S&W Model 64
I have a S&W Model 64 with the 3" barrel. It is in excellent condition. I bought this about 15 years ago and believe it or not it has never been fired. I don't have the box or any paperwork for it but I was wondering what it might be worth? Also what is this term "pre-lock" I see in some gun ads now and then? Does this make a gun worth more? Thanks for any help!
0
-
A few years ago, S&W got all PC and started installing a little locking device above the cylinder latch. Many people prefer the older revolvers without that lock. Your 64 is worth about $400 without the box in todays market. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ssracer37
I have a S&W Model 64 with the 3" barrel. It is in excellent condition. I bought this about 15 years ago and believe it or not it has never been fired. I don't have the box or any paperwork for it but I was wondering what it might be worth? Also what is this term "pre-lock" I see in some gun ads now and then? Does this make a gun worth more? Thanks for any help!
The "pre-lock" guns don't have the key-lock behind the safety latch.
Are they worth more? Collectors and purists like them better, mostly as a case of "they don't make them like THAT anymore".
There have been sporadic reports of the lock occasionally engaging itself during ordinary firing, usually with VERY hot loads in very light guns. Unfortunately, I believe some jurisdictions (CA, MD, MA) REQUIRE that new guns sold either have an internal lock or come with a separate lock.
Here is a closeup of the gun lock behind the cylinder latch with the little "L" and arrow. You can also see the little metal "flag" that comes up next to the hammer when the lock is engaged:
I'd say given two otherwise identical guns one with the lock and one without, the older (pre-lock) one is probably going to be worth a LITTLE more.
Also, noted gun author Massad Ayoob allegedly published an article in "American Handgunner" about six months ago claiming that S&W was going to phase out the locks. Without getting into credibility issues, I will believe this when I start seeing new manufacture Smith guns without locks on them, and not before.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
For what it's worth, a month or so ago, I saw a new, recent release S&W revolver, w/o the locking device on it.
It was a limited-run item, and for the life of me, I cannot remember the model or where I saw it. [:(!]
Maybe here?
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=141396185
Anyway, I just checked, and apparently Smith DID just put out a run of several thousand NO-lock model 642 revolvers a few months ago.
I happen to know as a fact that the 642 is Smith's most popular pistol.
Maybe this was a one-off marketing test on their part, maybe not. . .I don't know.
I strongly doubt Smith is going to entirely discontinue the lock on their guns, though *maybe* with certain models they will offer lock and no-lock variants, or (more likely) have one-off "no lock" runs to tweak collectors.
Personally speaking, given the choice, I prefer the older multiple-screw pinned-and-recessed jobs from the 1970s and such. Its not just the lock. . .its the hand-fitting and increased character of such guns. . .plus the fact that used older guns often don't cost any more.
But I still CARRY a Smith WITH a lock, and at least 600 rounds later the lock has never engaged by accident.
I wouldn't hesitate to buy one of the newer lock guns, if the price were right.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
No law that says they can't return to pre-lock days. [;)]
Actually, it isn't exactly a "law", but I believe Smith entered into a consent agreement with the Clinton administration about what sort of guns they would and would not produce. I don't remember the details of that agreement, but I believe Smith eventually rescinded that agreement when it went under new management.
Also, I believe Smith has some sort of agreement with the Commonwealth of MA about making all its guns MA-compliant. This may be an informal agreement. . .not sure. (Remember, Smith and Wesson is located in Springfield MA, and is a large employer there). All guns sold in MA must either have an internal lock, or come with an external lock.
I think the reason Smith (and others) went to an all lock-arrangement is to satisfy the legal requirements in certain states about new-manufacture guns having intrinsic locking devices. I think CA is such a state (maybe MD as well), and even though its highly gun-unfriendly, CA is still a rather large marketplace. Remember also that Smith was at one point acquired by "Saf-T-lock" the company that invented its internal lock.
If Smith doesn't make guns with locks, it effectively "locks" itself out of a few fairly significant marketplaces. I think Smith made the business decision that its better to lose a few customers who won't buy guns with locks than to lose ALL sales in those jurisdictions.
While Smith could make two series of certain guns with and without locks (and it appears to be going in that direction), that is more complicated from a manufacturing/tooling and distribution standpoint.
Again, personally speaking, my main CCW gun is a Smith 637 WITH a lock. In practice, I keep the key inside the case, and never use it. If I want the gun to be locked, I place it inside a locked container (which also conceals it).
Hypothetically, if I could swap mine for an identical one without a lock at no cost, would I? No. . .I like the one I have for "sentimental" reasons.
As a side note, Ruger was pretty smart to design its own locking mechanism to be inconspicuous. IIRC, you have to remove a grip panel to access Ruger's lock. . .which means that it satisfies the letter of the law, and is cosmetically no different than a non-locking gun. Downside is that if you actually want to use the lock, its a PITA!0 -
I will stay lockless 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments