The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 1, 2019, 03:52 PM   #26
labnoti
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2018
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by shurshot View Post
[B][SIZE="5"]
   
Hate to bust your bubble Labnoti, but the Clinton Administration DID have quite a bit to do with the lock (they took credit for it!), see below;

https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives....0000317_2.html

I guess we WILL continue to refer to Hillary pertaining to the lock.
I refuted that in my post, but you either didn't read it or decided to ignore it.
labnoti is offline  
Old December 1, 2019, 04:18 PM   #27
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 1,252
So the White House press release was / is incorrect?? Are you stating that as fact, or as opinion?

The Clinton Administration proudly took credit for the locks, regardless of when the process started, hence the nexus between Hillary and the "hole"(lock). Certainly you are not denying that, are you? Probably not proper to refer to everyone on this forum who recognizes that well known fact as ignorant, but you are entitled to your opinion.

On a side note; The S&W's I own with locks, aside from being ugly, have never malfunctioned, always functioned flawlessly. Still hate them though.

Last edited by shurshot; December 1, 2019 at 04:34 PM.
shurshot is offline  
Old December 1, 2019, 05:15 PM   #28
fastbolt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2002
Location: northern CA for a little while longer
Posts: 1,861
As has been explained by S&W in its armorer classes, S&W's current position on the ILS (lock) is that it will remain on all revolvers that have exposed hammers (which a child or other unauthorized person might thumb cock into single action).

In some of the models with fully enclosed hammers (Centennials), the company decided to offer No-Lock versions. This apparently started when they were cleaning out their parts vault and decided to use some older not-yet-serialized 642-1 (and then 442-1) frames to make new production "-1 series" revolvers, which meant sans the ILS.

I was told that once those old/new production -1 J's quickly sold (only something like 3000 of the older 642-1 frames used), they decided to reintroduce both -1 Centennial models as an option in their standard catalog. Then a couple other models followed.

Both the ILS and No-Lock models sell well.

Of the several old and new S&W J-frames I own, only one of them (M&P 340) is equipped with the ILS ... and it's among my favorites.

I also own a later production No-Lock version of it, but the earlier produced ILS version of it has seen a fair amount of rounds (.357MAG & .38SPL) fired through it (think a few cases). I like it more than my No-Lock model, but that's probably because I used it as my "practice" gun as a revolver armorers. That means I've cut a couple new extractors, replaced the locking arm & spring and "deburred" it. It's acquired a lot of rubs, nicks, dings and wear. Shoots great and has a smooth trigger.

The ILS no longer bothers me.

FWIW, the last time I asked someone from S&W about the ILS remaining on ALL exposed hammer revolvers, I was told not to hold my breath of S&W corporate changing its mind to offer No-Lock models (due to advice from their legal team). Not as long as normal sales of the ILS revolvers remains within expectations and sales goals.

Never Say Never, though, as these things can change.
__________________
Retired LE - firearms instructor & armorer
fastbolt is offline  
Old December 1, 2019, 05:41 PM   #29
shoptroll
Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Location: Elizabethtown, Pa
Posts: 60
My model 637 .38 doesn't have one and my 4" model 69 44 mag does and if any safety lock was gonna be effected by recoil it would be that bad boy and it hasn't. If you have one you know what I mean. To tell the truth, I didn't even think to look for one until I read this thread. It's pretty unobtrusive. Not like the safety that Taurus put on the Rossi 92 lever guns or that monstrosity on the Heritage single actions. Those are just plain evil.
shoptroll is offline  
Old December 1, 2019, 07:37 PM   #30
labnoti
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2018
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by shurshot View Post
So the White House press release was / is incorrect?? Are you stating that as fact, or as opinion?

The Clinton Administration proudly took credit for the locks, regardless of when the process started, hence the nexus between Hillary and the "hole"(lock). Certainly you are not denying that, are you? Probably not proper to refer to everyone on this forum who recognizes that well known fact as ignorant, but you are entitled to your opinion.

On a side note; The S&W's I own with locks, aside from being ugly, have never malfunctioned, always functioned flawlessly. Still hate them though.
That agreement was with Tomkins (former owner of S&W), not Saf-T-Hammer (the owner that introduced the locks in 2002), and that agreement also prohibited S&W from making AR-15's, and magazines over 10 rounds, it stipulated locks on all handguns and pistols, not just revolvers. It stipulated numerous very onerous restrictions on what dealers could sell, prohibitions on multiple sales, and required safety training for customers. It required smart guns and ballistic fingerprinting, and on and on.

When Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W in 2001, Bush was president, not Clinton. The agreement was immediately declared non-binding. Since the Bush administration was in place BEFORE the sale happened, and the Bush administration was amenable to tossing the agreement, don't you think Saf-T-Hammer would have checked what their obligations were under the agreement before they bought S&W or agreed on a price to pay Tomkins? Yes, yes they would have known before the purchase that they would NOT be bound by this extremely restrictive agreement which had many much more severe restrictions than locks. It would have been foolish of a buyer not to determine what their obligations were before they bought it. What Saf-T-Hammer determined was that they had no obligations whatsoever -- that it was non-binding AND that the Bush administration would "do nothing" about it.

A Bush administration official explicitly stated the administration would "do nothing" about the agreement. Saf-T-Hammer proceeded to introduce AR-15's, the M&P pistols with higher capacity double-stack magazines, and in 2002, well after the agreement was known to be a dead-deal, null and void, they introduced revolvers with the lock.

The reason they introduced a lock on the revolvers and not on the far more popular pistols that outsell the revolvers by a factor of more than 5 times is because Saf-T-Hammer had not invented a lock for striker-fired guns. They had invented one for revolver hammers and Bob Scott wanted it. He owed nothing to Hillary Clinton at all.
labnoti is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 01:47 AM   #31
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,491
OK, I get it, the public backlash against S&W because of the owners of S&W signing the agreement with the Clinton administration causing S&W's stock to tank and Tompkins selling S&W (for a loss) had NOTHING to do with Safe-T-Hammer buying S&W and putting their lock in the revolvers...

Riiiight...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 05:21 AM   #32
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 1,252
Labnoti,

This was the White House Press release back on 3/17/2000;
"CLINTON ADMINISTRATION REACHES HISTORIC AGREEMENT WITH SMITH AND WESSON"

I included a link in the previous post, perhaps you missed it? The lock IS mentioned as part of the agreement. There is indeed a nexus between the Clintons and the lock.

"The lock never had anything to do with the Clintons."(Labnoti). 
You are entitled to your opinion and statement... but it doesn't mean you are correct.

Last edited by shurshot; December 2, 2019 at 05:59 AM.
shurshot is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 05:50 AM   #33
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
OK, I'm a snob. Probably stems from the era I grew up in, when the very idea of putting a lock on a loaded gun was considered UNSAFE, and the idea of a lock IN the gun was ridiculous.

One locked the gun IN something, one locked the ammo IN something, preferably a separate something. FOR STORAGE.

Then some bright fellow came up with the trigger lock, and oh, gee! Now I can load my gun, and put a lock on it, so its "safe". Blithely ignoring the fact that putting anything on or around the trigger of a loaded gun = unsafe.

And, if its not loaded, why bother with a lock???

The internal lock is mechanically safer than a trigger lock, I just object to the entire concept. If you load a gun, you do it because you believe it is possible that you might need to use it, without any advance notice.

I feel an unloaded, unlocked gun is better than a loaded locked gun. I think it would be easier for me (at least) to get some ammo in a gun I needed in a HURRY that it is to find, and then manipulate that little key. Especially if that key in on your key ring, hanging on a hook in another room.

A matter of perception and priorities, I suppose. I'm not in a situation where children or random strangers do not wander through my house unescorted without committing the criminal act of breaking and entering.

I see the requirement for a lock as a form of tyranny. In the way that tyranny is "new" and additional regulations. What one grows up with, one considers normal, and generally right, and proper. Its the way things are.

Go beyond that and its imposing extra burdens, without consent. (and to me thing includes the tyranny of the masses inherent in democracy) That's a form of tyranny. Maybe its for my own good, as THEY see it, but if I don't get to decide that, for myself, it's tyranny.

Seatbelts and helmets, even background checks are good ideas and one should use them, but I don't think they should be LAWS, because they weren't laws when I came of age, and just seem like an extra way for the govt to pick my pocket if I exercise my free will in a direction they don't approve of.

I do make a distinction between those kind of "safety" laws and the consumer protection type that prohibit people from cheating others, defective products, and so forth.

Now, if you are younger, and those laws, and an internal lock on a S&W have been a constant your entire life, you look at those as the normal, right and proper way, and think old coots like me are off our nut to have an issue with them.

Eventually those of us who remember when we had greater freedom to use our own judgement will pass, and no one will have any problems with what we've got now. I can't legally do a lot of the things my Grandfather could, and I expect my Grandson will be in a similar situation, though its likely he'll never realize it.
sorry for the rant, but locks are one of my "buttons". Not the lock, per se, that I can ignore, but the belief that they are needed and I'm somehow a danger to others if I don't have one....
Exactly there 44 AMP, I think all of this "safety garbage" is unecessary as well.
__________________
Rugers:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlins: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfield:XD .357sig 4", AKs:CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63, WW74,SLR-106c
silvermane_1 is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 12:59 PM   #34
labnoti
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2018
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by shurshot View Post
Labnoti,

This was the White House Press release back on 3/17/2000;
"CLINTON ADMINISTRATION REACHES HISTORIC AGREEMENT WITH SMITH AND WESSON"

I included a link in the previous post, perhaps you missed it? The lock IS mentioned as part of the agreement. There is indeed a nexus between the Clintons and the lock.

"The lock never had anything to do with the Clintons."(Labnoti). 
You are entitled to your opinion and statement... but it doesn't mean you are correct.
Dude, I've been addressing that press release and quoting it since post #18. You're obviously not reading, but just trolling.
labnoti is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 01:29 PM   #35
Forte S+W
Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2019
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5150
You may be on to something there. But if that's the case, I wonder what makes the DAOs so special?
Heavy Triggers are often considered a passive safety because they require more effort to pull, and small children likely lack the necessary strength to pull the trigger on a stock DAO Revolver, ergo the trigger weight is likely enough that they don't feel a safety is required.
__________________
I know that Balistics Gel is merely a tissue simulent, but until the day comes in which convicted registered sex offenders are put to good use as a testing medium for ballistics, it's the best we've got. Besides, Ballistics Gel is probably the closest thing to the sort of human sludge that typically requires the use of a firearm in self-defense.
Forte S+W is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 01:39 PM   #36
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,491
Quote:
I refuted that in my post, but you either didn't read it or decided to ignore it.
We read it, we didn't ignore it, you refuted nothing, if you're referring to the White House press release, and if you're referring to the nickname for the hole, you still refuted nothing, at best you offered an alternate nickname.

Quote:
Dude, I've been addressing that press release and quoting it since post #18. You're obviously not reading, but just trolling.
You've been addressing it, but not disputing it, or refuting it, you've simply been repeating the facts that by the time S&W put the lock in, the Clintons were no longer in office.

This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your claim that the Clintons had nothing to do with the lock.

You might make the claim that the Clintons had no direct personal involvement with he S&W lock when it appeared on the consumer level. I could accept that.

Claiming the Clintons had nothing to do with the lock is incorrect, we have historical evidence (and in their own words) that they did.

Claiming that we are not reading, ignoring, or just trolling is not correct, either.

The Clintons took public credit that, thanks to their agreement S&W pistols would have a lock. Do you dispute that?

Changes to S&W ownership, nullification of the agreement, and the Clintons being out of office before the lock physically appears only change the degree of their direct involvement. They do NOT mean the Clintons had NOTHING to do with the idea. Do you dispute that?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 04:57 PM   #37
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 1,252
"Dude, I've been addressing that press release and quoting it since post #18. You're obviously not reading, but just trolling." (Labonte).

"Dude"??? Labonte, are you a millennial? Your refusal to acknowledge the facts and inference that many of us are ignorant is telling. We read your posts. We just dispute PART of it.
While Socratic Dialectic can be positive and is encouraged here, spreading half truths and ignoring facts is not. If you want to pretend that the Clintons had zero to do with the locks, fine. But please don't twist words and present your opinions and twisted version of reality as "fact", when it's clearly not. There are many people around the world who read these posts, so we strive to be accurate and truthful. If I'm wrong on something, I want to be corrected. It's how we learn. You present some good information... and some not so good. In fact... it's BS.

Calling you out on your BS is not trolling.

Do you want to rephrase and or clarify your statement pertaining to the Clintons having no connection to the lock? Don't think we dispute everything you said, only a portion of it, because its false.

This is what ruffles feathers... "The lock never had anything to do with the Clintons."(Labnoti).   

Last edited by shurshot; December 2, 2019 at 05:17 PM.
shurshot is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 09:40 PM   #38
rep1954
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2009
Location: Mid Western Michigan
Posts: 1,136
Man you just got to love a internal lock thread!
rep1954 is offline  
Old December 3, 2019, 08:48 AM   #39
arquebus357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2016
Location: Atlanta, Georgia area
Posts: 405
I love the S&W revolver lockwork. The lock ruins this wonderful work of mechanical art. I worked on only one with the internal lock, if I can help it, that was my first and last experience.

