Author Topic: Are S&W revolver shooters just STOOPID or what? (Read 10916 times)

jcn59 · « **on:** November 24, 2009, 08:25:58 AM »

Clinton hole, moroon lock, a solution looking for a problem, call it what you will. All the new S&W revolvers have it and their load-it-once-shoot-all-day semi autos don't have key locks.

Why is that? Do they figure us older than average revolver shooters aren't smart enough to use their new revolvers safely (never mind the last hundred years)?

Or maybe they think the new generation of semi auto shooters (that have enough ammo in their magazines to eventually hit their target ...someday) are so much smarter than the revolver shooters that they don't need a key lock? How does the lawyer crap excuse fit in here?

I think us older shooters are being discriminated against. I have a safe full of older S&Ws with NO lock that I bought SINCE the "mandatory" lock first disgraced their revolvers. I hope they feel satisfied. I know I do.

Aaaahh! I feel better now.

gunblade · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2009, 08:59:24 AM »

I think S&W is just doing what they were legally required to do with the locks on the revolvers. The semi-autos, even with their higher capacity, didn't require any changes...they already have a magazine disconnect safety and passive firing pin safety.

That said, I'm with you...I will only buy the older models.

Graybeard · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2009, 12:18:52 PM »

The folks who invented that silly lock just happen to be the folks who bought the company from the Brits a few years back. Until then selling their locks was how they made their money. Now that part of the business is doing quite well by them putting the locks on their new revolvers.

I don't own a S&W with the lock on it. Might never.

Bullseye · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2009, 03:30:36 PM »

This is one issue that amazes me. People have such strong feelings about it. The lever gun cross bolt safety is right up there with it, but this one amazes me more. I have 2 guns with the lock and one without. I have been hunting this week with one with the lock. From a functionality point you never know it is there. It is really is not some gaudy looking thing attatched to the gun, it is just a little thing. I have never locked mine and do not even know where the key is. From an Engineering standpoint if you have to have a lock on it, this is a design that meets the goal with a very minor cosmetic change to the gun. Remington shotguns have a safety with a keylock and you hardly ever hear anyone talking about them ruining the gun.

Why the semi autos do not have it is a good question. Maybe S&W figured their deal with the Clinton administration did not mean squat before they got that far. Maybe they come with a cable and lock like so many other guns. Maybe Graybeard is right.

jcn59 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2009, 04:04:24 PM »

There is NO "engineering standpoint" law that says S&W revolvers have to have a lock on them. They are owned by a "lock company" and that's why they have a lock on them. There is no "liability" crap that requires their revolvers to have a key lock but semi autos only need a safety. Don't make excuses for them.

The S&W key-lock is an insult to your intelligence. I won't be insulted by S&W. Certainly it is your choice to let them insult you.

I am not angry with you, Bullseye. I just can't see how S&W can "buffalo" (bs) the public on this issue. There is no good excuse for the key lock. We don't need to make one up.

Thank you all for responding.

Bullseye · « **Reply #5 on:** November 25, 2009, 02:09:09 AM »

There it is, proof of the first two sentences in my post.

I am not angry with you either. Guess I just do not feel that it insults my intelligence.

Brett · « **Reply #6 on:** November 25, 2009, 02:29:25 AM »

I think this dumb lock thing is a legal thing required by several States like CA, NJ and MA. If a company want's to sell their guns in those states they have to have the goofy lock. S&W is not alone in this thing I know all new Taurus, Rossi and Ruger and probably others now have a keyed lock on all their revolvers. Heck Ruger even has one on their newest MkIII .22 autos.

p.s.; If you think a cross bolt safety on a lever gun is redundant how about a trigger block safety on a single shot hammer gun. Yup, my daughters Rossi single shot has a safety on it.

jcn59 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 25, 2009, 06:30:08 AM »

The key lock is NOT a safety.

It is the "dumbing down" of the revolver-shooting community, mostly older people who are no longer smart enough to own a revolver without a key lock according to S&W and some of their customers.

Let's not make up excuses for the S&W key lock. It is unjustified.

Bullseye · « **Reply #8 on:** November 25, 2009, 07:03:51 AM »

This must not be a discussion thread. Seems that any discussion just gets ripped by the OP. Glad I have more important things to worry about in life other than the little circle on my revolver.

Let it rip OP, make sure you use the word unjustified at least once.

jcn59 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 25, 2009, 07:52:09 AM »

It frustrates me when we just "accept" whatever is done as something that can't be changed. I remember when S&W's British owners were allegedly making a deal with Clinton. We potential customers boycotted S&W and forced a change of ownership at a loss of 90 cents on the dollar for the British conglomerate. Now so many of us just accept the clintonhole as a fact of life.

I believe in the power of the people to change things. That's one of the reasons I started this thread. I hoped to light a fire under some of the readership to voice their objections to S&W about the lock. I guess that's not going to happen.

So here we are on November 25, 2009; Congress is doing unspeakable things to our people, and few people think they can change that, either. Kind of a self-fulfilling destiny.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #10 on:** November 25, 2009, 07:55:30 AM »

Maybe the autos don't need locks cause they fail to feed first , Yep sour grapes had a couple and both suffered .

Bullseye · « **Reply #11 on:** November 25, 2009, 09:37:11 AM »

jcn 59

Now I am having to agree with you about Congress. Hopefully we can change that in the next election. Biggest problem I see is anyone who runs for office no matter which side of the isle they are on is somewhat cut from the same cloth. We need to figure out how to get a normal person that is not in someones pocket in office.

jcn59 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 25, 2009, 10:04:18 AM »

DOESN'T SEEM THAT EITHER PARTY WANTS TO RUN A NORMAL PERSON.

MAYBE A NORMAL PERSON WON'T LIVE IN D.C.

I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO WOULD LIVE IN D.C. EVEN IF THEY COULD BE PRESIDENT. YOU CAN'T EVEN OWN A S&W SEMI THERE!

P.A. Myers · « **Reply #13 on:** November 30, 2009, 09:22:10 AM »

Is it true that if the late smith is dropped, the lock activates and must be unlocked to function again?

I have a few S&W 'lockers' and many pinned and recessed units.

I don't intend to test it.

Graybeard · « **Reply #14 on:** November 30, 2009, 10:35:21 AM »

Quote

I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO WOULD LIVE IN D.C. EVEN IF THEY COULD BE PRESIDENT. YOU CAN'T EVEN OWN A S&W SEMI THERE!

I'll bet ya that if I were President I could own a semiauto there but danged if it would be a S&W. Oh yeah if I were Prez I'd be toting.

Hook686 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 01, 2009, 12:46:15 AM »

I have not noticed S&W having a problem selling their revolvers with the lock. One thing that might influence S&W is California sales. California has all kinds of firearm safety tests that must be met. A big one is children getting ahold of a gun. Personally I rather like the lock feature. Easy to lock the revolver in the event my grandkids drop by for a visit. An added level of safety is a plus in my view. I've never had a problem with one and have 4 that have the lock.

If you don't like the lock, don't buy a S&W. It is that simple, so stop whinning, and callig S&W revolver shooters STOOPID.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #16 on:** December 01, 2009, 02:22:30 AM »

S&W still make several models without the lock . You can order a Mod. 38 less the lock .
Also after shooting a 340PD with a lock and using full house loads the lock did not lock itself . And if you have not had the pleasure of shooting a 12 oz 357 mag. trust me when i say it has enough recoil to make anything happen that can be recoil induced .

jcn59 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 01, 2009, 03:13:25 AM »

When my younger grandkids visit, I put the guns back in the safe. IT has a lock on it.

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

Thanks to all!

Rutin2tin · « **Reply #18 on:** December 09, 2009, 01:05:58 PM »

Locks on S&W revolvers.........?

I hate when that happens!

Dee · « **Reply #19 on:** December 09, 2009, 04:28:56 PM »

Well I have been owning Smiths for over 35 years, and my wife does say I'm stupid, but she owns a Smith too, so I don't think her reasoning on my stupidity has anything to do with my owning a Smith.

The key lock is unnecessary but, it really isn't that noticeable, and could easily be disabled, just like the cross bolt safety on the Marlin lever rifles.
Me I don't care one way or the other, and don't feel insulted by Smith for their deciding to put the lock there, but it does bother me that my wife thinks I am.

jcn59 · « **Reply #20 on:** December 09, 2009, 04:51:36 PM »

I don't see the connection between a SAFETY and a key lock.

