Smith & Wesson Takes a Stand For Freedom

“It has been said that history repeats itself. This is perhaps not quite correct; it merely rhymes.”

-Theodor Reik

RevolverGuy readers with a little white in their hair could be forgiven if recent events in the realm of Second Amendment politics evoked strong memories of an earlier era, because history does indeed “rhyme.”

A familiar story

In the last several months, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has been “investigating” the firearm industry in the wake of vicious crimes committed by insane and evil persons at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and an Independence Day parade in Highland Park, Illinois. Sensing an opportunity to capitalize on these emotional tragedies, the members of the Committee invited several Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of firearm companies to appear, so they could “blame and shame” them, and attempt to “prove” a false link between lawful commerce in arms, and the spike in criminal violence that America has suffered for several years.

What is the Committee’s goal in this charade? First, to shift the blame for the violent chaos that was ushered in by their own, progressive, soft-on-crime, anti-law enforcement policies, and second, to create the necessary pretext for imposing restrictions on the law-abiding industry they hate so much. A third, and significant, reason is that the committee’s chairwoman has been fighting a tough primary race (that she eventually lost, earlier this week) and was hoping to get some positive press for her crusade against the industry.

Not playing along

In a bold and unexpected move, Smith & Wesson CEO and President, Mark Smith, declined the Kangaroo Court’s invitation to serve as a political punching bag.

In a powerful and pointed public statement, Smith laid the blame for violent crime where it belongs, and adamantly refuted the Committee’s notion that companies like his bear responsibility for the criminal misuse of their products. Furthermore, he vigorously defended our God-given, Constitutionally-protected, right to keep and bear arms, and made it clear that Smith & Wesson stood with the American people.

Righting a wrong

The strong reaction from today’s Smith & Wesson stands in stark contrast to the betrayal that occurred a generation before, when the British owners of Smith & Wesson broke ranks with their fellow firearms manufacturers, and signed an oppressive agreement with the Departments of the Treasury and Housing and Urban Development.1

In that March 17, 2000 maneuver, the British caretakers of the iconic American brand not only turned their back on their stalwart colleagues and their loyal customers, but may have actively colluded with the forces looking to curb gun rights and harm the shooting industry. In a breach of trust with companies like Glock and Beretta (who rejected the so-called, “HUD Agreement”), information surfaced that indicated the management of the British-owned company shared confidential communications from industry meetings with the feds, in an attempt to ingratiate themselves with their new masters, and receive favorable treatment.

It was an ugly time for the industry and the defense of the Second Amendment.

The President signs the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban

Fortunately, this latest confrontation between government and industry has played out differently. We knew the former British owners of Smith & Wesson have been gone for over 20 years, chased away by angry consumers, but it was awfully heartening to see a rejection of their tactics and values by the current, American stewards of the brand. The courage, integrity, and patriotism displayed by Smith & Wesson’s current leadership would always be welcome, but is even more appreciated, given the failures of the past. In a way, CEO and President Smith’s latest action has helped to heal the old wounds that were suffered in 2000, and which still fester, decades later.

Under assault

Smith’s display of corporate courage is even more powerful, knowing that the company is under assault from all corners, and has been for many years.

Despite their diligent and earnest efforts to comply with a dizzying array of state, federal, and international laws, regulations and policies which restrict commerce in arms, Smith & Wesson has been the target of punitive investigations and audits, political assaults, and baseless legal challenges, intended to interrupt and handicap their operations, and bankrupt the company.

A small sample of these efforts would include the following:

      • Legal actions by the family members of individuals who were killed by criminals that misused Smith & Wesson products, such as the families of victims of the 2019 Poway, California synagogue attack, and the 2018 Danforth, Canada mass shooting;
      • Political attacks from civic “leaders” who attempt to shift the blame for their self-induced, criminal violence problems on the company, such as the vow from failed New York City Mayor, Eric Adams, to sue Smith & Wesson and four other manufacturers;
      • Attempts to circumvent federal law–namely, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act—by accusing the company of violating state-level, marketing and advertising standards, as in New Jersey’s fraudulent case against Smith & Wesson;
      • Attempts to gain access to corporate records and documents, through an abuse of state power, to discover information that can be used to fuel litigation against the company, as in the New Jersey Attorney General’s subpoena to compel release of this information;
      • Legal actions by the corrupted governments of failed foreign nations, seeking to blame their internal violence and criminal problems on the company, as in Mexico’s lawsuit against Smith & Wesson and a number of other American corporations;
      • Burdensome and excessive audits of company records by BATFE agents, seeking to discover evidence of record-keeping and compliance violations that can be used to shutter the company;
      • Political and financial attacks from radical investors and a weaponized banking industry, who have attempted to paint the company as a death merchant, responsible for fueling criminal violence;
      • Political and legal strategies designed to create a hostile environment for Smith & Wesson to continue their manufacturing and sales operations in their (now former) home of Massachusetts, which eventually forced a corporate move to Tennessee.

In light of the comprehensive and unrelenting attacks on the company’s livelihood, CEO Smith’s powerful defense of the company and American values appears even more courageous. Many executives would be tempted to adopt a compliant, nonconfrontational profile, in the hopes they could appease their attackers, but this is not the Smith & Wesson of 2000.

The full measure

Despite our admiration of CEO Smith’s action, and our support of his message, we’d be remiss if we didn’t discuss the 21 year old elephant that still remains in the room, the internal lock.

The internal lock was mandated by the 2000 HUD Agreement, and found its way into Smith & Wesson revolvers in 2001.  It’s the legacy of, and victory symbol for, the anti-gun forces within the Clinton administration that forced the Agreement’s unconstitutional restrictions on the American people, with the help of the company’s British owners. It’s a divisive and unpopular remnant of a dark period in the company’s history, and is inconsistent with a rejuvenated, American-controlled, Smith & Wesson that values our right to keep and bear arms.

A large and influential part of the market has spent 21 years struggling to accept this unsightly offense on Smith & Wesson’s revolvers, but CEO Smith’s principled stand makes the challenge even more difficult. With Smith & Wesson firmly planting a flag in opposition to the government’s anti-gun efforts, despite the obvious peril of doing so, the continued presence of the lock becomes even more conspicuous.

We think it’s time for the company to break from the policy of capitulation embraced by the previous, foreign management, and erase this stain on the company’s history.  It’s time for Smith & Wesson to bring back an expanded catalog of non-lock alternatives.2

Not a stretch

We’ve previously made the case for why it’s reasonable to return more non-lock models to the catalog, and won’t belabor it in detail here. Instead, we will simply note:

      • There’s no consumer demand for it. Most consumers ignore and live with it, and a large number actively hate it, but we have yet to hear any consumers actually demand the lock. Virtually nobody uses it, either.  In the 21+ year history of the internal lock, the RevolverGuy team has never met a single shooter who actually uses the internal locking system, and has never met a trainer, gunsmith, armorer, writer, or other industry professional who encouraged its use. The vast majority of owners couldn’t locate the key  that came with their gun if they were asked to, because it’s never been used. There may possibly be a few folks on the margins who use the lock, but they represent the smallest minority—likely less than 5%–based on our experience in the industry;

      • It’s not an essential safety feature. Smith & Wesson has continuously sold a small number of revolvers that were not equipped with the lock, since the lock was first introduced in 2001. If the lock was an essential safety feature (alternatively, if a no-lock gun was “unsafe”), Smith & Wesson would not assume the risk and liability of selling non-lock SKUs, or marketing them as premium products that warrant a higher sticker price.3 At best, the lock can be viewed as an optional security feature, but it is not a  necessary safety feature, and the firearm is eminently and tacitly safe without it. In fact, there’s a good argument, based on documented inadvertent lock failures, that the guns are safer without them installed.4

We think Smith & Wesson should continue to offer lock-equipped models to satisfy the minority of consumers who want them, but it’s bad business to force them on the majority of consumers that see no need for them, and would prefer to purchase a revolver without the lock. It’s also bad business to chase paying customers away to other companies that offer guns without the unpopular lock.

As such, we encourage CEO Smith to reassess the company’s offerings and consider an expansion of no-lock SKUs, in the same spirit of independence and freedom that his recent statement embodied.

Not over yet

CEO and President Smith is not off the hot seat, yet. The Committee has subpoenaed him to appear before them, and he risks a contempt of Congress charge if he does not comply. He may be compelled by law to sit there and get smeared–as his  counterparts at Ruger and Daniel Defense were–by anti-gun hypocrites who accuse him, his employees, and his law-abiding customers of sins they are not guilty of.

However it plays out, we support him, his company, and his industry partners, Ruger and Daniel Defense.  We appreciate the role they are playing in the defense of our industry, our communities, and our liberties. We encourage our readers to show their support for these companies by engaging their legislators, and being good consumers of Smith & Wesson, Daniel Defense, and Ruger products.