Anyhow, I blame the lock on Donald Trump. He gets blamed for everything else so why not. The lock is definitely an impeachable offense !!!
arquebus357 is offline  
Old December 3, 2019, 04:29 PM   #40
5150
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2019
Location: Katmandu
Posts: 8
Boy I sure opened up a can of worms with this thread! I can't wait for the gloves to come off and a couple of you guy lock yourselves in one of those MMA cages to settle the issue once and for all. It's sure been phun reading some of these posts.


Sent from my Commodore 64 running Windoze 95
__________________
I drove by a sign that read, "Remember...Only YOU can prevent forest fires." It made me wonder why I was the chosen one.
5150 is offline  
Old December 3, 2019, 09:22 PM   #41
RsqVet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Posts: 2,474
Not a fan of the ILS -- needless and ugly

Not a fan of ILS guns -- made of MIM parts and loose value

Big fan of pre - ILS guns -- tend to increase in value and no MIM parts -- what not to love?

Many pre-lock guns out there - the hunt is fun and most have better triggers than a new gun SO by the time I buy a new gun, work on it and or put new parts in it -- I COULD just buy and old gun.

Big fan of Ruger of late, they have made some fun / innovative / new revolvers that I have felt the need to add to the collection.

If smith were going to d/c the lock maybe start with the PC guns? Hard to understand a 1k plus custom shop gun with the ugly hole.

I suppose in time there MAY be an ILS smith that I just have to have -- in which case the ILS will be removed, and the lock hole plugged but the slot next to the hammer will likely still annoy me... I don't pay a premium price to be annoyed. A cheaper gun maybe a non-issue

I suspect eventually smith may turn course
RsqVet is offline  
Old December 3, 2019, 09:54 PM   #42
labnoti
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2018
Posts: 159
Well, we know that Clinton is long gone. Bob Scott and his lock are not. He's still there on the board of AOBC. The interesting news from about three weeks ago is that ABOC has decided to split-off its other businesses and become S&W Brands while the divested parts will keep the name AOBC. They will have more options to raise capital without being attached to an 'evil' gun company. It's not clear if the new AOBC will have a different BoD, but current CEO James Debney will go with it, while Mark Smith will be the CEO for S&W Brands. Because the presently existing company consisting of gun manufacture will be renamed S&W Brands, I suspect it will also retain the current board of directors and therefore Bob Scott, and therefore the locks.
labnoti is offline  
Old December 4, 2019, 09:47 PM   #43
wild cat mccane
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 1,412
It is over 20 years old.

Think about that.
wild cat mccane is offline  
Old December 4, 2019, 09:50 PM   #44
wild cat mccane
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 1,412
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.
wild cat mccane is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 02:31 AM   #45
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,491
Quote:
It's like a sea of misinformation in this thing.
Welcome to the Internet!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 10:01 AM   #46
Master Blaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: One of the original 13 Colonies
Posts: 2,263
I have a 642 that I carried for years. My 642 (2003) came with the lock. I removed the lock because it bothered me that I could not see the locking flag so there was no external indicator on a 642 or any other concealed hammer DAO gun to show if the gun is locked.

I suspect someone sued S&W or the lawyers pointed out that a gun with a lock that had NO Visual indicator to show if locked or unlocked was a Lawsuit waiting to happen.
Master Blaster is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 01:57 PM   #47
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,491
Quote:
or the lawyers pointed out that a gun with a lock that had NO Visual indicator to show if locked or unlocked was a Lawsuit waiting to happen.
I think this is a good explanation and much more likely than thinking S&W doesn't put the lock in DAO models because the "heavy trigger pull" doesn't "need" one...

The indicator has to be both visual and tactile, or you are setting yourself up to be sued. Imagine a situation where you need to use the gun, and cannot tell if it is locked or not until you try to shoot and it doesn't. Assume you actually have the key available, but don't use it because you think the gun is unlocked and it doesn't tell/show you differently!

Anyone remember the year that a car maker put an interlock in, so that you had to have your seatbelt fastened or the car would not start??

Anyone notice that they only did that ONCE?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 02:22 PM   #48
labnoti
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2018
Posts: 159
I agree it is a valid concern that some "Centennial" models with locks give less of a visual indication of the lock state. However, S&W continues to sell a lot of Centennial (concealed hammer) models with locks.

The M&P 340, many 442 models, the 642, 642 Ladysmith, the 640, etc.

They do put the lock on many DAO models. But they do not offer "no lock" versions of anything but some DAO models.
labnoti 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 -5. The time now is 05:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09503 seconds with 9 queries