If it took a key to put your Marlin off safe, would you still buy one?

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #21 on:** December 10, 2009, 02:33:50 AM »

If you travel thru. states that require the gun to be deactivated the lock works well , if you are checked and the gun is locked it is not a threat to anyone . If you have to leave your gun unattended even in your vehicle the lock is good if it is stolen as it would be useless until the lock is unlocked .
I'm with Dee it really dosen't matter . Use it if you have a need don't if you have no need . I have driven cars and trucks since 1972 with cig liters in them never used one and it didn't burn the car up either.

Dee · « **Reply #22 on:** December 10, 2009, 03:04:31 AM »

Quote from: jcn59 on December 09, 2009, 04:51:36 PM

I don't see the connection between a SAFETY and a key lock.

If it took a key to put your Marlin off safe, would you still buy one?

The "connection" jcn59, is that the Marlin, and the later Winchesters did not need a safety, but the lawyers and their lawsuits against guns caused the two companies to put the safety on the rifles. MANY complained about them and how unnecessary they were. It was a SAFETY.
What do YOU think the key lock on the newer Smiths are? How about a SAFETY feature?

I don't use the key lock so it is of no consequence.
Now! If I wanted a Marlin but, it had a key lock on it to answer your question. I most likely would if I "WANTED" the rifle.
To me this whole thing is inconsequential. If you don't lock the gun, the gun is unaffected. Throw the keys down a well, and never worry about them again.
If you don't like Smiths, don't buy them. If you don't like their way of avoiding lawsuits, PAY THEIR LEGAL FEES, or stop voting for the lessor of two evils, and gettin the same damn thing over and over in laws passed, and NRA lobbying compromises. Trail lawyers have been made fabulously wealthy over things like this, and the folks responsible are the Democrat and Republican VOTERS that monotonously continue to put in office THEIR PARTY COMPROMISE, by voting party instead of individual.

jcn59 · « **Reply #23 on:** December 10, 2009, 06:36:51 AM »

Yes, Dee. You bring up a good point.

Nonetheless, S&W could have taken a lesson from Ruger. Somehow THEIR lawyers haven't demanded key locks on their revolvers, and they remain in business.

Few people buy S&W revolvers because of the lock. Most who still buy them do it in spite of the lock from what I gather on this thread.

I still feel that the lock is the "dumbing down" of the shooting fraternity. While S&W could have put a manually operated safety on their revolvers similar to what they have on their semi autos, they choose instead to put a key lock on their revolvers.

It's a good thing that some of us have vocalized an objection to the revolver key lock, or we would have them on our semi autos also by now.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #24 on:** December 10, 2009, 06:53:12 AM »

On some Rugers you have to remove the grip to lock or unlock the gun .
Now I like Rugers , did so before the lock thing . But give S&W their due . If you look you notice the guys selling the most went to the lock first S&W , Remington And taurus . Ruger and others supply a lock or lock box . In states where they are required S&W , Rem... etc did you a favor so you won't lose it .
Since every S&W revolver the stores around here get in stock go with in days it would appear the lock has not hurt sales . It has caused the price of used ones to go up like other panic knee jerk things do .

Dee · « **Reply #25 on:** December 10, 2009, 07:53:09 AM »

SHOOTALL, I think you explained it better than I.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #26 on:** December 10, 2009, 07:57:18 AM »

Thanks Dee . what i can't figure is why it needed explaining .

Keith L · « **Reply #27 on:** December 10, 2009, 01:15:20 PM »

"Few people buy S&W revolvers because of the lock."

So, where is your data to back up that statement?

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #28 on:** December 11, 2009, 01:46:22 AM »

I find it funny that grip safety on a 1911 which millions are spent to alter and can cause a failure to fire if the grip you have on the gun is not just right gets little complaint where a safety that can be turned off and not effect shooting catches flack from so many even those who have never shot a gun with one .

Dee · « **Reply #29 on:** December 11, 2009, 03:09:38 AM »

Search me? I've owned 7 Smiths since the infamous key lock came out, and the lock has not only NEVER been used, but has never affected the revolvers inherent reliability on any of the guns. I had forgotten about them, until I bought this last one and saw the keys in the box.
I don't feel dumbed down by them as some have suggested. I feel Smith gave me an OPTION, if i choose to use it.