How much of a dealbreaker is the internal lock on S&W revolvers?
I’ve only ever bought pre lock models but the model I’m specifically after (3” 686 plus) is hard to find and considerably more expensive for a pre lock model compared to the readily available current production internal lock model. I wouldn’t really care for just a range toy but I’m considering carrying it and don’t really like the idea of an internal lock that can make a carry gun inoperable.
Never happened on my 686+ (6inch so recoil definitely got dampened) turd and I exclusively shoot moronic .357 loads built around getting fire or smoke with wax lubed bullets. Muh 642 with lock has been fine and my """practice"""" ammo which is a 148gr wc with 3.8 grains of hp38 backed with a winchester spm primer and while not the most powerful according to my books it's near +p but it's a snappy little shit. No issues in regards to the lock. I guess there's some stories out there but apparently not enough to dissuade people from buying.
you can take it out and put a plug in the hole.
Boomers hate these locks with an irrational passion
It is not irrational. I do not want a hillary hole on my handgun. It is a choice, and S&W needs to reverse their decision.
boomers love shit and wesson MIM junk still.
It’s very easy to pop the side plate, take the lock out, and replace the hole with a metal piece. you can find it by looking up S&W lock delete. I’ve done it to a model 66 that I bought when they were first reintroduced and have carried it since with no problems. It is my EDC and outside of swapping out the sights and some springs the gun shoots flawlessly. I would never carry any of my pre lock smiths only because if you have to use it some cop frick is going to steal it or fingerfrick it.
>Lock Delete
Yeah, I'm not paying $50 for a spot of metal half the size of a dime.
I took apart all of my Smiths with a lock (the 629 and 500 worried me about the lock engaging) and just shaved the metal bit down so it doesn't engage even if the key is turned.
I figure at the very least, if will give the next owner or user a nasty surprise, but it's not like I have the lock keys anymore.
100% Dealbreaker. The message needs to be sent that the Hillary Hole is not acceptable and guns with a HH will be shunned, despite the ability to plug the hole.
this is the correct opinion and anyone who says otherwise is a homosexual
all you pathetic lock apologists can suck my fricking dick
frick the internal lock's muddah
I will NEVER pay the toll because I will NEVER have the hole
I have several pre-lock and four with the lock: a 617, 686+, 327 Performance Center, & a Governor. All the guns with the lock have been 100% trouble free. That said, if you put a pre-lock next to a later model with the lock the earlier guns are nicer, no question asked. The lock itself insn't really problematic, but it's a sign of kowtowing to political bullshit and also a sign of diminished quality. But this is nothing new for S&W, they've been cutting corners since before WWII when they started lowering the screw count on their earlier guns.
>ugly
>has a (admittedly minuscule) chance to fail
>ugly
>made to appease enemies which is always homosexual
>ugly
>have to buy a separate part if I want to fix it
>ugly
And also it's ugly. I ain't buying one until they take it off.
>but you're mostly just mad for aesthetic reasons
Yes.
This.
I buy revolvers because they’re fun and I like them. I don’t want to look at something I’m buying for fun and be reminded that slowly the nanny state is chipping away at it…
Fwiw I refuse to get one of those heritage 22s because of the godawful flip safety on them… it’s a single action revolver with a transfer bar, the safety is not having the hammer wienered…
I refuse to buy a heritage 22 because Wranglers dump on them.
Well that too…. But I’ve spent more in one purchase on ammo for bigger bore revolvers than one of those heritages cost on sale.. if it weren’t for the safety I’d have probably picked one or two up just to try the full cowboy larp on a budget…
>and be reminded that slowly the nanny state is chipping away at it…
also lets talk about the three separate ellipsis you used in your post. you'd better be in your 40s if you're gonna type like that.
I’m 35 going on 60…. Stay the frick off my lawn
eugh yeah thats no good bud. you're young enough to know talking like that hasn't been socially acceptable for decades.
you are not entitled to being crotchety just because you've experienced adult disappointment for the first time.
I don’t really give a shit man. Feel free to continue critiquing grammar on a Chinese basket weaving forum…
its not grammar, its sounding like an edgy teenager despite being an adult.
Not really…. Maybe you just need to chill man
>I buy revolvers because they’re fun and I like them. I don’t want to look at something I’m buying for fun and be reminded that slowly the nanny state is chipping away at it
Exactly. Those who accept this need to accept it is the Edsel of handguns. Imagine if you were a environmentalist and your electric car for no reason at all had a diesel rolling coal safety device to emit noise and smoke to alert other divers that you are nearby or some other dumb reason, then just told you to accept it and keep making them. S&W who I know and like as a company need to be sent a signal from the market that these guns will be shunned and suffer in sales and resale, and they do.
The shame of it is if they started selling new ones without the lock I’d be a lot more interested in buying one than looking at other interesting revolvers from other companies…
Theirs only a few reasons to own a revolver. The best is “you just like them and prefer them to a semi auto”. The only practical reasons I ever see that make any sense are 1. You want to shoot large caliber rounds that you just can’t shoot out of a semi auto. Or 2. You really really plan to shoot it from inside a pocket and have a hammer less revolver…. Honestly even as a fairly big revolver fan a lot of the crazy arguments I see are pretty displaced from reality.
That said if you like the gun, your probably gonna shoot it more, and all arguments about design and practicality generally matter less than actually being familiar with shooting your gun.
3. You really want to practice marksmanship with long, heavy DA pulls.
4. You expect the utmost accuracy and use a finely tuned SA for long range silhouette. IHMSA, etc.
#4 is a maybe, but honestly if your at that level of competition I think your gonna spend enough on any gun that the biggest impediment to accuracy is gonna be you not the firearm…
About #3 I think practicing a double action trigger helps, but practicing with the gun your gonna use helps more.. so if your going for overall skill then yes I agree, but for most people who don’t go shooting all the time I think it’s better to shoot the gun your likely to carry.
>Boomers shat their pants and bled from their eyes when smithy wesson decided on their own to add a mechanical lock that could be overridden with a screwdriver
>Boomer came in their pants when Regan banned full autos in 1986
truly a generation of morons
This music video used to scare me as a kid
>He didn't grow up in the 80s being scared shitless by "Land of Confusion" music video
Pussy
You don't have a revolver, you don't have any gun. You're just a gay.
I don't own a smith with a lock but I don't actually care about it, seems kind of useful if you want to leave it in your nightstand/desk drawer with kids around. I hate the captive firing pin smiths though and just generally the fit and finish of every smith made after like 1988.
686 3" is stupid and a boat anchor in your pants, why not a model 66 3"? Or even a model 60 if you want polished stainless?
Don’t K frame revolvers beat themselves up with magnum loads compared to L frames?
Older models did but modern 357 K frames can take 357 all day with no issue
I'm too poor to shoot magnums all day, but I heard it's the high velocity ammo on the non current K-frames. The old 158 grains are supposedly fine. Also certain dashes with yoke mounted gas shields are more vulnerable since they had to take more material off the flat by the forcing cone.
Every post-lock 686 I've handled has had a horrible, heavy, gritty trigger pull on par with Taurus revolvers.
I can't understate how bad they are. I can't hardly believe my LGS had 3 fricking lemons, but when I can compare it directly to the new Pythons, or an old 66-2(best one there), an old model 586, then something tells me there's something afoot.
It's literally nothing and has never failed outside of stupid ass israelitetube tests where they put the lock half on before firing. It just looks gay, which is ironic because it's an extremely queer and shitpushing thing to complain about.
Everyone accepts them on HK so you can probably accept them on SW.
it's a combination of fuddlore and /k/ memes
Might as well just carry a brick instead of that piece of shit, it’d probably be lighter.
Said the gay with a dot sight on his carry gun.
Modern K frames have a few features that make them more than up to the task.
In the pic you can see the forcing cone has no cutout and a ball detent to help enduse the crane stays better aligned.
I won't own one. Ever. Won't spend money on one, won't accept one as a gift. Doesn't matter the manufacturer, just if the model I look at has one (or the equivalent). Same goes for DNA or fingerprint or other biometric/electronic lockout. No. Never. I will not be locked out of my firearm by any accident or hack. It's a ridiculous, hideously dangerous, manufactured FAIL point that has no reason or excuse for existing, except in the fantasy world of morons. All my weapons are inert to any electronic &/or computerized interface, and they always will be. Nobody gets to appoint themselves my nanny and take away my ability to defend myself, for any reason, ever.
So, it is a 100% deal breaker.
>H&K, Ruger, Taurus, etc. all have internal locks
>only S&W gets shit for it
why?
You let me know where to put the key on my ruger.
notmyruger
My SRH have one.
Seems they stopped, you can always get the longer strut, spring, and "foot" to replace it.
It's not as elaborate as plugging a hole.
Sorry, that was supposed to be “my SRH doesn’t have one” but I apparently spaced.
Under the grips
It's literally not there, Ruger hasn't made a blued Redhawk since like 2008.
Fricking dumbass
Stupid Black person
lol
no
>some rugers don't have internal locks
same thing with S&W so point still applies
Does Smith still make revolvers without?
I think only the air weight j frame snubby? Almost all their models have a lock
Ruger doesn't make any of the new single actions with the strut lock anymore.
It was only ever on the single six and blackhawk.
And the LCR and some of their semi-autos.
>How much of a dealbreaker is the internal lock on S&W revolvers?
It's not. I have not bought a new S&W revolver, but that's not because of the lock, it's because for any new revolver I want, Ruger does it better. The lock is only a potential problem on the airweight magnums, and it's only $40-50 for the lock delete kit. Considering we live in a time where people buy new guns and immediately throw $400-500 at it, it's not a big deal. It is ugly though, I can't deny that, but I think most of the time the subject gets brought up, it's because some kid who wasn't even alive for the original controversy really wants to say the meme word "Hillary Hole".
saying "hillary hole" is what poorgay revolver users say to feel better about using a piece of shit like a GP100 or taurus.
fact of the matter is that smiths are the only revolvers that are actually somewhat decent out of the box and don't require 500 dollars in gunsmithing to be enjoyable to use.
They really, REALLY are not.
The old Smiths were, but holy frick every new L frame I've held had a fricking 12lbs trigger. Dogshit.
>muh poorgays
Why don't you buy a prelock then if you're so rich? That's what I do. They cost more after all.
because pre-lock R8s aren't a thing
The precuck S&W was the compromise for me because I wouldn't put out for a Python, the kind a college roommate had that I always mired (the gun). Python with the ribbed barrel..nice. but it cost $1400 and up used and you could get a 686 plus for half of that. So I found a used 686 in good shape and bought it which took a year of patient searching. When the new Colts came out, I looked at one and I thought it was a counterfeit made by pakis or flips. There were tool marks under the chrome. The roll marks looked bad. Just unbelievable that executives could put that product out and not feel ashamed. Not even the pakis or flips would deliver such a shoddy pistol. I felt ashamed for Colt.
>500 dollars in gunsmithing
>$30 worth of springs and shims
>some ultra fine sandpaper
u wot m8
Yeah, sandpaper those mim parts, bro. If you want a real revolver, you're going to buy it and then set about putting a tool steel hammer, trigger, and rebound slide in it at least.
>inb4 b-b-b-but the mim parts and shitty double action sear are just fine
No
Smiths use MiM parts anon.
Yeah, that's what I said, fricking literal 65iq moron
lol
lmao
Hillary Hole
Hillary Hole
Hillary Hole
Hillary Hole
Hillary Hole
t. Dash 4 enjoyer.
UNACCEPTABLE
i would bet hard currency the people who shit on 'hillary holes' are also the same people who get mad when striker pistols don't have manual safeties.
>Love smith and wesson, american made! Indian MIM whats that? haha damn millennial speak.
You hate the lock? well then make your own revolver commie, I got the grandson coming over and you NEVER leave a gun out, all guns are loaded.
It's functionally a non-issue.
>chance you are in a self defense shooting (miniscule)
>chance you're carrying an S&W (marginal)
>chance more than 1 shot is needed to solve the problem (more likely but still narrowing it down)
>the actual chance the lock engages from recoil (infinitesimal, people put tens of thousands of rounds through their S&W and don't even know the lock could malfunction)
It ends up having lottery odds for the lock to negatively impact you in a shooting.
On a personal level, it's really fricking gay and they would be an objectively better product without them. It serves zero practical purpose and only serves to add bullshit to the gun.
It’s the same reason I hate the arm brace pistols… it’s added bullshit that serves a legalistic/social purpose and isn’t really a mechanical improvement for the gun. To me revolvers are a really fun example of explosive clockwork and are neat in a way that polymer striker fired guns just aren’t… I’m not against improvements to revolvers, but extra stuff added just because is a mistake.
It's like a scar on your wife's cheek from a fight you failed to protect her in. It's a constant reminder of your impotence. I'd have 2 smith wheel guns if not for that lock. Anybody who acts like it's no big deal should be silent and enjoy any wiener shoved in their ass as they raise another man's son.
>It's like a scar on your wife's cheek from a fight you failed to protect her in.
what
> Anybody who acts like it's no big deal should be silent and enjoy any wiener shoved in their ass as they raise another man's son.
what
This.
Youngsters on this board forget, or possibly never knew, that S&W, during the Clinton regime entered into an agreement that they would Immediately Stop selling firearms to "Civilians", for a Consideration Concerning with Government Contracts. I don't personally care that they never benefitted from the "deal".
I might be able to forget that this ever happened, but the Hillary Hole is there to remind us.
Like the other man's kid. It is a constant reminder that your wife cheated.
Why does Smith and Wesson even waste the time and money making them?
The problem here is that it is a physical reminder that you gave money to someone who betrayed you.
Every time you pick up the pistol, the Hillary Hole glares at you, a constant reminder that Smith and Wesson hates you, and wants you dead.
Are you a guy whos into girls with exbf names tatted on their face