Are S&W revolver shooters just STOOPID or what?

[jcn59]

Don't have to lock the 327, it locks itself, whenever it pleases!

The lock is a sign of moral decay in the USA.  S&W didn't need a lock when they furnished revolvers to us during the greater part of the 1900s.  I guess they just figure we are too "stoopid" to use their revolvers today.

Reminds me of when the British owners of S&W thought we were too "stoopid" to try to do anything about their dealings with clinton.   Guess we showed them!  S&W sold for 10 cents on the dollar when we got done with them.  Today's S&W revolver owners must be girlie-men.  Real men own those big clunky Rugers.  Mine don't have locks on them....er...neither do my Smiths....

[Dee]

Well being one of those owning a few Smiths with internal locks on them, I guess it's good that yours don't have locks on the, as it would probably further confuse you, more so than you already obviously are.

[Lloyd Smale]

I must be one of those girly men you refer to as when i get done working up loads for my 500s and 475 linebaughs i enjoy a little relaxation with a good 4 inch 29. Or my 25 mountain gun (with lock) Ive got two redhawks. a custom 3 inch 44 and a 4 inch 45 and shoot them too but wouldnt trade you two new redhawks for one of my smiths.

[jcn59]

Hi, Dee.   You always come out to play when I blast S&W internal locks.  You too, Lloyd.

Lloyd,  I have a very nice full underlug S&W Model 29 Classic that I would like to trade you even up for your two Redhawks, okay?

No lock, so does that void your offer to trade, or have we got a deal?

[Dee]

Who's playin? I was serious.

[SHOOTALL]

If you have a gun with or with out one you should shoot it enough to know if its reliable and if not have it made so or get rid of it .

[Lloyd Smale]

never said id trade i said i wouldnt trade my smith for two redhawks. My two redhawks are both custom guns and they serve a purpose. My 25 mountain gun has just over 20k through it last i looked and not a lick of trouble with the lock or anything else. Some of those loads would make a smith fan cringe too. Hell ive had rugers that didnt work out of the box and sure have sent a slug of them in for repair so where are they so much superior to a smith with a lock. Also ive owned 4 redhawks through the years and none of them ran a 100 percent double action without some work unless federal primers were used. Now before you jump in there and tell me yours runs fine and it has 200 rounds through it a guy doesnt have a clue how reliable a gun is until youve put at least a 1000 rounds through it and any individual load im going to use is going to be shot a minimum of 500 times before its going hunting or im trusting my life to it. take your redhawk out for an HONEST test. Load 500 rounds of ammo. I dont care what the load is or it you use standard or mag cci primers and double action them all through your redhawk and count the missfires. Id bet you use up the fingers on one hand and possibly two. Sure theres a easy cure, you can buy an extended firing pin and do some slicking up on the metal in the action but if your really conserned about the smith lock theres a easy cure to that too. You can take the parts out. I know theres been failures with the smith lock. thats a given. but theres failures with any mechanical device including those built by God forbid Ruger!

[SHOOTALL]

RUGER ?  NAW 

[jcn59]

Did I say I had a Ruger?  I remember trying to trade a S&W Classic for some, I think.

[Daman]

My Model 10 NEVER had a lock malfunction in the 30+ years I've owned it.

What is the point in the discussion??? No matter what anyone says or does unless it is that the lock sucks and leaves the gun as a malfunctioning misfit they are wrong. I have guns both long and hand of many makes and models and shoot 100's of rounds per week and never once have I had a lock fail and lock up a gun, but that doesn't make my experience statistically sound? I have had mechanical action failures, but does that mean if it ain't a single shot it is defective?

Now do I like that the NRA compromises on legislations or that gunmakers have to lawyer proof everything? NO!!!!, but does that mean I will boycott them? No!!! All the gunmakers are doing is trying to stay in business.

The only thing we can do to fight this is to remain NRA and other organization members and put our money where our mouth is to stop the lawyers and politicians.

Daman

[jcn59]

This is NOT about "if the lock works".  It's about S&W "dumbing down" gun owners.

I'm trying to light a fire under those "sheep" out there who feel that as consumers they have no control over what S&W has jammed down their throats.  You all don't think that the clintonhole is the END of the so-called safety devices that will be forced on us, do you?   

THAT IS  THE POINT OF THIS THREAD, and I can see it's hopeless.

If S&W decided that all S&W handguns had to be colored pink, I've come to realize a good number of you would probably buy two.  All I can say is God help us if you guys were all we had when the Brits owned S&W & people like me forced them out of business for making their deal with clinton.

There is no such thing as "a little encroachment on our freedoms"  any more than a female can be "a little pregnant".

[Lloyd Smale]

so i guess we boycott every gun manufacture that makes a revolver with some kind of a lock or a lever gun with a safety. Hum, Who does that leave left? Its what it is and you will see more locks and safetys before you get planted and id about bet you dont see a single one of them go away. So far that includes ruger smith tarrus winchester marlin mossberg. while were at it lets roast all the 1911 manufactures (which is darned near all of them) that added the newer safer internals and ruger and wichester bolts because they need to use a 3 position safety. I guess a guy cant safely open a bolt unless the safetys on.   I guess we can all start buying rossi da revolvers. Funny thing is it seems like everyone wants to single out smith.

[SHOOTALL]

S&W hasn't jammed anything down anyones throat . Wang !

[beerbelly]

I am an old man with old smith's so none of them have the lock. My question is , has there been a problem with the locks on the new guns, so that there was a malfunction and the gun would not fire? If not what is the problem?
                                 Beerbelly

[Daman]

so i guess we boycott every gun manufacture that makes a revolver with some kind of a lock or a lever gun with a safety. Hum, Who does that leave left? Its what it is and you will see more locks and safetys before you get planted and id about bet you dont see a single one of them go away. So far that includes ruger smith tarrus winchester marlin mossberg. while were at it lets roast all the 1911 manufactures (which is darned near all of them) that added the newer safer internals and ruger and wichester bolts because they need to use a 3 position safety. I guess a guy cant safely open a bolt unless the safetys on.   I guess we can all start buying rossi da revolvers. Funny thing is it seems like everyone wants to single out smith.

Nope, they have locks on the hammer.

Daman

[pneuby]

My question is, has there been a problem with the locks on the new guns, so that there was a malfunction and the gun would not fire?

The answer is an overwhelming, and resounding yes! If you peruse any of the major S&W forums, you'll find a solid afternoon's worth of reading, I suspect. The bottom line is this. I won't carry one for defense, from man nor animal, if it has a lock. Target use, or 'gun-games', no problem.

That said, I wouldn't turn down a good deal on a gun with a lock, knowing that I can remove those parts and plug the hole so that it's aesthetically presentable.

[Squib]

I think they should not have trigger guards or trigger pulls of more than 1.2 lbs also    damn lawyers!

[Keith L]

he answer is an overwhelming, and resounding yes! If you peruse any of the major S&W forums, you'll find a solid afternoon's worth of reading, I suspect. The bottom line is this. I won't carry one for defense, from man nor animal, if it has a lock. Target use, or 'gun-games', no problem.


[/quote]



I keep hearing what a problem this is, but what I read is that someone knows someone who read it on the internet.  I have yet to talk with anyone who had it happen to them.

[CajunBass]

I DID NOT call S&W shooters stoopid.  I merely asked.  It worked. I got lots of responses from people about the lock. 

Re: Are S&W revolver shooters just STOOPID or what?

That comes pretty close to calling them stupid in my opinion.  The use of the word "just" implies that you think they are at least stupid, if not something more.

[Inspector-Callahan]

This is NOT about "if the lock works".  It's about S&W "dumbing down" gun owners.

I'm trying to light a fire under those "sheep" out there who feel that as consumers they have no control over what S&W has jammed down their throats.  You all don't think that the clintonhole is the END of the so-called safety devices that will be forced on us, do you?   

THAT IS  THE POINT OF THIS THREAD, and I can see it's hopeless.

If S&W decided that all S&W handguns had to be colored pink, I've come to realize a good number of you would probably buy two.  All I can say is God help us if you guys were all we had when the Brits owned S&W & people like me forced them out of business for making their deal with clinton.

There is no such thing as "a little encroachment on our freedoms"  any more than a female can be "a little pregnant".

JCN,

Its mighty refreshing to hear you echo my sentiments with the S&W lock. It's there because S&W was purchased by a lock making company and they feel that they can jam them down our throats and the new gun buyers won't notice and the older buyers will just accept it and say that there's just nothing that can be done, just accept it.

I don't know about anyone else here but these locks smell alot like the smart gun technology that's being forced upon NJ gun owners. I'm afraid that if gun owners don't stop and address the manufacturers that are yielding to political pressure and other pressure that conflicts with their customers wants, then we will continue to get things we don't want.

For those who like the lock, please buy more. But those of you that don't , please don't encourage S&W (or any other company for that matter) to continue producing things we don't want...with your dollars. Company's WILL notice, resistance is just NOT futile. When sales slow and marketers are looking for more sales, THIS will be an item discussed.

I have purchased many, many S&W's without the lock and S&W has forfeited NUMEROUS sales just by ME alone. I would surely consider new S&W's , but not until the lock disappears.

IC

[teamnelson]

So Jerry Miculek is shooting what, crap guns? Setting 5 world records shooting current manufacture S&W revolvers, 625 and 627. I am guessing he puts more ammo through those guns in a year than most of us shoot in a lifetime. If he came out and said that the locks are crap, I'll listen. So if you got a link to that affect, post it here please.

And I don't blame S&W ... we're a heartbeat away from wrapping everyone in bubble wrap with a mouth piece and helmet because of frivolous lawsuits filed by ... not S&W ... consumers, like you and me. You can't even really blame the lawyers, they just present the apple - the client takes the bite. You can't pick and choose which freedoms you'll let be encroached - its all or nothing, so if a lock on your revolver makes you mad, ask yourself why you're not mad about all the other encroachments you probably took in stride today.

[knorris948]

Well another liability angle would be if the revolver has the lock and YOU don't use it, maybe YOU could be liable if anything at all causes injury to some one or something. I can see it now. Well Mr Norris why didn't you have that Dangerous Violent Weapon locked? Maybe the poor misunderstood men who entered your home would not have been able use the weapon on you family........ 

[SHOOTALL]

I hate to point out the fact if the poor misunderstood men got in your house and got your gun and killed your family and you it wouldn't really matter , would it ?
My concern would be how you allowed that to take place !

Better to be judged by 6 than carried by 12 !

[SHOOTALL]

reverse the 6 and 12 been a long couple days 

[Mohawk]

That's easy. There is not any legislation that I know of that says you are required by law of defending anyone unless you are a soldier or police officer. In some circumstances you "may" but not "required".  I would love to be the defense attorney on that one!

[SHOOTALL]

And where are police required to do so ? If this were true everyone who was victom to crime would have a case aginst the local police department now wouldn't they ?

[jcn59]

A guy where I live just shot a couple kids who broke into his tavern. He has not been incarcerated and he has not been charged with anything yet.  Maybe you self ordained "legal eagles" out there don't know what you're talking about.  Chicken little??  The sky is falling, the sky is falling?  Does this sound like you?   Worrying about things that haven't happened??

[SHOOTALL]

Note the key word YET