For over 20 years, nearly every Smith & Wesson revolver (except for a handful of hammerless J-frame models) has come with an internal lock that most shooters never wanted, and many actively despise. In a major shift, Smith & Wesson has just introduced the first exposed-hammer, double-action/single-action revolvers without a lock since 2001. Could this signal the beginning of the end for the controversial feature? Today, we’re exploring the history, backlash, and potential future of the Smith & Wesson revolver lock.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to follow and signup for notifications!

Details are in the video below, or keep scrolling to read the full transcript.

Hey everybody, I’m Chris Baker from Lucky Gunner and today, I’m going to talk about the infamous Smith & Wesson revolver internal lock.

Smith & Wesson began installing these locks in their revolvers in 2001. It’s been a largely unpopular feature of their product line ever since. Earlier this year, they announced new variants of their Mountain Gun and Classic series revolvers that will be made without the lock. These are the first lock-free exposed-hammer revolvers from Smith & Wesson in 24 years. Revolver fans are hopeful that this is a sign Smith plans to eventually phase out the internal lock completely. There’s been no official word from the company on that, so far. Either way, these new lock-free models raise the question of why Smith introduced the lock to begin with and why they are so widely hated by shooters and collectors.

I wrote an article about this many years ago when we were first getting started with the Lucky Gunner Lounge, but I realized I have never done a video on it, so here we go.

What is the S&W Internal Lock?

The Smith & Wesson revolver lock is easy to spot. Just look for a round hole in the frame just above the cylinder release latch. Some of their guns have a visible pin below the latch that’s a different color than the frame. That’s not the lock, which is always above the latch.

Lock-equipped guns come with a pair of generic keys and when you turn the lock, the gun is completely disabled. The hammer and trigger are both locked in place. You can, however, still open and close the cylinder. When the lock is engaged on guns with an exposed hammer spur, there’s also a little flag that pops up to indicate the locked status. For the double action only internal hammer guns, there is no flag.

The lock is intended to prevent unauthorized use of the gun, primarily by children. That, in itself, is not the part people object to. Lots of guns over the years have come with various internal and external locking devices. Most of them are easy enough to ignore if you don’t have any use for them. The Smith & Wesson revolver lock has attracted so much disdain because of how and why it was implemented.

History of the Lock

To understand the origin of the lock, let’s go back to the very tail-end of the 1900s. While I was rocking the latest in turn-of-the century style, Smith & Wesson struggled on the brink of bankruptcy. Long story short, they had suffered from years of mediocre leadership and lost a huge portion of their market share to Glock.

And now, once again, we have to talk about Clinton-era gun control. I hate to bring up politics of any kind here, but that administration’s policies did so much to shape the gun industry that it’s really unavoidable. Just, please don’t take this as an invitation to enlighten us with your political rant in the comments.

In the late 90s the lawyers that gutted the tobacco industry had set their sights on gun companies with a barrage of product liability lawsuits. The whole industry was at serious risk but Smith & Wesson was especially vulnerable. The Clinton administration offered to negotiate a settlement for all the major manufacturers but ultimately, Smith & Wesson was the only one to accept the terms. In exchange for being dropped from the lawsuits, they had to agree to make a number of changes to their products and business.

Some of the provisions were pretty extreme and either practically or technically unrealistic. The part we care about right now is the locking device requirement. Within 60 days, Smith & Wesson would have to include an external lock with every gun and within two years, an internal locking device.

Meanwhile, the rest of the gun industry was still facing those lawsuits. Smith & Wesson’s CEO figured everyone else would eventually see the writing on the wall and sign the Clinton agreement.

What happened instead was a massive NRA-led boycott of Smith & Wesson. They were branded as traitors to the industry, and their bottom line took another massive hit.

When George W. Bush took over the White House the following year, his administration released Smith & Wesson from the agreement, and they never had to actually follow through on most of those provisions. But by that time, they had already incorporated an internal lock into their new revolvers.