We’re all in this fight, together! These companies might be taking the Committee’s arrows right now, but make no mistake—we, The People, are the actual target of their efforts.

Be safe, be strong, and God bless America!



  1. To their everlasting discredit, the British owners of Smith & Wesson signed the “HUD Agreement” on 17 March 2000. The agreement mandated broad and sweeping changes in technology, handgun “safety” features, product testing, sales and distribution agreements, records reporting to BATFE, advertising, and consumer purchase restrictions.

Among a long list of demands, the agreement mandated investment in “smart gun” technology, prohibited S&W from manufacturing new designs that could accommodate grandfathered magazines (under the new Clinton ban) that held more than 10 rounds, pressured dealers to share more of their sales records with BATFE than the law required, mandated magazine disconnects and loaded chamber indicators, mandated a dealers “Code of Conduct” that required (in part) background checks on every transaction (even when not required by law), mandated a prohibition on persons under 18 in gun stores without an adult being present, and limited handgun sales to one every two weeks. It also required Smith & Wesson to install internal locking devices on their handguns within 24 months of the agreement being signed.

For a more complete account of the HUD Agreement and the history of this episode, readers are encouraged to visit our article on The History and Future of The Smith & Wesson Internal Lock.

  1. We would be inclined to advocate for a total elimination of the lock, but we recognize there might be a small minority of consumers who actually desire them. As such, we think the best course would be to offer more non-lock choices in the catalog, and let market forces take care of the rest. Smith & Wesson will figure out pretty quick if there’s any true demand for the lock, when they offer non-lock options to choose from.

Since a lock manufacturing company (Saf-T-Hammer) purchased S&W from the British, and incorporated the lock into the catalog, there may still be hidden financial incentives to retain the lock, but it’s our personal experience and professional judgment that the lock is still suppressing sales of S&W revolvers, even two decades later. That’s especially true in today’s market, which pits S&W against new players like Kimber, returned players like Colt, and expanding players like Ruger and Taurus, who offer plenty of no-lock guns. There’s an opportunity cost associated with the lock, that should not be overlooked at S&W;

  1. Several Pro Series and Performance Center guns are sold without the lock, as part of an upgrade package that demands a higher MSRP. It’s clear that S&W doesn’t view these guns as less safe or unsafe, without the lock. A similar situation exists in their autopistol catalog, where some guns are offered with magazine safeties to comply with state laws that require them, while others remain unmolested. It’s understood that the lack of a magazine safety does not make otherwise identical models, that are sold in the majority of states, “unsafe.”  If they were, then S&W would obviously be required to include this feature on all versions of the gun;

  2. A self-defense firearm that runs the risk of a known, but unpredictable, malfunction that makes the gun inoperative in a moment of crisis is inherently unsafe, by any reasonable definition.

Author: Mike

Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) Mike Wood is a bonafide revolver nut, a certified law enforcement instructor in handgun, shotgun, patrol rifle, less-lethal, and diversionary device disciplines, and the author of Newhall Shooting: A Tactical Analysis, the definitive study of the infamous, 1970 California Highway Patrol shootout in Newhall, California. Mike wrote the "Tactical Analysis" column at for 8 years, and enjoys teaching both armed citizens and law enforcement officers.

38 thoughts on “Smith & Wesson Takes a Stand For Freedom”

  1. Ah, the lock.

    A major problem in basically getting
    rid of the lock is it would immediately
    devalue all the guns with it now in
    circulation. I wonder just how many
    686s for instance sold since 2001 suddenly
    would become market pariahs in the extreme.

    I do not own any S&W revolvers with the
    lock but I would pity the people who do
    who might want to upgrade their
    collection by getting a newly produced
    non-lock model through a trade.

    Sadly, it just might be a “bit the bullet”

    As to keeping the feature on a small number
    of production guns, I doubt S&W would want
    to long continue such a feature with its
    attendant need for the small lock parts,
    special machining required.

  2. I avoid politics in gun discussions, and I tend to skip posts about politics, but I would like to see S&W lose that lock. It has kept me from buying one of their newer guns, in particular a 629. I have long wanted one. I shoot one belonging to my brother-in-law, and the lock has never engaged, but…

    Seems odd that a company would keep it while building striker-fired handguns, a design that I consider more likely than any DA revolver to accidentally discharge. We keep all our handguns in Simplex-lock safes, locked up tight except at night for the bedside guns.

