close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Is S&W Phasing Out Its Infernal Locks?

Discussion in 'GSSF' started by Captain38, Mar 13, 2010.

  1. Captain38

    Captain38

    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    A couple of years ago S&W offered IN LIMITED NUMBERS its J-frame Model 37-2 with a bobbed hammer, then its Model 642, and, just this week, its Model 442 WITHOUT the infamous internal lock that many of us refuse to abide!

    Oh, yes, there's also the revised versions of the Model 40 and 42 Centennial "Lemon Squeezers".

    At least for the J-frame snubbies, are they FINALLY beginning to see the light?
     
  2. 2afreedom

    2afreedom

    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Location:
    The South
    I don't think they are beginning to see it I think they already see it. Every time they release no lock revolvers they are sold out in a flash. If the new management isn't under the Clinton-era agreement I don't see why they don't just get rid of the things altogether. They could make a few runs for states that require an internal lock but leave it off for the majority. Anybody have a clue why this hasn't been done?
     

  3. alwaysshootin

    alwaysshootin

    Messages:
    3,760
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    I am in the market for a new 357 mag. I can assure you, I would like it to be a S&W. Likewise I can assure you it won't be a locked version, so if no " no lock ' versions are available, it will be Ruger again!
     
  4. american lockpicker

    american lockpicker License to Il

    Messages:
    8,219
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Wood County, West Virginia
    My brother in law has an M&P with the lock blocked off.
     
  5. 45caldan

    45caldan

    Messages:
    1,852
    Likes Received:
    509
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Location:
    central Florida
    The answer is NO. The only reason S&W made a batch of 642s and 442s without locks last year because they wanted to use up some OLD frames they had in inventory. The lock will stay as S&W is owned by Safe-T-Lock or some such Company....
    M&P models have always had the lock as an option.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2010
  6. Dalton Wayne

    Dalton Wayne Epic mustache Millennium Member

    Messages:
    12,633
    Likes Received:
    11
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 1999
    Location:
    Central Florida
    My 442 was made in 10 of 08 and it is no lock, I think if they truly won't be making no lock anymore that the no lock 442's and 642's are only going to be increasing in value in the future
    Regards
    DW
     
  7. BOGE

    BOGE Millennium Member

    Messages:
    4,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 1999
    The reason they use the lock is simplë: approx. 40% of their sales are in CA. Do the math. :wavey:
     
  8. 2afreedom

    2afreedom

    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Location:
    The South
    I understand the locks are a must have in some states but for the rest of us the lock free version would be a real selling point. Looks like it wouldn't be that hard to have two versions-maybe that would be too expensive? :dunno:
     
  9. RonS

    RonS Millennium Member

    Messages:
    15,413
    Likes Received:
    6,129
    Joined:
    May 27, 1999
    Location:
    Oh, USA
    So, any of these lockless Smiths come with a single action option?
     
  10. G19freak

    G19freak

    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2001
    40% of all sales to CA---I find that unbelievable------if its true ---its staggering.
     
  11. Smashy

    Smashy

    Messages:
    12,303
    Likes Received:
    132
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Location:
    Southwestern Oregon
    When I was looking at a 642 a few weeks ago, the owner of the gun shop told me that the last time he talked to his contact at S&W, the guy told him that there will be no more no-lock guns after what's currently available is all gone.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2010
  12. Big_Steve

    Big_Steve

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Location:
    Sonora, CA
    To the best of my knowledge, there is no requirement for a handgun to have an internal lock in order to be legal for sale in CA.
     
  13. armorplated

    armorplated

    Messages:
    2,329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 3, 2007

    Baloney.
     
  14. ElevatedThreat

    ElevatedThreat NRA Member

    Messages:
    3,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    I will never own a Clinton/Reno Nanny State lawyer-lock Safe-T-Hammer gun.

    I have seen these locks activate themselves during firing at the range, including "locking up" during IDPA matches. It is rare, but it does happen.

    But more to the point -- it is the principle of the thing. No one can legitimately tell me I must have some feature I do not want, on a gun -- the very symbol of American freedom.

    I am normally not profane...but Safe-T-Hammer can BITE me....

    -ET
     
  15. sigpro357

    sigpro357

    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Location:
    Virginia
    Geez louise all the **** about the locks drives me crazy. I own a 638 that has the lock. i've shot some heavy loads through it. Guess what? No problems. I've ran alot of rounds through it. Guess what? No problems. I don't use the lock, I don't care for the lock but it's not a deal breaker. The guns still work, and i've yet to physically see one lock up under recoil. It's always some story of my grandmothers, sister's, brothers dog 3 counties over shot one and it locked up on him. Darn dog got run over by a car because it's S&W lock failed. :upeyes:
     
  16. oldnoob

    oldnoob

    Messages:
    3,927
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Location:
    City of Angel, California
    Where did you get that number from. I'm not quite sure why will CA buy more of S&W than any state. The internal lock doesn't mean anything more to CA than other states.

