Absolutely! S&W quality control is garbage these days. I've heard that around 8/10 revolvers will have some kind of problem, ranging from minor to serious. My brand new 686 had a locked up cylinder after 100 rounds. The ejector rod was cut incorrectly and wouldn't lock up properly with the the frame. I was shocked by the shoddy job upon inspection. The tip of the rod was crooked and looked as though someone had taken a hack saw to it. I've heard that small parts are now outsourced by the company. I was shocked by this experience. I bought the gun without close inspection, relying only on the 150 year S&W name.
The lock has spawned a cottage industry of on-line Loc-Delete metal matching plugs that restore the cosmetic appearance of an otherwise good revolver. I use Original Precision products but TK Custom has an offering too. All my S&W revolvers have had the Loc-Delete product used to my complete satisfaction.
My 94/22’s and marlin 39-A’s went to my grandkids with thousands and thousands or rounds through them and I readily expect them to do the same. Smith caved on us and does not care about customer satisfaction. I have not had a problem with my one and only lock smith ,a 617 6” . I bought it used as a steal after it came back from smith for repairs. It’s been good for me but it’s just a range gun. I wouldn’t bet my life on it like I would my old 686 or my 19, or model 15.
No the Hillary hole did not ruin Smith and Wesson but it is symptomatic of capitulation and manufacturing decline in design and quality. I recommend the vintage revolvers.
To me it's not a huge deal. The way I see it, is I am no spring chicken, yet the lock has been there since I was legal age to buy a handgun from an FFL. I think a lot of people can't get over S&W's "betrayal" by simply putting a lock on their revolvers to appease anti-2A politicians, so it stands out to them. To me, they just always been there in my life, it's small, never been a problem so it's like ehh. That being said they should have put it on the hammer the way Taurus did to make the revolvers look better.
Colt didn't bother with a lock when they brought the snake guns back. Apparently, nobody cares about it now. It's all about maintaining on the CA roster now.
You are absolutely right. Vote with our money. I am only one guy, but I have not bought a smith in some years. I have bought , colt and Rutgers and will continue to support companies that actually care about customer satisfaction and opinion.
If the internal lock is such a useful and desirable feature why is it only on revolvers and not on ARs, and semiautomatic pistols ? If the lock is engaged does that infer that basic safety protocols could then be ignored ? What about unintended consequences, such as a user forgetting to unlock a stored locked revolver and then carrying the firearm in that condition for public service or personal self protection ?
I have had a couple J frames and a 686 in the last couple years all with crooked barrels. I hate the lock, but the QC on top of that? I am off of their revolvers forever. I love the 4 M&P 2.0s I have though, zero issues excellent striker guns.
Absolutely. I will never have a s and w made with a Hillary hole. It's stupid it's a sell out ext ext........last smith I had was a beautiful blue model 19. What a beautiful revolver that was.
@jackgreenstalk777 read the glock book. Smith and Wesson was trying to keep up with glock. S&W caught wind that Glock was in talks with gov. Officials to do this exact thing to their handguns. In an effort to finally get ahead of glock, S&W put the locks on. After seeing the incredible backlash from S&W doing it, Glock veered away grim the idea hard and criticized S&W for doing so (never actually mentioning they were going to) In conclusion if Glock would have told the government to go pound sand from the get go then Smith never would have done it.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Absolutely! S&W quality control is garbage these days. I've heard that around 8/10 revolvers will have some kind of problem, ranging from minor to serious. My brand new 686 had a locked up cylinder after 100 rounds. The ejector rod was cut incorrectly and wouldn't lock up properly with the the frame. I was shocked by the shoddy job upon inspection. The tip of the rod was crooked and looked as though someone had taken a hack saw to it. I've heard that small parts are now outsourced by the company. I was shocked by this experience. I bought the gun without close inspection, relying only on the 150 year S&W name.
Mine only lasted 26 shots.
Mine 629 lasted only 14 rounds.
And the tip of the ejector was also very asymmetrical.
My 642 has the lock. It has functioned flawlessly for a long time now. It is good to know I can lock it if I want. Not a big deal at all.
Do you think this QC issue has something to do with the move to Tennessee?
