Back in the 90’s Smith & Wesson made a deal with the devil (then Bill Clinton) to keep from getting sued by the government. At the time local and state governments with the help of the Federal Government where suing gun companies for the “gun violence problem.” They were trying to get money from them like they got from tobacco companies in the 80’s. I even think they were using the same lawyers. The most controlling of the gun banners where trying to use this as a way to put all the gun companies out of business.
To keep out of the mess and stay in business, Smith had a sit down with the Clinton administration and part of the deal was to put internal locking devices on their new handguns. Seemed reasonable for the CEO at the time, but people where so pissed that it almost put Smith out of business. Gun people simply boycotted the Smith and Wesson brand.
After the first law suit was filed, all the other gun companies rallied against the government to help each other win suit after suit. Funny part is, before the law suits, gun companies didn’t talk. It was almost treason for someone working for Smith to talk to someone working for Ruger. Now they all talk and work together at various events. Smith missed all of that when they stayed out of the law suits. People started buying other products instead. Me included. And it took a long time for anyone to trust Smith & Wesson again. If I remember right, everyone got fired that was even thought to be involved in the deal. They cleaned house.
Fast forward two decades and we still have the internal lock on a lot of Smith revolvers. I still think it’s a political decision not to remove them because they are afraid of negative press about removing “safety devices.”. Stupid media would love to make that claim. And I still think Smith is doing a disservice to its customers by playing that game.
Is there a problem with the locking device for a carry gun? Yes, no, and maybe. First if the lock breaks it is designed to break in the on position locking out the gun for use. Sounds reasonable unless it happens to you when you are trying to shoot the gun.
The locking mechanism inside wasn’t designed to take a lot of abuse. So if you shoot a lot (and you should shoot your carry gun a lot) it could break, but it’s pretty rare.
Smith has been quietly addressing this problem for years. On some of their guns they just removed the lock. The big light-weight boomers (bigger than a .357 Magnum) don’t all have the lock. The recoil was breaking the mechanism under the heavy recoil and light weight that make the gun move faster under recoil. The other ones that no longer have the lock are the really small light weight J frames.
On heavier and bigger guns in self-defense calibers it is not a problem. The lock will probably last as long as the gun. Shoot it and enjoy. If I was going to carry a revolver and had a choice, I’d buy one without the lock.
The lock is one more thing that can go wrong and really ruin your day on the range or in a self defense shooting. Some of the new Smiths even come with or without the lock. The 642 is a J frame .38 Special that you can get with or without the lock. Ironically the one without the lock is generally a little more expensive.
I wish Smith would just do away with the lock on their guns except for special runs for people that want it (I’m not sure there are any, but maybe there are) and make most of their guns without it.
Not having the lock would make me feel a lot better about carrying a revolver for self defense. Even-though I’d like to have the locks removed, I did carry a Smith 686 with a lock for a while when I worked for an Armored Car company as an extra gun. I shot it a bunch and it was used when I got it and I didn’t think twice of carrying in the truck with me.
If you are going to carry a revolver for self defense, as with any gun, go test it. Make sure you shoot some of your chosen self defense load out of it so you know it works and won’t lock up the gun. And it will get you use to the extra recoil, and shooting more never hurts.
Stay Safe,
Ben
No troll just my opinion & to clarify I have two reasons I like the lock :
1. When I am have to leave my Jframe 357 to go into a federal building, bank , bar or where it is not leagal in my area I can lock the action. & leave in my locked truck.
For my other weapons I lock them in a lock box inside my truck. I find a quick trip inside the regulated facilities the lock on the weapon for convinience faster.
Real life we had a 14 year old break into a truck while the owner was in a bar he came out as the youngster was exiting his truck. The owner confronted the teen & killed the owner. 357 revolver.
2. My grandchildren.
I also feel very secure knowing my weapons cannot be accessed. Revolvers do not take the strength to rack the slide as a 1911, or the various auto I own so I think the lock idea is a good one if a person does not maintain 100% control at all times.
Real example The mother who was killed by her own firearm by her child in Walmart, when the mother had a loaded revolver in her purse.
Last thing, I am a retired tank commander with 23 years, some places there is serious areas in the US that require a very serious mind set. But a 5 shot or even an 8 shot revolver would never be a serious carry weapon. If you knowingly are going into a dangerous situation.
The point being we don’t ever need to keep ratcheting up false threats as many of the untrained go strait to AR & what we end up with are fools who have no discipline to keep the weapons secure or create bad situations.
Real world example domestic disputes resulting in law enforcement being killed by angry spouse.
This is gun lock issue is totally a personal preference. Boils down to what each persons reality is & for some fantasy. So let’s ask questions of reality:
Do you have children or grandchildren?
Are you in war or under constant threat of your life?
How many times have you been shot at?
Do you leave weapons unattended/loaded in your
vehicle/home?
Are they locked up in both place when you are not there?
Is the reason you dislike the lock based on any truth above?
K Stroke you almost sound like a troll, but I’ll answer the question that was answered in the article. The lock has shown a history of breaking and my self defense gun shouldn’t break.
Your Specific questions answered;
– I do have children and my guns are either on me or in the safe… that’s it.
– I’m in as much danger as you are, I can just admit there is evil in the world and that evil may want to act against me or my family. I choose to protect myself you can do what you want.
– I’ve been shot at a bunch and it sucks! I suggest avoiding it if at all possible, if you can’t avoid it, next best thing is return fire.
– If you have to leave weapons unattended in your vehicle this maybe an acceptable answer, I just think there are better ways to do it.
See above
– My dislike for the lock is spelled out nicely in the article. So yes, lots of truth above I base my preference on.
If you choose to carry a Smith with the lock, we can still be friends, just have the knowledge of what that lock can and cannot do for you and then make your own decision.
Agreed. I have a 642 with a Crimson Trace on it but choose my XS sighted LCR instead.