    As matter of fact, I would think Smith might sell less in CA because the Roster require the approved models to meet exact with model numbers. That means, for example, only S&W Model 10 that's on the roster is 10-14. unless s&w pay CA DOJ to drop test and list their Model 10-1 to 10-13, they are not legal to sale in CA through FFL dealer.

    As soon as S&W decide to keep all their model with "-" on them, and whenever they did a tiny modification they will change their -number, S&W make itself to be the most CA unfriendly manufacture.



    PS: Thank you Glock for keeping your Gen 1~3 the same model number. Now, get rid of Gen 4 please.
     
  17. dan8402

    dan8402

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Location:
    SW Ohio

    Even if it is true, that means that they have 60% of their sales outside of CA, to people who don't like locks.
     
  18. txpitdog

    txpitdog

    Messages:
    503
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    I find the 40% number hard to believe. In Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas and a lot of the other southern states where we have few restrictions and allow gun shows, I'd be willing to bet that just those 5 states make up 40% or better by themselves.
     
  19. Eyescream

    Eyescream hates you

    Messages:
    32,672
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2002
    We do love guns here. :cowboy:
     
  20. fastbolt

    fastbolt

    Messages:
    15,267
    Likes Received:
    8,127
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    CA Central Coast
    I've been asking a number of different folks from S&W with whom I have cause to talk from time to time. The answer to the revolver ILS questions seems to shift a bit now and again.

    The answer I've been hearing in recent months is that the company may :whistling: be testing the waters in the market for some occasional DAO models being made without locks ... but that the ILS would most likely remain standard on revolvers with external hammers.

    It seems the short runs of 642-1's, 442-1's & 37-2's made with older stock frame sold out incredibly quickly after they were produced. I mean, S&W went to the effort to have the 642-1's, for example, listed on their website (using the old product code, BTW), website, and then the whole bunch of them were bought out in less than a month. Apparently that was noticed by somebody.

    I seem to have been one of a number of folks who were calling back there only to be told the entire production had already been sold off and that I'd have to call one of their normal wholesalers in order to find one. They offered to give me the names and numbers of the wholesalers who had bought the 642-1's. I had my local LE distributor handle that for me and eventually ended up with one. (I just wanted one to complement my original production 642-1, since it's my favorite Airweight.)

    S&W has been selling a LOT of J-frames with the ILS, including to LE agencies, but now it seems they're going to be willing to market some models without the ILS, even if only in DAO configuration and in lesser numbers than the bulk of the models made with the ILS.

    The ILS is a contentious issue among S&W fans, especially among internet firearms forums.

    The only S&W I own with the ILS is a M&P 340. Although the gun has had a couple of other minor issues which I've corrected, the ILS has not been one of them. I've been using the gun relatively hard (as a 'range beater' practice gun, including the use of Magnum loads, which isn't my idea of 'range fun' with the little Scandium aluminum gun) and it hasn't ever exhibited an issue with the ILS unintentionally engaging.

    Of course, none of the ILS-equipped J-frames I've shot and handled for either demo purpose or belonging to someone else has ever exhibited a problem with the ILS, either.

    Nor did any of the LE armorers in my revolver armorer class have any tales to tell of ILS problems, although none of the older folks who have long enjoyed S&W revolvers were particularly 'fans' of the ILS from the traditional perspective, of course. The instructor said he hadn't had anyone report ILS problems in the revolver armorer classes he's been teaching, either.

    Me? I'd rather have a S&W without the ILS than with it, but then I prevent unauthorized access to my weapons in other ways and don't have need of the ILS in a revolver for that purpose.

    S&W has revised the little torque lock spring used in the locking arm. Also, the spring isn't exactly easy to handle because of its really small size, nor is it particularly easy to properly snap into the locking arm. It's also important that the bottom leg be properly positioned within the recessed spot in the frame which holds it, and the hence the locking arm, anchored. I can see how someone tinkering with the working parts of their revolver, or someone experiencing a moment's inattention during assembly, could result in the spring not being properly installed, and therefore the locking arm not being properly tensioned in the downward position during recoil.

    S&W spends a lot of money to keep handguns on CA's approved roster, BTW. There are presently 351 S&W handguns on the roster, much of them revolvers. I remember when I asked someone from the company how much it was costing them to put the guns on the list after it had been created and was told that at least early on the company had spent about $500,000 in the beginning. Naturally, the cost is passed along to the consumer in the state. I was told they were also represented among the manufacturers who had entered into discussions with the state to make the definitions of things like a loaded chamber indicator more reasonable and practical. CA is a fairly large customer of the company (and of the other major companies, of course) and they have continually tried to remain able to do business in the state, despite their detractors among the internet.

    Hey, just my thoughts.

    Personally, I'd like to add yet another DAO J-frame without an ILS to my retirement/CCW collection. Maybe a 40 or 42, or even that new 640 with full night sights that seems not to be equipped with an ILS (when it's available).
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2010