why the hate for lock smith and wessons

Hotdog said:
Is it mostly the j frames that have this issue or all guns with lock
Click to expand...
I’m sure they all have the potential. My experience is lightweight frames and heavy recoil. Like the small scandium and titanium alloys J-frames with .357 mag or .38 spl +p ammo.
 
I find it interesting that while S&W gets all the hate Taurus does the same thing on some of their products as well, notably the FUDD darling Judge.
I guess the fantasy of having a “devastating” revolver that you “can’t miss” with is stronger than the paranoia of some random mechanical failure (which on Taurus products failure is rarely random) or the persecution complex of some company or another being in league with the forces of darkness.
 
keepcalmandcarryon said:
I find it interesting that while S&W gets all the hate Taurus does the same thing on some of their products as well, notably the FUDD darling Judge.
I guess the fantasy of having a “devastating” revolver that you “can’t miss” with is stronger than the paranoia of some random mechanical failure (which on Taurus products failure is rarely random) or the persecution complex of some company or another being in league with the forces of darkness.
Click to expand...

So?


1705234388005.png
 
keepcalmandcarryon said:
I find it interesting that while S&W gets all the hate Taurus does the same thing on some of their products as well, notably the FUDD darling Judge.
I guess the fantasy of having a “devastating” revolver that you “can’t miss” with is stronger than the paranoia of some random mechanical failure (which on Taurus products failure is rarely random) or the persecution complex of some company or another being in league with the forces of darkness.
Click to expand...


Taurus’ lock predated S&W’s and theirs wasn’t done as part of a deal with the Clinton administration. It was the political side of the Smith lock that enraged so many.

Interestingly, when Taurus came out with their lock, they offered it to any gun company who wanted to use it royalty free. I remember they had a bit of fun with Smith when Smith started getting the lock hate. The Taurus lock isn’t nearly as ugly as the Smith lock and they said as much in the press.
 
cubrock said:
It was seen in big bores with heavy recoil the most, in my experience.
Click to expand...
I do remember seeing a J frame 22 LR with the lock failing at Battery Oaks. I'm not sure but it may have been a Model 317.
 
Geezer said:
I do remember seeing a J frame 22 LR with the lock failing at Battery Oaks. I'm not sure but it may have been a Model 317.
Click to expand...


I don’t doubt it. The early failures of the lock I was privy to were all big bores. I should have made it clearer I was talking about what I had seen, not making a general statement. 😀

A friend witnessed a gun lock up at a gun writer range day with a Smith big wig there who was proclaiming the locks didn’t lock by themselves. He then proceeded to have one lock up on him while he was shooting.

For the record, I own some Smiths with locks, but I put a lock delete in them. In general, I won’t own a lock Smith if a no lock version is available, but 327s and 329s don’t have a no lock variation and I find both models useful in backpacking and camping.
 
never had an issue with the lock. Don’t like it, but I’ll continue to buy revolvers with or without locks. The lock mania has made some older revolvers way more expensive than newer ones. Older is always more collectible, but doesn’t always equate to a better shooter. I have a 627 and left the lock intact and have not removed it. I shoot this more than any revolver I own - even use at some pistol matches. Not one issue. I don’t shoot it at every pistol match but I have thousands of rounds through it.
I’ll also add the lock will likely never go away. S&W is committed and would have to invest in new tooling to go back. Lawyers will never let them go back, think about this for a minute- S&W went to lock design as an “improvement” for increased “safety” and “security”. If for some odd reason they went back and someone had an injury or death that could somehow be attributed to the lock - lawyers would gut the company in court. There is likely no going back
 
First, it's the principle of it.
Second, the chance(very very low) of failure.
Third, why? I can get the no-hole version for the same price.
 
I have only ever bought 3 S&W revolvers new, all fairly recently, primarily due to wanting each to be 100% "clean", meaning with me as the first owner I don't have to have butterflies as I wait for someone to "run the numbers" whenever I get pulled over.

