Lockless

The Gun Thing

Apparently Smith & Wesson are discontinuing the disgusting Clinton-era revolver locks.  Details here.

And about time, too.

I should point out that my own J-frame lightweight Mod 637 has a lock:

…but it has never suffered an “inadvertent” lock-up as a result of recoil, although Smith’s scandium-framed revolvers are reported to suffer occasionally from this malady when shooting heavy magnum loads.

Whatever;  maybe I should think about replacing the old backup with a new “no-lock” piece…

 

If I do, I’ll raffle my old 637 to my Readers who live in states where I can ship it to without having the godless ATF crawl up my ass.  Or I’ll just give it back to its original owner, with thanks.  Watch this space.

Next on the agenda:  getting Ruger to stop disfiguring their guns with that stupid “GUNS ARE DANGEROUS!!!!” billboard on the barrel.  (Fuck you, we all know that, you foul poltroons.)

9 comments

  1. I used to work in the biz years ago – but I haven’t kept up much lately with every little bit of news. Seems like today new and innovative means releasing a gun that is the same as 5 years ago but it has some kind of electronic optic instead of reliable iron sights.

    I think from what I read it is some guns not all getting the no lock option. But I could be wrong. The mountain gun was re rereleased.

    I prefer Ruger Revolvers anyways. Single Six. GP100. LCR. Great wheel guns. No locks.

    The Ruger warning is annoying but not a deal breaker.

    The absolute shit customer service of Shit and Worsen along with their terrible quality control then the Hillary hole on some guns are a deal breaker for me. Some guns were great guns but if you had a problem good luck with getting it fixed in a timely manner if at all.

    If the locks end up going away on all models of smith revolvers the used market will likely be flooded with cheap used revolvers that have the hole. At that point I might pick up a 617 4 inch. If it’s cheap enough.

  2. The model 642 and model 442 for at least the last 20 years could be ordered with a no lock
    Option. If you like the 637 you have and don’t mind no hammer (which is better for carry to have no hammer in my option but YMMV) pick up a 642 or 442 no lock (they make both lock and no lock in those)

    Or upgrade and get an LCR. Better gun. In my opinion.

  3. For a while I’ve wanted to get the Ruger GP100 Match Champion in 10MM. I gotta save some money. Maybe if the $ 5,000 DOGE stimulus check goes through where the dividend is paid to taxpayers on the money saved by stopping waste fraud and abuse, maybe then I can pick one up.

  4. Open that revolver up, study the lock components, remove or immobilize the likely culprit. Could be something as simple as a dot of thick Superglue at the exact correct spot.

    1. Or just buy a revolver from someone (Ruger, Colt, Korth, Charter Arms) that doesn’t have a lock to begin with and that didn’t make a deal with the devil that permanently defaces and devalues the product?

      Yes. I know. Years ago Ruger agreed to sell 10 round mags only with some rifles. And that was genuinely stupid. But once that agreement was gone the rifle was still great no permanent defacing, just slide in a larger magazine.

      Smith & Wesson’s quality for the last 20 years is questionable and the customer service sucks. Don’t believe me? Search YouTube for many stories of shit products and poor service from S&W

      If you want a S&W get an older one pre lock. Otherwise there are much better revolvers at the same price or less that work well and that the company will help you if you have an issue.

      1. In the past 2 years I have bought 2 “slightly used” S&W’s and one was never even fired. For cash money from private owners. My preferred method.

    2. Ghost, relatively easy to do. I’ve removed the innards on my Smith snubbie and it’s no problem to remove the lock completely. It has zero interaction with the rest of the gun’s action except to block the hammer when activated. I think someone even sells a blank to fill in the spot once you remove it.

      And remember, it’s a gun “lock” for storage purposes only, not a “safety”. That way, if you do have to use it, you can 100% state that you did not remove a safety from the firearm.

  5. Glad S&W finally listened to you– What’s it been? 30 years?

    And Ruger:

    Is GON. Is SUPPOSE be dangerous. /Russian accent

Comments are closed.