    The internal lock seems a pacifier. I do not mind my 1911 safety or the decocker on my CZ 75. The latter makes a semi run like a DA revolver for that first shot.

    I learned to employ the cross-bolt one on my Bond Arms Derringer that rides with me for Copperhead patrol at dusk. It seems unneeded but does not mar the gun’s looks.

    If S&W wanted to promote gun safety more effectively they would give us lock boxes or a discount on something nice like our V-line boxes, far better at deterring theft or a family accident than an internal lock few of us ever engage.

    1. The controls on your 1911s and CZs are actually safeties, and have an essential purpose. You’re right that the S&W lock is not the same.

  3. Well that’s some great news, Mike. Kudos to S&W for taking a stand. And I’m glad you brought up the internal lock – S&W wheelguns have basically been dead to me since they started including those, and I refuse to buy one. It’s past time for them to do away with them.

    And I’ll add one more reason to the list of why the internal lock is such a fallacy – S&W sells MANY pistols that have no such feature at all. There is absolutely no valid justification for a lock on a revolver while they are selling striker-fired pistols with no safety, nor lock, at the same time. We don’t even need to point to other manufacturers who don’t include this abomination on their offerings, it’s obvious that even S&W doesn’t sincerely consider it a necessary ‘safety’ feature, or they would have it on all their handguns.

    Let’s hope the higher-ups at S&W are reading this!

  4. If S&W were to finally ditch the lock and revert the rear frame contour of the new production J and K-frame guns back to what they were, I’d probably spend the next three years worth of Christmas budget on new S&W revolvers right away. Fingers crossed that they’ll come to their senses someday, and you presented an excellent writeup!

  5. I’m going to disagree with the statement to continue creating lock guns alongside no lock guns. Creating both incurs a higher manufacturing cost (perhaps minimally higher, but higher nonetheless) and doesn’t serve a purpose. If the lock was fully integral to the gun so that no additional part or tool was needed, then it might be worthwhile. Since the key is a separate piece using a trigger lock or cable lock is not much different or onerous than using the internal lock. In other words, the internal lock creates problems and expenses without offering something better than the solution used by other manufacturers. Just get rid of it completely and include instructions on how to use a cable lock that can work with almost any firearm.

    1. It’s more of an interim suggestion. As I alluded to, I wouldn’t expect it to last long, based on sales. I like your idea of including other locking systems to satisfy the requirement, just like they do with their other SKUs.

  6. I was glad to see this article. S&W was, in my opinion, wrongfully vilified when the deal was made back in 2000. They had 29 wrongful-death suits pending against them, and even if they won every one, the legal fees would have bankrupted them. (That was the point of the lawsuits.) When the Clinton administration told S&W that if they took the deal, the lawsuits would go away, Tompkins told S&W that if they didn’t take it, they (Tompkins) would put S&W out of business. When you’re being blackmailed by the government and by your company’s owners, who exactly do you call? And in Clinton’s defense, the lawsuits did in fact go away, which tells you how “good faith” they were in the first place.
    Regarding the lock, I don’t know anyone who’s ever used it, but I do know people who have the key on their keychain and periodically use it to make sure the lock isn’t partially engaged. I think that’s a good practice. I once commented on a blog that if you fly with the gun in your checked baggage it might be a good idea to activate the lock, so if the gun is stolen, it will be at least a little harder for the thief to use it. I was immediately informed by a hundred people that I was a combination of Benedict Arnold, Aldrich Ames, Mao, and Satan rolled into one. It was kind of uplifting.

    1. That’s the best use of the lock I’ve heard. No quarrel with you here, for that. Of course, we could also accomplish the same with a trigger lock.

    1. That’s definitely a consideration, Joe. Some folks have concerns about the liability associated with doing that, but there’s a good argument to be made that deactivating the lock is not the same as pinning a grip safety, etc.

      Here’s a good source for a lock delete kit:

      Original Precision

  7. Thank you for being the ONLY writer to present this story and address the hypocrisy of the letter and the continued existence of the Hillary hole.

    I noticed their latest revolver offering, the X-Frame in .350 Legend, has the Hillary hole. This was their first opportunity since publishing the letter to start phasing it out.

    When the lock goes away, I will take their tough words seriously.

    1. Thanks. I call ‘em as I see ‘em, Kevin.

      I think S&W’s support for our 2A freedom is genuine, and I think they deserve our praise and support for it. I also think the lock symbolizes the opposite, and is an albatross for the company, that they should ditch.

