S&W Model 10, 36 and 19 classic will no longer be manufactured with the Hillary hole.

[-]

Dependent_Ad_5546@reddit

Who’s buying new model 10’s? Get one on the used market before their qc went to poo

[-]

I fully intend to buy a new no-lock Model 10 when they're available. The 10 is the best all-around thirty-eight of all time in terms of looks and balance IMO, having a brand new one will be nice because I'll be the first owner of it and I can finally retire my rule of "no new S&Ws" because that stupid lock is gone, it'll be under current warranty capabilities, etc. It's like new versus used cars - there's a novelty toward being the first to own.

I do have several used K-frames already though.

[-]

Dependent_Ad_5546@reddit

But is a new one worth 1000$ that S&W will charge plus QC vs used ones in good condition with the patina and history for half that price? Maybe I just don’t see it.

[-]

k890@reddit

There is some reasons.

Export markets, some countries does have caliber limits for civillians but 38 Special generally is accepted across the board for target shooting.
Some switch to more "classic" guns in the US market oversaturated with "tacticool" stuff.
Media/games presence leading to simply recognition as "the revolver" in non-gun public. In recent years in US sales market are rising among public which don't had much interests in shooting or gun ownership.

Sure, pre-1980s S&W revolvers had some great craftsmanship and finding one in decent shape may work for next couple decades in the future. Problem is there are right now decades old guns with all technical problems (inproper storage, damaged barrels, busted lockworks etc.) and if you really don't know nothing about revolver issues there is high chance to end with busted gun, so there is at least some interests in simply buying new revolver with all consumer protection laws involved.

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

Good. There is no reason for the Hillary Hole.

It's ugly. It's a point of failure. And it's a reminder of S&W bending the knee to gun controllers.

[-]

KreepingKudzu@reddit (OP)

if they had not bent the knee there would be no S&W right now. The Clinton administration was going to sue them into bankruptcy, which they were very close to anyway at the time because they didn't have a competitive police pistol anymore.

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

Bullshit, stop making excuses.

[-]

KreepingKudzu@reddit (OP)

HUD sec. Coumo, at the direction of Clinton endorsed frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers for liability for deaths and injuries.

since the late 80s S&W's profits had dropped 50% over all product lines, and quality suffered. The company had just been sold to a overseas British conglomerate.

They had no money to fight a battle against the most well funded frivolous law suits in history from HUD and the state of mass. with the full, direct backing of the president of the united states.

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

That wouldn't make it to trial. A company is not liable for intentional misuse of their product. They caved under threat and bent the knee, and I won't excuse them for it.

[-]

GimpboyAlmighty@reddit

It doesn't have to make it to trial to cost an arm and a leg. It's also laughably easy to avoid a MSJ and push to trial. The plaintiff need only find a "genuine issue of material fact" on which to rely. It doesn't even have to be true. One can literally lie on an affidavit to avoid a successful MSJ.

I don't know the business conditions S&W faced, but if it was as bad as the other guy suggests, a manufacturing change is less expensive than a series of frivolous lawsuits from the fed, and S&W had a legal duty to it's shareholders to defend shareholder equity.

Assuming everything claimed by the other dude is true, S&W made the only business decision they could have reasonably made.

[-]

CrypticQuery@reddit

Here's the best article on the lock and its historical basis. S&W went full steam ahead on inclusion of the lock even after they were no longer being held to the terms of their agreement with the Clinton administration. They happened to have been bought out by SAF-T-HAMMER at the time; a company that manufactured firearm locking devices.

https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and-future-of-the-smith-wesson-internal-lock/

[-]

KreepingKudzu@reddit (OP)

it would have not made it to trial? in the years of a newly passed AWB, WACO, in deep blue states with pressure being applied by the highest offices in the US and state government?

i find that hard to believe.

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

No, it wouldn't have, because it's not a 2A question. It's a corporate liability, standing, and commerce question. The 2A is not even cited in that motion to dismiss.

[-]

ReactionAble7945@reddit

Staying in a communist state as long as they did was a problem. They should have shutdown and moved to a free state and restructured as soon as the could. Leaving the liability and the hilliary hole behind. . Keeping the hole while other companies didn't have to have it shows how corrupt the system is. ....... And those guns are not the ones we want without the hole. The little 649... I bought one without a hole because I didn't want recoil or crap in the hole to be an issue. I have held off getting a 460 for the same reason.

[-]

AppropriateFault5578@reddit

I have a model 19 from the 1990s.

What’s a Hillary hole?

[-]

KreepingKudzu@reddit (OP)

the internal lock. it was placed there as part of a agreement with the Clinton admin to avoid the government suing the company into bankruptcy.

[-]

AppropriateFault5578@reddit

Ah that thing.

Yeah my Model 19 is from 1984 or so. I kinda want a 686, but this lock thing is one of the reasons I haven’t bought one.

[-]

1bentpushrod@reddit

Oh, the thing you didn’t know what it was is what was keeping you from buying one? Suuuuurrrreeeee.

[-]

AppropriateFault5578@reddit

I had been calling it the cylinder lock. I didn’t know it had a fancy name. I’m just a poor farm boy from out in the sticks.

[-]

CrypticQuery@reddit

Here's the definitive article on the S&W internal lock and why there's such disdain surrounding it.

https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and-future-of-the-smith-wesson-internal-lock/

[-]

Proof_Bathroom_3902@reddit

Now if only they still had bar stock hammer and trigger and had the firing pin on the hammer and pinned barrels. And the 357s had recessed chambers.

[-]

MunitionGuyMike@reddit

Teach a noob to revolvers, what’s a Hillary hole?

[-]

ultimateframe@reddit

Google is your friend.

But since you’re asking….its a lock on the side of the frame that disables the gun. Clinton headed it up years ago. S&W has kept it since.

[-]

A_Queer_Owl@reddit

this one isn't an easy google. just gives you a bunch of people complaining about it, really. you can get enough info to do a second google that will explain everything, but asking reddit was clearly the better and easier choice here.

[-]

Silent-chatter@reddit

I’d look it up but I’m scared it’s not gonna be the Hillary hole on a gun

[-]

Kentuckywindage01@reddit

O<

[-]

9bikes@reddit

>what’s a Hillary hole?

Internal lock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fN8-_x-6Oo&t=23s

[-]

GoogleFiDelio@reddit

A good way to lose a boner fast.

[-]

CrypticQuery@reddit

Here's the definitive article on the S&W internal lock and why there's such disdain surrounding it.

https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and-future-of-the-smith-wesson-internal-lock/

[-]

aabum@reddit

They are still using the ugly frame, so only a partial win.

[-]

KreepingKudzu@reddit (OP)

the frame was changed to include the addition of a frame mounted firing pin and transfer bar, not just because of the lock.

[-]

CrypticQuery@reddit

Negative. There are transition late-nineties to early-2000 models that have a frame mounted firing pin, but no lock. Their frames are much closer in shape to the pre-lock guns.

[-]

aabum@reddit

Again, the frame is still ugly.

[-]

Guy_GuyGuy@reddit

They're still using the fat internal lock contoured frames, they're just not drilling the hole...

[-]

KreepingKudzu@reddit (OP)

the frame was changed to include the addition of a frame mounted firing pin and transfer bar, not just because of the lock.

[-]

Guy_GuyGuy@reddit

This isn't correct. The frame-mounted firing pins started getting added around 1997-1998 while the locks started around 2001-2002, with some models getting updated with both at the same time. There's not many of the frame-mounted firing pin, pre-lock guns around, but they do not have the buried hammers that the lock guns do.

The best example where you can see this clearly is the 686-5 vs. the 686-6. The 686-5 was a pre-lock frame-mounted pin gun, while the 686-6 added the lock.

[-]

CrypticQuery@reddit

It's a start at least. Hopefully they'll go back to the pre-lock frame shape in the future.

[-]

Guy_GuyGuy@reddit

Another 24 years for that.

[-]

CrypticQuery@reddit

🤣😭

[-]

firearmresearch00@reddit

I need a nice classy 36

[-]

Quiet-Try4554@reddit

Finally. Probably lost millions of sales because of that stupid hole

[-]

indefilade@reddit

The only reason I’m against that safety, is I can’t think of a single instance to use it. I have a safe and my guns are in it.

[-]

Drakpalong@reddit

Why is it called a Hillary Hole? Did HRC lobby for it or something?

[-]

Underwater_Karma@reddit

Too little, too late S&W.

I still remember what you did

[-]

gunmedic15@reddit

3 inch Model 13 when?

[-]

KreepingKudzu@reddit (OP)

I think they are also using one piece barrels on them as well.

[-]

532ndsof@reddit

Looks like only on the 10 and the 36, but the day they drop a 19 classic no lock with a one piece barrel in buying one immediately. Might pick up a 10 classic in the meantime to encourage good decisions.

[-]

Quip_Soda@reddit

The product pictures for the Model 19 on their website look like it’s still 2 piece.

[-]

KreepingKudzu@reddit (OP)

maybe its only the pencil barrel 10 and 36.

[-]

KreepingKudzu@reddit (OP)

I'm assuming they are going to drip feed this thing so as to not blow their load early.

[-]