PM	#5
bedbugbilly Senior Member Join Date: November 19, 2009 Posts: 3,290	BOTH revolvers and semi-autos can have internal locks . . . And not to be rude . . . but can someone please bury this poor horse? It's been beaten far too many times . . . . __________________ If a pair of '51 Navies were good enough for Billy Hickok, then a single Navy on my right hip is good enough for me . . . besides . . . I'm probably only half as good as he was anyways. Hiram's Rangers Badge #63

March 9, 2014, 10:31 AM	#12
Doug S Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 2000 Posts: 745	I don't have a strong opinion about the gun locks, one way or another, but I do know that when I was a new gun buyer, the many gun forum lock debate threads, caused me (and probably still cause) a fair amount of "paranoia" in purchasing my first revolver. Just the thought of a self-defense gun locking up, gives me cause for concern, but with that said, I think the Internet magnifies the "possibility" of such an event many times more than is likely in reality. Kinda like Glock kabooms, low serial number Springfield receivers blowing up, MIM, etc., etc. Last edited by Doug S; March 9, 2014 at 10:50 AM.

March 12, 2014, 04:57 AM	#24
Sarge Senior Member Join Date: May 12, 2002 Location: MO Posts: 5,495	I find them disgusting, abhorrent and would never buy one... well maybe a 22-4, or a 637 like my wife just bought... Excellent little airweight snub and yes, she'll likely have the lock neutered and plugged. __________________ People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice.

March 5, 2014, 11:09 PM	#2
orionengnr Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2004 Posts: 5,213	This has been discussed ad nauseum. Search is your friend.

March 6, 2014, 03:34 AM	#3
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,610	Because this has been discussed at such great length, I'll give the abridged version: The internal lock is a mechanism built into most newer (2001-date) S&W handguns which, when activated with a provided key, disables the action of the gun and prevents it from firing. While present in both revolvers and semi-automatic pistols, the revolver version seems to be the most controversial. A lock-equipped revolver can be easily recognized because of the small keyhole just above the thumbpiece. The lock itself was born in controversy and continues to be a point of contention with many people today. A locking mechanism of some sort was part of the infamous "Agreement of 2000" that S&W under their previous owners, Tomkins PLC, entered into the Clinton Administration with though the lock that S&W actually incorporated does not technically meet the terms of the agreement since they do not use individualized keys (a key from one ILS S&W will work in any other). The lock was not actually incorporated by Tomkins, but rather by the subsequent owner, Saf-T-Hammer, to whom Tomkins sold S&W at a considerable loss due in no small part to the fallout from the Clinton agreement. Some people continue to view the lock as the product of the Clinton Agreement and thus dislike it because they consider it a "sellout" to gun control advocates and thus resent what it represents. Still others dislike the lock because they feel that it detracts from the aesthetics of S&W handguns. Both of those views cannot really be argued because they are purely matters of personal opinion and taste. The largest point of contention about the lock, however, is to what degree, if any, it affects the reliability of the gun. There have been a very small number of documented cases in which the lock has caused the action of the gun to seize up under recoil without being intentionally activated by the shooter. While the number of documented cases is quite small, there are many more cases of claimed "auto lock" which cannot be verified. Some claim that "auto locks" are fairly common while others, myself included, believe that they are very rare and isolated incidents and not frequent enough to be concerned with. Another point often made by detractors of the lock is that, even if "auto lock" is exceedingly rare, the fact that it is a non-zero probability is unacceptable and therefore ILS guns should be either avoided or have their locks disabled if they are to be used for "serious" purposes like self-defense. Others, myself included, contend that the incidence of "auto lock" is, in fact, so rare that it is no more likely to cause a S&W handgun to malfunction than any of the other parts which could potentially be broken or defective. As a final word of caution, I warn you that discussions about the ILS frequently become less-than-civil. More often than not, discussions about the lock digress to the point that childish invectives like "Safey Wesson," "Smith & Clinton," or "Hillary Hole" are thrown about and people are accused to being "apologists" for their view. That's not to say that you can't or shouldn't discuss the issue, just be aware that some who will likely join the discussion won't be reserved or polite about expressing their opinions.

March 8, 2014, 01:25 PM	#7
Microgunner Senior Member Join Date: March 6, 2006 Location: Central Florida Posts: 3,324	I hold no such ill feelings concerning internal gun locks. I have never purchased or not purchased a handgun based upon an internal lock. It just plain means nothing to me, however, I have never engaged the lock on any handgun I own so equipped. Two handguns I can think of off the top of my head that I own and are lock equipped: S&W 340PD and Springfield Armory EMP. Both are fine handguns.

March 8, 2014, 04:07 PM	#8
salvadore Junior member Join Date: January 1, 2007 Location: Idaho Posts: 2,282	Evidently failure of the lock hasn't been a problem while in a SD mode or S&W would have been sued to bankruptcy. Right?

March 9, 2014, 02:27 AM	#10
GaryED50 Senior Member Join Date: September 19, 2012 Location: Dawsonville Georgia Posts: 542	I mostly just ignore it.. Often forget its there Gary

March 9, 2014, 10:12 AM	#11
Real Gun Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: SC Posts: 2,743	I think buyers of new production guns should be allowed some pride and enjoyment of ownership. The locks as a real problem are way overblown.

March 9, 2014, 05:22 PM	#13
Obambulate Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2011 Posts: 582	I just think the implementation of the lock by S&W was dumb, and they've had many years to rethink this design but chose to keep it. Rugers have a lock, but you have to remove the grips to access it. Funny how nobody ever complains about the Ruger lock. That's because it's not in a dumb place that ruins the aesthetics. Also, if a child picks up the locked S&W, it's obvious even to a little kid where the lock is, and that it requires a key. If he picks up the locked Ruger it's not so simple. He's got a gun where none of the controls work, and no obvious way to change that. To S&W's credit, they have made some Centennial style J-frames without the lock. It does make for a much nicer looking gun. They should at least relocate the lock.

March 9, 2014, 06:05 PM	#15
Microgunner Senior Member Join Date: March 6, 2006 Location: Central Florida Posts: 3,324	You're not supposed to remove the grips on a Ruger revolver to use the lock, you're supposed to remove the grip to drill an access hole that then allows permanent easy access to the lock. This gives the owner the option of a usable lock or the appearance of no lock.

March 10, 2014, 01:07 PM	#17
NotMeNotYou Member Join Date: February 28, 2014 Posts: 73	Speaking for myself, I dislike Trigger/Magazine disconnects, a seemingly much earlier attempt to render a perfectly serviceable weapon useless.

March 10, 2014, 01:30 PM	#18
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	I bought a Smith & Wesson 1917 .45 ACP replica, and, although I'm not thrilled about the lock, what bothers me more after removing the sideplate is the absolute cheap look of all the cast parts Truthfully, they look like they belong in a cap pistol. Anyway, having seen how the lock works, it's easy enough to disable it and plug the hole.

March 10, 2014, 10:37 PM	#19
charlesc Senior Member Join Date: October 30, 2013 Posts: 128	how do you disable the lock?

March 12, 2014, 05:56 AM	#25
Airman Basic Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2013 Location: South of Interstate 20 Posts: 219	Heck, prices as they are, I wish I could afford a Smith of any age!