      I hesitate to use the word “hypocrisy” in this case. I think the lock has been part of their corporate culture for so long, that most folks at S&W don’t even notice it. It’s been normalized, and it just doesn’t grab their attention. Frankly, I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of management and labor weren’t even working there, when it first came to be—they’ve never known anything else, and the lock feels “normal” to them.

      So, I don’t think there’s any conscious effort to deceive, or anything like that. CEO Smith was not crossing his fingers behind his back when he signed that letter, and is not talking out the side of his mouth. I believe that he and his team are true proponents of the ideals that were expressed in that letter.

      I honestly think it just doesn’t occur to them how unpopular the lock still is, or how it is still viewed by a large portion of their would-be customer base. I also think the inertia of, “we’ve always done it this way,” is strong, and prevents the new crowd at the company from considering changes. Us RevolverGuys know it HASN’T “always been this way,” and we would like to see the lock—a temporary distraction, in our sense of the timeline—disappear into oblivion, but it’s easy to see how it endures. It takes no effort to keep the lock, now. The real effort lies in getting rid of it.

      There’s hope, though. The corporate move to Tennessee is a big sign that “business as usual” is changing at S&W. While the forge and workforce that still make revolver frames, cylinders, and barrels is still behind, in Springfield, maybe that will eventually be relocated to Free America, as well. When it does, maybe that would be an opportune time to redesign the guns without the lock.

      I’d hope we wouldn’t have to wait that long, but I’ll welcome it, whenever it happens. I’ll be right there with you in line, with a big wad of cash in my pocket, when the lock goes away.

      Thanks for reading and commenting!

  8. To misquote Lady Macbeth, “Out, damned lock!”
    That bloody hole has kept me from buying several S&Ws.
    A 442 Pro and 642 (both no-lock) are all I’ve got.

    As to the rest of this well-thought-out piece, it speaks for itself.
    Thank you.

  9. To show my support of the S&W stand, I went to my local FFL and bought a 686 that I’ve had my eye on for the last several weeks. As a consumer I feel this is the most tangible effort I can use that will actually help. In addition I sent an email to the CEO expressing my support and approval.

    1. Pat, we’re not happy that S&W has kept the lock, but we’re hopeful they’ll come to their senses on that, and we appreciate their support of our liberty.

      As RevolverGuys, we all have a long list of products that we’d like to see them improve or make. I could really go for better J-Frame sights, a return of the Model 58, and 547, and . . .

  10. As always Mike, you’re perspective put into words the analysis most of us have, but couldn’t say as eloquently as you did!

    1. Thank you Sir! I think it’s interesting how passionate people still are about the lock, two decades later. There’s definitely an opportunity cost that S&W is overlooking by keeping it.

  11. . . . [A] return of the Model 58, the 547, and . . .” Hear, hear! I also want to see the Model 65 come back. That was the most practical medium-frame revolver (in 3-inch, round-butt configuration) for concealed carry ever.
    Now that they’ve added the 350 to their lineup and cornered the market on velociraptor guns, how about something for us K-frame fans? As it is, they’re ceding the medium-frame .357 market to the King Cobra.

  12. Thanks, Mike, for highlighting this stand up move by S&W’s boss. I wish he would take a few evenings and read the comments on postings here at Revolver Guy. There are recurring themes from a strong customer base that would give him insight into product direction. The lock, K frame carry guns, Airweights, J Frame sights, Mountain Guns, etc. We’ll keep hoping….

  13. Kudos to Mr. Smith for firing back at the politicos. Lock or no lock, makes no difference to me, I guess it’s a matter of personal preference. These high and mighty politicians are covering the proverbial dung in the cat box to justify their jobs. Put ’em all in a sack and hit the sack with a stick and you’ll hit the same one every time. They make me sick to my stomach.

  14. The best avenue for S&W once settled in Tennessee is to just discontinue the Hillary Hole. How it affects resale value of the Hillary Hole guns is, well, a never ending discussion.

    S&W has made some phenomenal advancements in firearms technology in the last 25 years, such that even their major headache ( Ruger ) uses some of their innovations. Colt pioneered metal injection molding in the Mark III Trooper, and while there were initial teething problems, it showed the viability of the process. The new generation of Colt revolvers have MIM internal parts, as do S&W and Ruger. The MIM parts are much easier to make than casting, and with greater precision. ( Casting the frames is still a better process ). For those decrying MIM parts, keep in mind that MIM technology is used in the automotive industry for critical engine parts, and both Pratt & Whitney and GE make copius use of MIM technology in fabricating jet engines.

