The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 6, 2025, 07:38 PM   #26
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,602
Quote:
I wonder how many posting here today actually know the history of the S&W lock?? Its been around 30 years now, and things get lost over time...
You make a good point. I found out I was off a bit. I wanted to solely blame the Clintons, but S&W had a bigger role.
Nathan is offline  
Old Yesterday, 01:02 AM   #27
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,051
Quote:
I wanted to solely blame the Clintons, but S&W had a bigger role.
You should blame the Clintons, and the British company (Thompkins LLC) that owned S&W at the time.

It wasn't that the people working at S&W making guns that wanted the lock, exactly, though they had the design and were considering it as an option, they were ordered to put it in all their revolvers by the British company that owned S&W. This was to comply with the Clinton "deal", which was an attempt to get gunmakers to voluntarily comply with a host of additional features to be incorporated into their guns (where possible) along with additional restrictions on distributors and dealers.

If a gunmaker complied, they promised them immunity from the lawsuit that many big city mayors were trying to get going blaming gun makers for the cost of "gun violence" in their cities.

The only US gunmaker who complied with the deal was S&W. The rest all told the Clinton administration to go pound sand (or something less polite) and refused.

The market's response is history now. S&W under the orders of their British owners, "betrayed" their customers, and as a result lost a lot of them. S&W stock tanked, and Thompkins LLC sold S&W for several million dollar loss.

That should have been the end of it, but the investor group who bought S&W was either run by, or heavily influenced by the people who had designed the lock, which they thought was a good thing, and so S&W kept building it into their guns.

Now it seems that S&W is making some models without the lock, and that's got to be good for their business. Can't see where it could actually hurt...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old Yesterday, 02:07 AM   #28
Shoots Left
Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2024
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 38
I remember back in the day that when all of this was going down it piqued my interest when I’d read an article somewhere that Andrew Cuomo was charged with spearheading additional “gun safety” measures for the admistration. It seemed weird to me that the HUD Secretary would be the HMFIC for gun control actions???

Anyways it turned out that apparently he was the point man and that lead to the birth of the S&W internal revolver locks.

Yeah, I know that the buck stops at the top but Cuomo was Bubba’s Doberman and therefore I consider the lock to be Cuomo’s “achievement”.

Consider this scenario…some idiot with a Rottweiler turns his dog loose on you…you don’t shoot the guy first; you shoot the dog coming at you. Then you take care of Mr. Dog turner looser. Hence the Cuomo Hole (gawd that sounds terrible, doesn’t it?).

The bottom line is that the internal lock achieved nothing that responsible gun ownership already does. This was just to stifle some pending lawsuits.
Shoots Left is offline  
Old Yesterday, 04:25 PM   #29
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,362
I had been out of college for a few years when I started making a few extra bucks that could be spent on a gun or two. I think it was in the late 1990's or early 2000's?

Anyway, I wanted a 6" S&W 686 Plus so bad I could taste it.

Finally, my local dealer found one and ordered it for me. Band-spanking-new.

Did I care that it had "the lock"? Negative! It is a beautiful gun, shoots perfectly and I love it.

I still have it. I still enjoy it.

All the old guys back then would compliment it, ask to shoot it, then hand it back and say "this thing has the lock!". They would then look at me as if I was a leper or something.

Never could understand that.

The lock doesn't matter to me, I guess.

PS-I don't think I have ever engaged the lock on that 686.
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Old Yesterday, 04:47 PM   #30
disseminator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2016
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,000
If they are smart, which is debatable since customers have been telling them from day 1 the lock is a huge drawback, they will continue removing the locks. I think it's the capitulation as much as the locks presence on the gun. I have many S&W with the lock, it doesn't bug me much, but the fact is most users to include me would rather it not be there.

I think Ruger actually handled that lock thing better since it was under the grip and you had to drill a hole in the grip panel to make it usable. Most just ignored it or didn't even know it was there.

But I really believe that they are losing sales to Colt and that is why it will happen if it does. Capitalism at it's finest. ( Down with the locks )

They can be removed in case anyone doesn't know. I removed the locks on my 500 and 460 mags. They never gave me trouble, I just didn't want 'em on there.

My other guns .... Maybe if I get in a mood.

At this point, I'd just get another Colt. Hope they bring back the 45 Colt Anaconda!
disseminator is offline  
Old Today, 10:44 AM   #31
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,602
Quote:
You should blame the Clintons, and the British company (Thompkins LLC) that owned S&W at the time……
Yes, Thompkins plc signed that stupid HUD agreement, but they then sold off the company to Safe T Hammer, a US company a year later….. well, if you make some gun lock widget and you buy a gun company, what you gonna do?

Yes, Thompkins plc were idiots, but that was probably standard business in the tyrannical monarchy where they were from.

The Safe T Hammer people probably liked their product..idiots, I know.

All that said, it was basically the result of a tyrannical US government combined with non-gun owners trying to run a gun company.

That said, the HUD Agreement wasn’t the cause directly….which was the Clinton direct influence.
Nathan is offline  
Old Today, 02:44 PM   #32
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,051
Quote:
I think Ruger actually handled that lock thing better since it was under the grip and you had to drill a hole in the grip panel to make it usable. Most just ignored it or didn't even know it was there.
I agree. Ruger did it the smart way, including a lock in a location that doesn't upset people by changing the look of their guns.

The biggest thing that bothers me about the S&W lock isn't that its a lock (though I think the idea is stupid), but that it is in an "in your face" location, a hole in the gun that doesn't belong there, was never there before, and to make things even worse, they changed the shape of the cylinder latch from the "classic" style that had been in use and unchanged for generations to one that virtually pointed to the lock hole, a constant reminder of the Clinton's attempt to strong arm the handgun industry, every time you saw the left side of the gun.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 -4. The time now is 03:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2024 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10122 seconds with 9 queries