The lock has spawned a cottage industry of on-line Loc-Delete metal matching plugs that restore the cosmetic appearance of an otherwise good revolver. I use Original Precision products but TK Custom has an offering too. All my S&W revolvers have had the Loc-Delete product used to my complete satisfaction.
That dam arrow is still there unless you sand it off lol...
My 94/22’s and marlin 39-A’s went to my grandkids with thousands and thousands or rounds through them and I readily expect them to do the same. Smith caved on us and does not care about customer satisfaction. I have not had a problem with my one and only lock smith ,a 617 6” . I bought it used as a steal after it came back from smith for repairs. It’s been good for me but it’s just a range gun. I wouldn’t bet my life on it like I would my old 686 or my 19, or model 15.
Smith and Wesson has broadened their focus so much they don’t have the time for quality like many manufacturers of many things.
More parts to fail. Plus, an access hole for dirt to jam it up. See Murphys law.
Yes but their terrible quality control hasn't helped either.
It definitely has not
No the Hillary hole did not ruin Smith and Wesson but it is symptomatic of capitulation and manufacturing decline in design and quality. I recommend the vintage revolvers.
Stupid idea. Trying to make the anti gunners happy
To me it's not a huge deal. The way I see it, is I am no spring chicken, yet the lock has been there since I was legal age to buy a handgun from an FFL. I think a lot of people can't get over S&W's "betrayal" by simply putting a lock on their revolvers to appease anti-2A politicians, so it stands out to them. To me, they just always been there in my life, it's small, never been a problem so it's like ehh. That being said they should have put it on the hammer the way Taurus did to make the revolvers look better.
Colt didn't bother with a lock when they brought the snake guns back.
Apparently, nobody cares about it now. It's all about maintaining on the CA roster now.
If it has the hillary hole, I will NOT own it
1 case of lock engaging without key is too much. Thankfully delete options exist, or no lock models (vote with our $$)
You are absolutely right. Vote with our money. I am only one guy, but I have not bought a smith in some years. I have bought , colt and Rutgers and will continue to support companies that actually care about customer satisfaction and opinion.
I’ve know you for years, your experience is most of the reason I stay with Ruger.
Rutgers just too heavily built. Don't like investment castings parts.
If the internal lock is such a useful and desirable feature why is it only on revolvers and not on ARs, and semiautomatic pistols ? If the lock is engaged does that infer that basic safety protocols could then be ignored ? What about unintended consequences, such as a user forgetting to unlock a stored locked revolver and then carrying the firearm in that condition for public service or personal self protection ?
I have had a couple J frames and a 686 in the last couple years all with crooked barrels. I hate the lock, but the QC on top of that? I am off of their revolvers forever. I love the 4 M&P 2.0s I have though, zero issues excellent striker guns.
Not as much as the drop in quality. Mine broke after 26 shots. Never another s&w.
Agreed I looked past the lock and purchased several modern Smith & Wesson. They all had issues they are all gone.
Absolutely. I will never have a s and w made with a Hillary hole. It's stupid it's a sell out ext ext........last smith I had was a beautiful blue model 19. What a beautiful revolver that was.
Dude I love your videos but please adjust your mic!. I have the 329 and the 69-2.75 and I love um!.
What’s wrong with the mic? I thought the audio seemed OK when I was editing.
It's ok.
Way too low
If you’re on your computer, there should be a little bar at the bottom with a little sound symbol. Sometimes RUclips sound can be turned way down.
Okay thanks, please keep making the videos I am a new subscriber.
Is Smith legally obligated to keep including that lock indefinitely?
Nope but some engineers got paid to make it and some businesses like to havs political bargaining chips.
It's all glocks fault ... seriously
How..?
@jackgreenstalk777 read the glock book.
Smith and Wesson was trying to keep up with glock. S&W caught wind that Glock was in talks with gov. Officials to do this exact thing to their handguns. In an effort to finally get ahead of glock, S&W put the locks on.
After seeing the incredible backlash from S&W doing it, Glock veered away grim the idea hard and criticized S&W for doing so (never actually mentioning they were going to)
In conclusion if Glock would have told the government to go pound sand from the get go then Smith never would have done it.