    Smith & Wesson also brought the original Dan Wesson (relative) use of the separate barrel and shroud back to life. Barrel to frame alignment can be done with greater precision, and the cylinder-barrel gap can be done with precise repetition. They also greatly improved the durability of the K-Frame magnums with a ball and detent locking system on the crane, a better forcing cone design for better magnum digestion.

    Yes, the greatest sin is the Hillary Hole . . . and I’m the first to admit that none of my S&W revolvers have them. Having said that, there are several devices on the market that allow one to remove said Hole and replace it with something far more asthetic and infinitely more useful – i.e. the plug held in position with a rather powerful spring internally.

    While doing so is reassuring from the standpoint of knowing your gun won’t freeze due to the stupid Hole lock, there could well be a problem down the road if said modified (restored) revolver is used in a defensive altercation. There are far TOO many corrupt prosecutors and civil (cough) trial lawyers who can and most likely would make a very big deal over someone — “intentionally, and with malice aforethought, in total disregard to the safety and welfare of others, did deliberately remove a factory installed safety device, the result being the discharge of an otherwise locked firearm thereby causing injury (or death) to . . . ” of another useless criminal.

    Such a prosecutorial stunt might not happen in Bugtussle, Texas, but you can bet your bippie that in metro Atlanta, or any other major city, any of the assortment of less than upright DA’s and ADA’s would wield that weapon with relish.

    Just sayin’ . . . (and yes, I still loathe the Hillary Hole)

    1. You took the words right out of my mouth! We’ve got some coverage coming up that will address all of this in detail—I’m excited to publish it! We’re saving it for the end of the year, to finish with a bang.

  15. I was happy to read S&Ws message on their Instagram page and makes me want to support them even more. As for the lock, I don’t like them but they have never prevented me from purchasing any of their revolvers. I have never experienced a problem with them however I completely understand why people hate them, I’d also hate to see S&W start rolling out new revolvers without a lock and devalue all of my revolvers with locks. The one thing that did surprise me was when S&W started releasing their heritage or retro models with the locks, I believe that was a missed opportunity for S&W to start dropping the locks. Unfortunately I believe their lawyers have more say in those locks staying but maybe something will change soon…who knows!

  16. I will NOT buy any S&W with a lock. it’s a darn shame because there’s about half dozen revolvers I’d like to buy if not for their infernal lock.

  17. Kudos to S&W.

    Ah the locks – it’s such an emotional issue. Statistically the failure rate is next to zero, but people always have an antidote about someone that had a problem once. Have yet to see any failure rate data, but I understand where they are coming from. It’s a betrayal issue.

    It’s totally off topic, but related. Has anyone noticed the complete lack of revolver inventories at your LGS? I would love to buy a new S&W in .327 Fed Mag, 9mm, or .22lr but they have become unicorns. Ruger and Taurus revolvers are also slim pickings on the shelves unless you want a .357 or .38 Sp version.

    Considering the current cost and scarcity of the new S&W revolvers it is unlikely that older revolvers with locks would devaluate because S&W would/can charge more for the non lock versions.

    Just my 2 cents to the discussion.

    1. Hi Carlos! Supplies of S&W revolvers are rather thin out here on the Left Coast, but I think they’ll bounce back soon, based on the latest sales and background check numbers. It appears that the great Panic of 2020-22 has subsided, and I expect supply to start catching up with demand this year and next.

      During the panic, the majors were focused on making lots of their best-sellers, and everything else was getting ignored. This should improve, now that the pressure is off, and we should see a broader selection of products in the coming year.

  18. I’m glad that the current leadership at S&W firmly stands by the 2A. I am a fan of S&W’s products, and will continue to purchase them (as my budget allows).

    I only have two revolvers with the lock; my 642 and my 69. I would prefer the lock wasn’t there, but its presence does not trigger me, nor does it keep me from buying newly manufactured S&W revolvers. My 642 has never given me any trouble; my 69 I haven’t shot enough to comment.

    1. Glad to hear the lock has been trouble free for you, Axel. In my experience, the lock failures are uncommon, but usually rear their head when heavy-recoiling ammo is fired in the lightweight guns. Staying away from the extremes will keep things working properly.

      I still have yet to meet anyone who actually likes the lock. A lot of folks will put up with it, as you do, but I’ve never met anyone who wanted or demanded it, nor have I met anyone who actually uses it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *