[Cyrano]

I landed a Lockless 642 which was my preference. There was a not premium charged at the ma and pa store I shop at for it. Would a typical carry guy pay a premium for the lock free type?

Not testing the market just curious. It's like a pre-Remington Marlin 336 vs current 336 rifles.

 

[Snub44]

...I'm not typical, I've been told, but I've paid up to $100 more for an older-than-lock model...I won't have one with a lock...since I sweat for the money, it's my choice...

I landed a Lockless 642 which was my preference. There was not premium at the ma and pa store I shop at for it. Would a typical carry guy pay a premium for the lock free type?

 

[msgt/ret]

Nope, I stick to the older pre-lock models.

 

[bmcgilvray]

I'd be far more willing to pay a premium to purchase a suitable used traditional "pre-lock" Smith & Wesson revolver in nice condition. I would be willing to purchase new Smith & Wesson revolvers without locks but not at a premium price.

I'd be unwilling to purchase or own a model with a lock under any circumstances.

My Smith & Wesson revolvers will never fail due to a faulty lock because not a single one has the piece of baggage.

 

[OldVet]

Sounds like you're testing the market, but no--I would never pay a premium for a lockless revolver when the locks can be removed from most.

 

[PEF]

For my "working girls" (carry guns) it doesn't bother me. I've shot thousands of rounds through "lock" revolvers and never had a problem.

For "collection" pieces it's a moot point. The ones I want to collect don't have them (e.g., 36 no dash, 60 no dash, etc.).

 

[Randall757]

I got a new 442 last year no lock and actually paid less for it.

 

[pogo2]

Prefer no locks on S&W revolvers

I believe I own about 12 S&W revolvers, and none of them have the internal lock. I have avoided the lock, as it indicates a rather arrogant attitude on the part of S&W towards their customers. If the company valued their customers, they would give them the choice of lock or no lock, rather than forcing them to take the lock.

 

[lordhamster]

I would pay a small premium.

I don't like the idea of the lock on a revolver, and I like the idea of removing a safety device on a carry gun even less.

I'd pay up to $100 more for a lockless model.

 

[Funkybassplayer]

I'm sorry if I seem ignorant to the subject but what is the big problem with the locking models? I've shot both and like both I see no point in the lock but am curious why so many people are so against these models.


-BTO-

 

[msgt/ret]

I'm sorry if I seem ignorant to the subject but what is the big problem with the locking models? I've shot both and like both I see no point in the lock but am curious why so many people are so against these models.


-BTO-

The lock is an unnecessary gimmick just so lawyers can “Gee look how much safer it is now that it has a lock”.

 

[Funkybassplayer]

That's what I figured


-BTO-

 

[AZ Desertrat]

I sold the Model 36 Chiefs Special I had with a lock....the guy that bought it doesnt care....but I personally dont like them. And its also sad
that the new "classic" line of S&W revolvers have the locks...and they are definitely ALL a premium price...I wont have one again....at any price.

 

[cf18]

I'm sorry if I seem ignorant to the subject but what is the big problem with the locking models? I've shot both and like both I see no point in the lock but am curious why so many people are so against these models.


-BTO-

The default configuration of the locking mechanism in S&W revolvers is "locked.". There have been reports of spontaneous locking of a previously unlocked revolver after they were dropped - some even after they were simply fired. Many folks feel that the risk is too great to carry a revolver that may spontaneously lock during use in a defensive situation.

 

[DaveInEdmonds]

I honestly couldn't care less.

 

[Pro]

I wouldn't necessarily pay a premium. That said, I would not carry one with a lock. My J-Frame Model 38 has no lock, and I won't be selling it!

 

[lowercase]

I don't know about paying a premium, but i do know that I refuse to buy one with a lock.

I think it looks hideous, especially on their "Classic" line of revolvers.

 

[PEF]

The default configuration of the locking mechanism in S&W revolvers is "locked.". There have been reports of spontaneous locking of a previously unlocked revolver after they were dropped - some even after they were simply fired. Many folks feel that the risk is too great to carry a revolver that may spontaneously lock during use in a defensive situation.

Yeah, but I do think that is really overblown. I've never seen it happen, and I've yet to see some real "first hand" experience.

 

[PEF]

I don't know about paying a premium, but i do know that I refuse to buy one with a lock.

I think it looks hideous, especially on their "Classic" line of revolvers.

I should revise my first post - I will say I do have the model 29 classic in nickel, and that durn lock stands out like a butt pimple. That is the one gun in which it does annoy me just a bit.

 

[CLASS3NH]

Nope. I don't or won't own one of the Newer Smiths with the "Hillery hole" lock as we call em. I've had a couple of Taurus handguns with the locking system and they don't bother me. I think it's because of all the problems I've read with the Smith interlocking device and how it sometimes locks up with hotter loads.