It wasn't till after I bought the first two that I even realized they didn't have locks, as I thought they all did these days.

43C- .22LR No lock

351C -.22 WMR No lock

I was pleased they didn't have locks, but it would seem like they would be the least to worry about given their recoil, tho reading the forums here shows lock failure isn't always related to recoil.

Unfortunately....

TRR8 .357? Lock. Of course.....

One day I hope to report on how it has held up but I have hesitated using it just due to worrying about whether I ought to replace the lock with a plug before the first shot. Very irritating considering how long I have wanted to get one. And so now it sits as I on intend using it with the heaviest recoiling stuff I can dream up.
 
commiecuriocollector said:
I have only ever bought 3 S&W revolvers new, all fairly recently, primarily due to wanting each to be 100% "clean", meaning with me as the first owner I don't have to have butterflies as I wait for someone to "run the numbers" whenever I get pulled over.

It wasn't till after I bought the first two that I even realized they didn't have locks, as I thought they all did these days.

43C- .22LR No lock

351C -.22 WMR No lock

I was pleased they didn't have locks, but it would seem like they would be the least to worry about given their recoil, tho reading the forums here shows lock failure isn't always related to recoil.

Unfortunately....

TRR8 .357? Lock. Of course.....

One day I hope to report on how it has held up but I have hesitated using it just due to worrying about whether I ought to replace the lock with a plug before the first shot. Very irritating considering how long I have wanted to get one. And so now it sits as I on intend using it with the heaviest recoiling stuff I can dream up.
Click to expand...
Why not just go ahead and shoot it? from what i can tell the lock just engages and you can take the key and unlock it and keep shooting if it does happen i am not patient enough to have a gun that i havent shot yet lol
 
From Wiki

On May 11, 2001, Saf-T-Hammer Corporation acquired Smith & Wesson Corp. from Tomkins plc for US$15 million, a fraction of the US$112 million originally paid by Tomkins.[20] Saf-T-Hammer assumed US$30 million in debt, bringing the total purchase price to US$45 million.[21][22] Saf-T-Hammer, a manufacturer of firearms locks and other safety products, purchased the company with the intention of incorporating its line of security products into all Smith & Wesson firearms in compliance with the 2000 agreement.

The acquisition of Smith & Wesson was chiefly brokered by Saf-T-Hammer President Bob Scott, who had left Smith & Wesson in 1999 because of a disagreement with Tomkins' policies. After the purchase, Scott became the president of Smith & Wesson to guide the 157-year-old company back to its former standing in the market.[23]

On February 15, 2002, the name of the newly formed entity was changed to Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation.[24]
 
Button Pusher said:
From Wiki

On May 11, 2001, Saf-T-Hammer Corporation acquired Smith & Wesson Corp. from Tomkins plc for US$15 million, a fraction of the US$112 million originally paid by Tomkins.[20] Saf-T-Hammer assumed US$30 million in debt, bringing the total purchase price to US$45 million.[21][22] Saf-T-Hammer, a manufacturer of firearms locks and other safety products, purchased the company with the intention of incorporating its line of security products into all Smith & Wesson firearms in compliance with the 2000 agreement.

The acquisition of Smith & Wesson was chiefly brokered by Saf-T-Hammer President Bob Scott, who had left Smith & Wesson in 1999 because of a disagreement with Tomkins' policies. After the purchase, Scott became the president of Smith & Wesson to guide the 157-year-old company back to its former standing in the market.[23]

On February 15, 2002, the name of the newly formed entity was changed to Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation.[24]
Click to expand...


Yep.
 
S&W used to pay workers by the piece, regardless of the quality, that changed under Scott.
Edit: Nothing wrong with the piecework if it is done properly, Lincoln Electric employees are paid through piecework,
with earnings directly tied to individual and team production. They also receive a bonus based on profit sharing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom