Sick of S&W

[PlasticGuy]

I really want to slap the management at S&W. A 1917 with an internal lock is going too far. Ditto that with their model 21 and 22. S&W used to be one of my favorite companies, and I spent a lot of money on their revolvers. I haven't bought one since they added that internal lock. They're so far gone now, I doubt I'll ever buy one again. If they'd make a limited run of any of those three revolvers without an internal lock, I'd be first in line to buy one, but they've made it pretty clear that they're unwilling to even make a limited run of revolvers worth buying.

I guess it's a good excuse to buy a Freedom Arms, so it's no great loss to me. Besides, I already have enough older S&W big bores to do everything I'll ever need to do. It's just a bit frustrating to see a good company stray so far from what they used to be. Thanks for letting me whine a bit.

[Short Cut]

I don't like the locks either. Although it really only bothers me if I let it. I have a few models that have them and the guns work just fine. It's just unneccessary and unwanted. I've yet to ever actually lock one. That's what a safe is for.

What frustrates me the most is that S&W clearly isn't listening to their customers on this issue. I don't know of anybody that actually likes the darn contraption, yet S&W doesn't seem to give a rip.

I thought they were smart with the new M&P pistols as they are offering them with or without the magazine disconnect safety. They should do that with the revolver locks.

It kind of reminds me of how Ford has handled the issue of seat belt chimes in their trucks. Those darn devices that chime when you haven't buckled up drive people nuts on ranches and jobsites. Ford listened and spelled out in the owner's manual how to disable this so called feature.

[DaveTN]

Why would you want to buy a reproduction 1917 with a lock when you can buy the real deal?
Buy a repo and it starts depreciating; buy an original and it is appreciating.

I’m an S&W fan; I don’t think there is a better firearms company. I don’t understand why they are still putting locks on some of their guns. I bought a new SW1911 and new M&P 40 last year and neither had a lock.

[G33]

Ya!
None of my M&Ps have locks.
????
:supergrin:

[PlasticGuy]

Originally posted by DaveTN
Why would you want to buy a reproduction 1917 with a lock when you can buy the real deal?
Buy a repo and it starts depreciating; buy an original and it is appreciating.

I’m an S&W fan; I don’t think there is a better firearms company. I don’t understand why they are still putting locks on some of their guns. I bought a new SW1911 and new M&P 40 last year and neither had a lock.
I want a repro so I can carry it in the woods with a clear concience. That, and an original model 21 4" would cost me a few thousand, as opposed to $600. I've got all the originals that I need, and the prices on the ones I still want are enough to keep me away.

As far as not having locks in their autos, I don't care. Other companies make great 1911's. Few other companies make a good revolver. Not even S&W anymore, in my opinion.

[rjm]

Oh quit yer crying.:crying:


Just bought a 686+ 6" barrel today with a lock and I don't feel at all like I am getting screwed because of it. Don't engage the lock if you don't like it, it really is that simple. Out of all my smith and wessons with locks, not one has ever malfunctioned. They are good revolvers, plain and simple. Now a Freedom Arms revolver is the cats behind, but aren't they just single action?

[PlasticGuy]

Originally posted by rjm
Oh quit yer crying.:crying:

...Now a Freedom Arms revolver is the cats behind, but aren't they just single action?
Buy what you want. I'll whine a bit, and then spend my money on guns that meet my standards. Right now, that's not S&W.

Yes, the Freedom Arms revolvers are single action. What's wrong with that?

[rjm]

Originally posted by PlasticGuy
Buy what you want. I'll whine a bit, and then spend my money on guns that meet my standards. Right now, that's not S&W.

Yes, the Freedom Arms revolvers are single action. What's wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with single action revolvers, I have a few that I enjoy quite a lot. I just wouldn't compare a double action swing out cylinder revolver with a single action gate loading one. Much different price levels too.

I just don't get all the hoopla over the lock on the Smiths and how this makes it such a crappy gun. Seriously, its a passive locking mechanism that is very easy to not activate. Its also easy to disable the lock. Different views I guess, its just not that big of a deal for me.

[PlasticGuy]

My problem with it is that there was an article by Ayoob about a series of failures of the lock that he had information on, and they were all on different models of S&W revolvers so it's not like it was a batch of bad guns. I've personally seen a Taurus lock break, and it tied up the gun completely. Why add a bunch of small parts that can break and disable the gun, if it's parts you don't need? I don't want it. I want simple. That just seems like common sense to me.

[watsoncb]

PlasticGuy....

Consider why is the lock there? It is there so S&W can sell firearms with less fear of litigation and staying in the business. Integtating the lock on the firearm rather than giving them a bicycle lock was just as much a legal decision as a mechanical one. I suspect that when the executives at Ruger, S&W, Glock, Colt etc. all heard about VT - they all feared that the firearm was theirs. It is amazing that except for Newsweek's brief story about the Glock firearm used there has not been an examination of Glock semiauto's as poorly made or being lock free.

Locks are on firearms for the same reason seatbelts are in cars. As to the locks failing and the failure occuring during a LEO or CCW use I have not hear of one. You are indeed correct that it is possible for the lock to fail - just as you need it to fire at a bad guy. But you could also get hit in the head by a flying meteor at the same time. :shocked:

A bigger problem for you is living so close to the Hanford site. That must be some yummy water your drink everyday. :alex:

And as you indicated, if you find the lock a intenable situtation, use you power of the pocketbook to go elsewhere. At the moment S&W's cannot keep up with the demand for its firearms. Especially the new MP semiautos.

[Skintop911]

Originally posted by watsoncb
PlasticGuy.... As to the locks failing and the failure occuring during a LEO or CCW use I have not hear of one.

There have a been a number of failures of that mechanism.

Some noteworthies have recommended guns with them be avoided, users seek guns without them, or that users disable the lock if they have no other choice.

I looked long and hard to find 642s and 442s without the lock, as they are evaporating.

[PlasticGuy]

Originally posted by watsoncb
Consider why is the lock there? It is there so S&W can sell firearms with less fear of litigation and staying in the business...

Locks are on firearms for the same reason seatbelts are in cars. As to the locks failing and the failure occuring during a LEO or CCW use I have not hear of one...
Great. They make revolvers with internal locks, in some hope that it might stave off a not-yet-filed lawsuit at some point in the future. As a result, they make a more failure prone firearm, and one that I no longer want defending me and my family. That doesn't seem like a good trade-off. If you haven't seen any reports of failures of these locks, you haven't been looking. I've read several reports, and personally seen a Taurus internal lock fail. It's not an imaginary problem.

As far as the comparison to seatbelts, there are some critical differences. First, having a key lock in my guns would add no degreee of safety at all. I lock them up in a safe at home, and of course don't want them locked when I'm using them. The locks are useless to me. Even a person who does want to lock their gun would be just as well served by a cable lock or trigger lock that can be removed from the gun when not wanted. Most importantly, your car still works if your seatbelt fails. Not so with internal locks. If your car's brakes locked up any time your seatbelt wasn't working properly, would you want one in your car or would you look for alternatives?

[Yamadad]

The locks are because S&W Inc is trying to read the tea leaves and they figure that sooner or later they won't be able to sell guns without locks. That's is what is happening here in Commiefornia and soon to be followed in other states.

Sux, but that's the world we live in today. :rant:

[dogsoldier]

Yep, that sucks all right. Here in MD, one of our past "grovelenors" decided all guns sold here need a lock in em "for the children". What makes it BS, or more BS, is the guns don't need to be unlocked to shoot, you can just throw away the key. MD sucks.

[anyplainjoe]

The way I see it...

Put in lock = don't get sued as often = save money = stay in business

Not everyone has a gun safe they use. Some people just leave guns laying around, at least when Jr shoots himself, Smith has a positive defense of saying "We at Smith are concerned about unauthorized users, which is why our gun has a built in lock, which if used would have prevent this tragedy. Let me show you how it works. See, it's pretty simple and effective. But owner didn't care to use it. How is our product liable?" A Grand/Juror doesn't have to be a gun or mechanical person to understand that.

At work, I've represented the plaintiff (us) on 100+ small claims suits, even in that tiny arena, things can get viscious and emotionally charged. I can only imagine what it's like in criminal or big time civil.

[PlasticGuy]

Originally posted by anyplainjoe
The way I see it...

Put in lock = don't get sued as often = save money = stay in business

Not everyone has a gun safe they use. Some people just leave guns laying around, at least when Jr shoots himself, Smith has a positive defense of saying "We at Smith are concerned about unauthorized users, which is why our gun has a built in lock, which if used would have prevent this tragedy. Let me show you how it works. See, it's pretty simple and effective. But owner didn't care to use it. How is our product liable?" A Grand/Juror doesn't have to be a gun or mechanical person to understand that...
The same defense could be used if they made the box lockable, or included a good gun lock with the gun like they used to. I don't see the benefit of incorporating a locking mechanism with a bunch of small parts into the gun itself. I do see a downside, because there is potential for failure of those small parts.

Does anyone here have any example of a gun company being saved from a lawsuit by having an internal lock in their gun as opposed to shipping an external lock with it? Anybody?

[anyplainjoe]

The in-gun lock is always with the gun, creating a more defensible position. They aren't incurring more cost just to upset the fans.

I think alot of people are upset with the break in tradition and/or mechanical features of the lock, and totally discount the bigger picture.

[watsoncb]

:deadhorse: :panties:

[Skintop911]

Originally posted by anyplainjoe
I think alot of people are upset with the break in tradition and/or mechanical features of the lock, and totally discount the bigger picture.

The thing I picture is that little lock activating at the moment I need the gun running.

For the recreational shooters and range heros, I suppose it doesn't matter.

[rjm]

I own 4 smith and wessons with the dreaded lock and not one of them has ever failed to go off nor have the locks just engaged and I have put several thousand of rounds through the firearms. I think it is a non-issue that has become an issue because certain people want to inflate the used market for non-locked smith and wesson revolvers. Kind of silly if you ask me.

[PlasticGuy]

Originally posted by rjm
I own 4 smith and wessons with the dreaded lock and not one of them has ever failed to go off nor have the locks just engaged... Kind of silly if you ask me.
It's silly until it happens, and then it sucks. If it happens in a gunfight, it sucks a lot more. I've personally had a Taurus lock fail with the gun in my hands, and it completely tied up the gun. Ayoob cited three or four S&W's that did the same thing in an article a while back. It's not a myth. It has happened before, and will again.

It's like winning a jackpot in a casino. The odds may be 1:10,000 that it will happen. The odds are zero if you don't play the game. I won't buy guns with locks, so while your odds of breaking one are slim, my odds are zero. That's not silly. That's simple math.

[rjm]

And I've actually had a Glock fail to fire and fail to eject, I've had a Remington 870 jam up solid, the round pushed underneath the loading gate and couldn't be removed without tools, I've seen plenty of ARs fail to fire and eject, I've seen a Barrett model 99 fail to fire at the range, I've seen very many 1911 models fail to feed, my brother's Weatherby .308 fired while he was chambering a round. Malfunctions will happen with any firearm brand, point me to a firearm brand that is 100% all the time and I will call you a liar. It just doesn't exist and can't exist.

Like I said, my Smiths have always worked and that is more than good enough for me. The fact is that if you were really worried that your Smith with a lock might break and not fire because of the lock you can easily be disabled.

[PlasticGuy]

Originally posted by rjm
And I've actually had a Glock fail to fire and fail to eject, I've had a Remington 870 jam up solid, the round pushed underneath the loading gate and couldn't be removed without tools, I've seen plenty of ARs fail to fire and eject, I've seen a Barrett model 99 fail to fire at the range, I've seen very many 1911 models fail to feed, my brother's Weatherby .308 fired while he was chambering a round. Malfunctions will happen with any firearm brand, point me to a firearm brand that is 100% all the time and I will call you a liar. It just doesn't exist and can't exist.

Like I said, my Smiths have always worked and that is more than good enough for me. The fact is that if you were really worried that your Smith with a lock might break and not fire because of the lock you can easily be disabled.
That's exactly my point. Every gun can fail. So why would I want a bunch of unneccessary small parts in there to increase that rate of failure? That's asking for trouble. What's going to have a higher failure rate, a simple gun, or an identical gun with several more small parts in it? As I said, it's simple math.

As for your second paragraph, I thought the locks were there as a liability issue? What liability problems am I inviting my removing a safety in my gun? That seems like a bad idea, and one that would raise questions I wouldn't want to answer in court after a defensive shooting.

[rjm]

So I assume you go the AK/SKS route instead of the AR?

The number of parts is not an indication of a failure rate, so no it is not simple math and if it were why would you buy a revolver in the first place, they have many more parts than the average semi-auto handgun. Seriously, revolvers aren't simple guns compared to a semi-auto, hell they have more than one chamber.

Buy a good quality firearm first and foremost and you have less chance of a malfunction. Thats not to say it won't happen, just that the chances are lessened. Smith and Wesson makes a quality revolver, plain and simple. I find it funny that you are basing your assesment of failed locks on Smith and Wesson revolvers from a Taurus revolver you owned. Taurus revolvers are cheaper for a reason.

Look, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I think Smith and Wesson's revolvers are a great sidearm with a lock or without a lock, you obviously think they somehow threw their quality control team out in the streets when they introduced the dreaded lock and haven't produced a quality firearm since. No big.

[PlasticGuy]

If I take any machine, and add another mechanism to it without changing anything else, the failure rate will increase. It might greatly increase, or it might only slightly increase, but it will increase. I guess you can disagree if it makes you feel better, but I don't see what there is to disagree about.

And you make a lot of assumptions. No, it was not my Taurus. No, it was not a revolver. You're right that it has nothing to do with S&W revolvers. The article by Ayoob about failed S&W revolver locks sure does though. If you feel better ignoring that and pretending it never happened, fine.

I'm not out to convince anyone of anything. Believe whatever you want, and buy whatever you want. Because much of the buying public feels the same way you do, and doesn't give a rat's behind that there is an extra hole and some extra small parts stuck in the side of their gun, S&W will likely never make another revolver I'll buy. That's my only complaint. I couldn't care less what you buy. I only care that S&W is no longer making a gun that's good enough for me.

[G33]

:deadhorse:

[anyplainjoe]

Does anyone have a link t this article from Mas Ayoob. I enjoy his writings but must have missed this one.

[crowkiller]

PlasticGuy, I dont like the locks either and thinking twice on a Smithy revolver. Sometime in the future I need to get me a 6" barrel.357 mag Ive been thinking between a GP100 and a Smithy not sure which yet maybe 686. Does Rugers have an internal lock? I sure wish Colt would make double actions again cause if so Id already had made my mind up.

[PlasticGuy]

The Ruger DA revolvers do not have an internal lock. They are the only quality DA revolver I know of that doesn't.

[PlasticGuy]

Here's a link to that article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_173_29/ai_n7578382

[watsoncb]

You know Mr. PlasticGuy I have been reading your dialog about the locks and went and looked at your profile and really got irriated. You have been a member for quite some time with lots of posts.

That is a great and do not stop. But you need to pay up and make a donation to the Glock Talk Forum.

Freedom has a price.

[PlasticGuy]

Very classy. Thanks for that.

[anyplainjoe]

Originally posted by PlasticGuy
Here's a link to that article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_173_29/ai_n7578382

Thanks for the link. It seems the super light weight snubbies van be finicky.

[jon_in_wv]

Getting upset about internal locks on our guns isn't going to make them go away. They are here to stay.

I applaud S&W for making it an OPTION on my M&P.

I agree putting it on the 1917 was, well, stupid.

If you don't like the locks, the older guns don't have them. And guess what, they are usually cheaper too!

[PlasticGuy]

I keep seeing people say versions of that phrase "It's here to stay, so deal with it." It's here to stay because consumers keep buying them. That means two things to me. First, I know I'm in the minority in caring enough about the simplicity and higher quality of the older S&W's to not buy the new ones. Second, the reason it's a lost cause is because of a combination of people who don't know any better and people with that "I don't like it but I'll deal with it" attitude.