S&W infernal lock

[hammie]

@JERRYS (post #49): You may be thinking of TK Custom (tkcustom.com). They sell a lock delete plug for 50$. TK Custom offers the plugs in stainless, blue, or titanium. On the Smith & Wesson forum there's also a person who sells plastic plugs in either black or silver, and if I recall correctly they're quite a bit cheaper.

TK Custom also makes hammers, triggers, and rebound slides for smith's. I've bought a couple of the target hammers, and they're beautifully machined and high quality. TK's moon clip loading tool and de-mooning tool work great, too. You can load and unload moon clips without the risk of turning them into wavy potato chips.

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Additionally, a heavy double action is not "the" safety on the revolver.

To believe that statement, you have to literally forget the force your thumb exerts to rotate a heavy cylinder into single action.

It's like a sea of misinformation in this thing.

Not misinformation.

Even tho the lock is intended for storage, the mindset is that someone could leave the gun loaded cocked, similar to the old outside hammer long guns.

As for the use of MIM in guns from the same time period, MIM and it's quality, practicality and durability when used in appropriate parts of firearms has been proven over and over, and is why many more reputable gun makers than S&W now use the process.

Lock plugs, IMHO, are just as distracting as the hole. But then the hole itself does not bother me since I don't tend to spend a lot of time staring at it. I have some Rugers with the Billboard warning on the side which bothers me more than the Hilary hole, but even that does not stop me from buying one. It's pretty unnoticeable when looking down the sight plane of either of them, which is where I spend most of my time with them. As I mentioned before the reliability, triggers and accuracy are just as good on my post-lock models as it is on my prelocks. Nevr have my biggest boomers or my Airweight snubbies "accidently" locked up. They have been shot well enough rounds to prove themselves as dependable. Thus paying considerably more for a pre-lock in similar condition seems foolish to me. especially since a resold S&W has no warranty and those bought new have a lifetime warranty.

[44 AMP]

Once a safety device is part of a machines design I would think deleting it would leave a company more likely to be held accountable for any accident later on that coule have been avoided had the safety device not been eliminated. Just some thoughts.

While this is essentially true, tis because of our court system and OMG its a GUN!!!

Even tho the lock is intended for storage, the mindset is that someone could leave the gun loaded cocked, similar to the old outside hammer long guns.

I don't know who's mindset that would be, other than a lawyer in court, as only a complete fool would leave any gun loaded and cocked in storage. For one thing, most of the old timers knew that leaving a gun cocked when you didn't need to, was a good way to have a gun that would not fire when you did need it. (and while this isn't true today, it was often true back then)

Personally, I don't consider a lock (requiring a separate key) to be a safety device. Other people think it is, so we will have to disagree on that point.

[Brutus]

Back when the lock was officially announced I immediately went to my LGS and bought two a 6" model 629 and a 625 mountain gun in .45 Colt. both pre-locks.
Really love the Colt it's my favorite woods carry piece. These were my first S&W's as I was always a Colt fan. When I decided to retire my Python from Magnum loads I looked for a pre-lock 686 but they were scarce as hen's teeth and the ones I did find were way overpriced. Decided on a Dan Wesson 715.
A little pricey but interchangeable barrels, built like a tank, extremely accurate and no Hillary hole.
As for the Smith lock I personally would never buy a truck with a big ugly hole in it's fender.

[JERRYS.]

the lock is not a safety device but rather a storage device. a safety on a firearm is something that can be disengaged immediately by the user in a life or death situation. the requirement of a tool to render a firearm operable is not a safety.

[jetinteriorguy]

I guess in my mind rendering a firearm unable to be discharged to, oh say keep a young inquisitive child from accidentally shooting himself or someone else would be considered a safety device. I get though it's not a 'safety' in the sense of usability during carry. So this is how I meant it in my post.

[44 AMP]

I guess in my mind rendering a firearm unable to be discharged to, oh say keep a young inquisitive child from accidentally shooting himself or someone else would be considered a safety device.

In that sense a gun safe, a closet with a lock and the lock on the door of your house is a "safety device". The advertisements do not call it a safety. It is a security device (intended for storage).

The biggest problem I have with gun locks is they allow people to do stupid things (such as leaving a loaded gun unattended) and still feel they are safe.

If you've got concerns, why not just UNLOAD the gun?? The whole point of a loaded weapon is instant access to a functional firearm. Got one of those guns with a lock in it? Where is it, right now? Is it loaded?? Where is the key. Right now, as you're reading this, where is the key???

Is it on you? no? ok. guess you're as safe a possible, right? I keep thinking about the a situation where you have a loaded, locked gun in your night stand, just in case...and when someone kicks in your front door or breaks a window in the middle of the night, the key is on your key ring, hanging from a hook in the kitchen....with the rest of your keys....

Not a lot of help there...

Here's another point, one about someone who would leave a loaded gun "accessible", thinking they are fine because it has a lock. They have to USE (engage) the lock or it does nothing. If you are irresponsible enough to leave a loaded gun where an inquisitive child could get it, why would I think you are responsible enough to ALWAYS have it locked???

Sure its all about what if's and we're all different some people are firm believers that the lock is a good idea. I disagree, but if you want one, fine. Just don't tell me I have to do what you do or I'm not safe.

[wild cat mccane]

I'm not sorry, but a heavy double action trigger rotates the cylinder filled with rounds and mass.

That was never a safety device or by design.

Period.

Anything else is just someone pretending "hair trigger" vs heavy trigger is a mechanically designed safety. It isn't. Otherwise, "cocking" means nothing. Additionally, a revolver always has a double action. It's either the DA trigger or the SA being pulled by the user. So no, a revolver double action weight isn't a safety. There is no way to call a double action a safety device--it's 100% required by design.

Even the Glock dingus isn't a user "safety." It is a drop safety--at 67% cocked, the mass of the gun hitting the ground can't release the striker to hit a primer in a Glock/PPQ etc because the dingus has to be depressed. It's not for safety in holstering, it's not for safety in resting one's finger on the trigger...nothing. Mechanically it is only a drop safety.

Mechanically, a double action has to rotate a cylinder in a revolver and fully cock a hammer or striker in an auto, where some partially or fully cock the striker/hammer in an auto. This is impossible in a revolver.

Spring weights can change those weights, but the weight itself is not a safety.

Any 5 year old could pull a double action trigger, revolver or auto.

Not a safety, it's mechanics.

[labnoti]

The S&W internal lock does not require the gun to be loaded to use it.

More than 499 out of 500 5 year olds cannot pull the 14 or 15 pound double-action trigger on a Centenial J Frame. I am not claiming this makes the gun "safe" or "secure" but it is a fact.

I think it would be extremely rare to find any owner or dealer of S&W revolvers advocating the internal lock as a device useful for child safety, and I've personally never encountered anyone who uses it, ever, for any purpose. I've mentioned it before that I believe it's there because it is part of Bob Scott's legacy (former President of S&W, former President of "Saf-T-Hammer Corporation", the one who orchestrated Saf-T-Hammer's buyout of S&W, and who still sits on the board).

I wouldn't say there is no rationale behind the lock or the current-production no-lock models. The rationale is reasonable. It just doesn't consider actual customer practices. S&W is not unique in disregarding a significant amount actual customer habits in their product design.

[Nanuk]

More than 499 out of 500 5 year olds cannot pull the 14 or 15 pound double-action trigger on a Centenial J Frame. I am not claiming this makes the gun "safe" or "secure" but it is a fact.

Where are you finding these? Mine have about an 10# smooth trigger pull. MY Model 13 and 686 are in the 6-8# range.

[wild cat mccane]

and I'm informing, if every 5 year old couldn't pull a revolver double action trigger, it has absolutely nothing to do with safety by design.

[jetinteriorguy]

I was merely giving a possible reason why S&W doesn't delete the lock, not advocating the use of a lock or any particular type of safety or lock on a firearm. That's always a personal choice.

[labnoti]

Originally Posted by Nanuk

Where are you finding these? Mine have about an 10# smooth trigger pull. MY Model 13 and 686 are in the 6-8# range.

They don't make them like that anymore. Tell the truth, yours are all 25 years or older, aren't they?

[rodfac]

I'd bet 99 of 100 of us here on the revolver forum do not like the lock for whatever purpose the damned thing was intended. And I'm one that hates it too....that said, between my sons and I, we have 3 Smith's in our safes that have the Cursed IL...and none of the the Cursed IL's has yet to lock up the gun due to recoil or any other reason, BTW.

It's a useless feature I'll readily agree, and surely not a 'safety device'...but those 3 Cursed IL equipped Smith's are right up there with their predessors for accuracy and SA trigger pull. Between the three of us, my sons and I currently own 19 S&W's not counting the auto's. While the three with the Cursed IL do sport heavier DA trigger pulls, there's no denying their inherent accuracy. YMMv Rod

[berettaprofessor]

a) I can't believe it took me this long to see the annual "I hate the S&W Lock thread."

b) Please, everyone, don't refer to it as the "Hillary Hole." I get nightmares from even thinking it.

[wild cat mccane]

The S&W lock is greater than half my age.

I have heard zero first hand accounts of issues on the internet where anyone could fabricate a story to prove their hatred for it.

686 triggers are just the same as when they were 686-5.

It's all just internet nonsense.

Interestingly, I have NEVER heard of a Taurus lock EVER locking. Their physical lock is on the hammer.

[wild cat mccane]

"Hillary Hole" is pretty petty and disgusting.

It's a lock.

I don't respect people who say that. Factually wrong to boot. That language confirms what people have to say about some segments of gun owners.

Yeah. Don't lock this thread just cause I said that...

[JERRYS.]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

The S&W lock is greater than half my age.

I have heard zero first hand accounts of issues on the internet where anyone could fabricate a story to prove their hatred for it.

686 triggers are just the same as when they were 686-5.

It's all just internet nonsense.

Interestingly, I have NEVER heard of a Taurus lock EVER locking. Their physical lock is on the hammer.

first, Taurus isn't in the same class as a S$W. next, the recoil direction/motion of the S$W is what allows [theoretically] the lock to engage itself. the Taurus lock rotates sideways to engage, their guns simply do not recoil in that direction. in both examples, the built in locks do nothing to help the gun shoot better. I've never seen a video of the lock engaging itself [no video exists anywhere], only a few people have claimed to see it happen. with all the things that can still disable a properly maintained gun, a device made solely for that purpose is not welcome.

[wild cat mccane]

It takes an unhealthy level of suspicion to think S&W knows this happens, shooters/buyers know this happens (even at all), and S&W is the top revolver seller.

Kinda makes you wonder what side is probably wrong on this subject.

I buy zero percent that the lock changed the 686 feel at all. Pure nonsense.

Comparison videos can't show it because it is all nonsense.

The lock has zero impact on the action.

[44 AMP]

The S&W internal lock does not require the gun to be loaded to use it.

This got me thinking a bit, since I don't own one, what does the lock actually DO and not do??

So, I asked a friend, to see if he could find out. He asked the question at a local gun shop, interestingly, NOBODY knew! The owner, two counter guys and a couple of customers, ranging in age from early 30s on up, over a century and a half of experience between them and nobody knew exactly. My friend said it was rather funny, all having the same confused look on their faces.

SO, a test was needed. There was a model 36 with its key in the case. Owner said the majority of used S&W's they take in don't have the key with them).

With the hammer down, the gun can be locked and the lock prevents the hammer being cocked. The cylinder can be opened and closed. The trigger can be pulled and moves a little bit but then stops. The gun could ALSO be locked with the hammer COCKED. To me this is a bad idea, but that's just me...

No S&W allows the cylinder to be opened with the hammer cocked, that's normal. But being able to lock the gun (possibly loaded) with the hammer cocked just seems to me to be a poor idea.

SO, no, using the lock doesn't require that the gun be loaded. Still don't know why anyone would do it that way, though....

[wild cat mccane]

What the lock does is have zero impact on the action of the trigger.

Yep. Zero.

[wild cat mccane]

Knowing that the S&W lock has no play with the 686 action and is 20 years old, you'll start to see how uniformed people can be about this subject while sounding like experts.

A prejudiced comment that might have an ounce of truth, I think revolvers tend to draw an older crowd that is specifically attuned to a world outlook that everything was better in the past--like always. Fine. MIM parts aren't as good as sold steel. In practice is that true? Have you ever heard of a 686 MIM trigger breaking? no. Do these MIM parts change the feel of the 686 action? That would be impossible. So no.

Perfect example of people repeating this at glocktalk today:
https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/s-...inder.1800894/

[18DAI]

S&W went out of business in 2001 as far as I'm concerned. The last new S&W I purchased was a Performance Center pre lock 586-5 L-comp. In 2000.

Even if they didn't have the idiot lock, their designs are ugly and their QA/QC horrendous. Hell, they can't even put the barrels on straight anymore.

I've bought my last S&W and could care less what the current company calling itself s&w makes or does. And I'm not alone in that sentiment, based on customers comments that come into the shop I work in. Regards 18DAI

[fourbore]

Originally Posted by 18DAI

S&W went out of business in 2001 as far as I'm concerned. The last new S&W I purchased was a Performance Center pre lock 586-5 L-comp. In 2000.

Even if they didn't have the idiot lock, their designs are ugly and their QA/QC horrendous. Hell, they can't even put the barrels on straight anymore.

I've bought my last S&W and could care less what the current company calling itself s&w makes or does. And I'm not alone in that sentiment, based on customers comments that come into the shop I work in. Regards 18DAI

Sad but true. I have first hand experience as a recent revolver purchase. That lemon got me doing some research. I learned about BOTH the company lack of quality and selling out to gun control politics. I could think about buying from a company with a quality products on the wrong side of my politics. I might support a maker selling low quality crap if they were using the money to support my 2nd A rights. But s&W is wrong on both.

It is tough now, because Ruger quality has dropped. While never a premier builder they were a good solid value. I am glad I got mine. Feeling bad for the current buyers. As stated there are a lot of great used guns. And revolvers are out of favor. That maybe the only hope. Lot of good older product out there. Used Smiths bring good money, used Rugers remain a great value. Colt was never a fair value option in my book. The only company I would endorse today is the Uberti replica revolvers.

[labnoti]

Tomkins sold out to gun control. How did the current S&W or "AOBC" do so? I'm not being argumentative. If they did, I want to know about it. What I see is they immediately started producing high-capacity M&P pistols, added AR-15's to their product line, added their best-selling Shield to sell millions of pistols to civilian concealed carriers, and besides that, they betrayed all the dealer/retail-level controls that Tomkins had apparently agreed to. Have they transgressed somewhere?