Since 2001, the lock has been built into most, but not all, Smith & Wesson revolvers. They have always offered at least some double action only J-frame revolvers without locks. At first, these were only offered in very limited runs. About 10 or 15 years ago, they started making more of them and began to openly advertise lock-free versions of certain J-frame models. Today, it seems like more DAO guns come without the lock than with it. But again, that’s only been the small J-frames. Every variant of their medium and large frame revolvers has had the lock since 2001 until this year. That’s why it’s such a big deal that they are now offering the Classic series and Mountain Guns without a lock.

Why All the Hate?

Not everybody hates the Smith & Wesson lock. Plenty of shooters are content to just ignore it. Most casual gun owners probably don’t even know that it’s there. But I’ve never met an active fan of the lock and those who dislike it tend to be passionate about their contempt.

There are three main reasons the lock is so fiercely despised by revolver enthusiasts.

Political Symbol

The first is the political issue. A lot of people view it as a symbol of Smith & Wesson caving to pressure from the gun control lobby. And it doesn’t help that Smith continued to install the locks long after the Clinton agreement was gone and forgotten. But most shooters don’t actually pay close attention to industry news, let alone stuff that happened over two decades ago. If that had been the only problem with the lock, it would have eventually faded from memory.

Aesthetics

But it’s got other issues. Like the fact that it’s ugly. It leaves a big hole in the side of the frame, along with the conspicuous laser-etched arrow and letter “L”. Gun people in general, and revolver people in particular, are suckers for traditional aesthetics. Some of us may deny it, but all else being equal, we will usually pick a pretty gun over an ugly one. Many revolver fans believe the lock spoils the otherwise classic look of Smith & Wesson’s wheel guns.

Malfunctions

But the biggest problem with the lock is that it’s a poor design. Specifically, they have been known to occasionally self-engage under recoil. So you fire a couple of rounds, the recoil makes the revolver lock itself, but you don’t know it until you try to fire again. That’s not ideal for a life-saving tool.

Now to be fair, almost every credible report of this has been with one of Smith’s super lightweight scandium frame revolvers firing magnum ammo, and even then, it’s an uncommon issue. It’s even less common with the steel frame models and the non-magnum lightweight revolvers. But it’s troubling that the lock was designed in a way that even allows the possibility of that kind of malfunction. Even though the problem has been grossly exaggerated by internet rumors, I completely understand why some people refuse to trust a lock-equipped revolver for self-defense.

I have never heard a good explanation for why Smith & Wesson kept installing the locks even after they were free from the Clinton agreement. In the past, company reps have just told me it’s because of lawyers. That doesn’t explain why they haven’t redesigned the lock to address some of these problems. It seems like ignoring a known defect in a safety device would expose them to just as much legal liability as having no lock at all. But I’m not a lawyer.

Alternatives

Like most gun owners, I am totally in favor of keeping guns secured away from kids and other people who aren’t supposed to have access to them. There are much better solutions than the Smith & Wesson internal lock. Generally speaking, guns should either be within arm’s reach, or locked in a container of some kind.

At the very least, you can use one of the cheap cable locks that come with every new gun. You just run it through the barrel or one of the chambers. They’re not great quality, but, unlike the internal lock, you can easily see at a glance that the revolver is disabled and unloaded.

If given the choice, I would prefer a revolver without the lock, but I wouldn’t necessarily refuse to own or use a lock-equipped model. There are some excellent revolvers Smith & Wesson only introduced after 2001 and they’ve never been made without a lock. And for the older models, the pre-lock variants are often hard to track down and cost a lot more than the lock-equipped versions.

Fortunately, if you really don’t like the lock, it is fairly easy to completely remove from these revolvers. I’ll get in trouble if I show you how to do it here, but there are plenty of tutorials elsewhere. You can even buy an aftermarket plug to fill the hole left in your frame if you remove the lock. It may not look great from a legal perspective to remove a safety device from a self-defense gun. But again, I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know?

I know that I’m excited about the possibility of more lock-free Smith & Wesson revolvers in the near future. But lock or no lock, your revolver probably needs some ammo. And you should get that from us with lightning fast shipping at Lucky Gunner.

The post The Revolver Lock Nobody Asked For – Backlash and Beyond appeared first on Lucky Gunner Lounge.