Do you pass on buying because it has a safety?


PDA






cobb
June 29, 2005, 10:32 PM
I do this all the time, it is my choice, and my money.

How many of you will pass on something like a S&W 642 because it has the politically correct key lock safety located just under the cylinder release?

I will be in the market for such a gun as a S&W 642, in excellent condition, and I will pay a premium because that is what I am looking for. But if it has an intrical safety lock of some sort, I will not even consider it unless it is at least $100 less than it should be.

How many others out there feel the same way as I do,,,,,,,,,,or tell me where I am completely wrong on these factory safety devices.

I would like to note that the Springfield Armory 1911 mainspring housing lock doesn’t offend me as much, I can fix politically correct safety device like that very easily with similar or original JMB style parts.

It is something that I just think is offensive to the original design of the weapon.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you pass on buying because it has a safety?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dakotasin
June 29, 2005, 10:34 PM
if the safety can easily be bypassed or eliminated, such as remington's iss system, then no, i'll go ahead and buy. if the safety is difficult to defeat, then yes, i pass on it.

in the same vein... i do not buy ruger stuff because i am personally offended by the extensive scribbling nonsense on their barrels.

No_Brakes23
June 29, 2005, 10:35 PM
I don't know enough about wheelguns to be offended by this safety, but I might still be inclined to get an older one because there are some awesome used revolvers out there.

I didn't know about the J-hook on my Remington 870 when i bought it, but those are easy enough to replace.

Hypnogator
June 29, 2005, 10:41 PM
I don't care one way or another if the firearm has an integral key-lock safety, as long as it is inobtrusive and works as it is supposed to. In fact, I kinda like having that option available if I'm having someone with small children visit, so I can just quickly lock my Taurus without having to unload it.

OTOH, I looked for quite awhile to buy an early Marlin 1894 without the crossbolt safety to mar it's looks, and enhance it's actual safety not one whit! :evil:

Marshall
June 29, 2005, 10:42 PM
If I like the gun, I'll buy it with a lock. Wish they weren't there though but the fact is, they are and they're not coming off now that they're on.

Zeke Menuar
June 29, 2005, 10:42 PM
There is some lively debate about revolver locks elsewhere on these pages.

My postion is firm. I will not buy any firearm with a key operated integrated "safety" lock, period.

ZM

gbran
June 29, 2005, 10:45 PM
I have a weelie with a key safety. I've never locked this safety and the key has been in a drawer since new. I don't even know it's there. Why be upset, just don't use it.

antsi
June 29, 2005, 10:56 PM
To me, it depends on how the safety is designed/engineered and how it works given the manual of arms of the gun.

If it is helpful and useful and well-designed, then obviously I'm for it. For example, on a 1911 pattern gun, they probably kind of need that safety.

If it is of no consequence either + or -, then I ignore it and look at other features of the gun. For me an example of this is the safety on a CZ75-B. I prefer to carry the gun decocked in DA mode, so the safety is no benefit to me. It wouldn't affect my buying decision either way.

If it is an afterthought add-on, like some of the ones they put on to adhere to certain "gun owner nuisance" laws, then I have to take a second look. If I thought it was likely to interfere with the function of the gun, I definitely would not buy it. Even if it was just an ugly-looking add-on, I'd probably pass. But if it is done well from a functional, engineering, and asthetics standpoint, it wouldn't stop me from buying I gun I wanted at a good price.

I guess what you're getting at is, "Would I pass up on a good gun, of a type that I wanted, being sold at a good price, just to make a political statement about goofball liberal gun safety laws?" the answer would be no.

EghtySx
June 29, 2005, 11:07 PM
I guess what you're getting at is, "Would I pass up on a good gun, of a type that I wanted, being sold at a good price, just to make a political statement about goofball liberal gun safety laws?" the answer would be no.


I would. And the statement would be to the gun company. Something along the lines of "If you fold to their pressure, I will no longer spend any money with you." They should be fighting with us. Antis have corporations on their side.

Old Fuff
June 29, 2005, 11:20 PM
Perhaps the Old Fuff is stuck in a time warp. What some people see as past
history I remember as past experience ... :scrutiny:

I buy guns on the basis of what I like, and many of the features that made particular guns atractive are no more.

Economic changes and market preferences have turned away for hand polished blue steel. Lockwork is no longer made from forgings. Where guns used to work fine and smoothly out-of-the-box, they must now be broken in - and some may not work even then. Walnut stocks are largely replaced with molded rubber.

And so it goes ... :banghead:

I consider the locks to be superfluous, but they don't disturb me to the point where I wouldn't buy a gun that had them. I can deal with them in my own way, and after that they will cause no problems, and not be an eyesore.

However I haven't noticed anything in the current crop that seemed outstanding enough to consider, except some Taurus snubbies. Smith & Wesson and Ruger have yet to make a good .44 Special in a practical snubbie. The Taurus is also the only thing left (other then older Colt's) that is a satisfactory platform for conversion to a Fitz Special, but there is hardly anyone left that knows what these were, and even fewer that care.

Meanwhile the used market is often filled with attractive (to me) older guns, and if one doesn't have to have one with a cult following (S&W .357 Magnum model 27 with a 3 1/2" or 5" barrel for example) the prices are sometimes modest for what the gun represents. I am fortunate in that I often enjoy guns that others are hardly interested in. :cool:

I see no reason for argument. There are enough guns of various kinds around to satisfy everyone, regardless of their point of view. The problem I worry about is that as more folks discover what I already know, the cost of what I like will go up and up ... :fire:

On the part of others, ignorence is bliss ... :D

Marshall
June 29, 2005, 11:53 PM
Well, the way I look at it is that if I lock myself out of buying guns with internal locks it will be like life without revolver manufacturers, just like they all shut down and all we have from that day forward are what's already been made and sold. I'm not going to cut off my to spite my face. Smith and Taurus have already gone there, Ruger will too, Colt might as well not exist anymore and the small ones will follow. Even if some smaller ones don't I'm basically limited to crap, single action only or guns too expensive. After a while they're wouldn't be enough used guns to go around and we would be paying huge prices for a basic 686.

Times change and so do products. I remember saying I would never buy a car with shoulder belts, they were too restricting. I remember saying I would never buy a 4X4 truck without manual locking hubs, too much to go wrong. I remember thinking it would be cold day in hell before anything semi-auto was reliable enough to spend my hard earned money on.

Point is s*it happens and things change, some for the better and some not so much. As I said, I wish the locks weren't there but as I have said to myself before, that's life in the big city, get over it.

MechAg94
June 29, 2005, 11:57 PM
I guess I am new to guns in that regard, but I don't even notice the safety on the guns I own that have them.

If you think you are making a statement, I seriously doubt the gun makers will notice, or care for that matter. "Safety" is king these days with anti-gunners making noise all the time. Buy what you want. Makes little difference to me.

Standing Wolf
June 30, 2005, 12:17 AM
No internal locks in my guns safe, and especially not in my holster!

I don't buy products that insult my intelligence.

stevelyn
June 30, 2005, 12:20 AM
I made a comment about safety locks awhile back on here or another forum. My comment, without qualifying it, was that the safety lock was a deciding factor in not being interested in a particular handgun. One member replied by stating "get used to it, they're here to stay". So lemme 'splain my position.

I realize the locks are here to stay. However, I think the designers should try and make them as unobtrusive and failsafe as possible. I don't want one being activated under recoil or everyday use. I don't want it taking away from the overall appearances of the gun. I also think they should be commonly keyed throughout the industry. The best example I can think of is the integral replacement backplate/lock for the Glock pistol that uses a handcuff key for activation. What would be wrong with standardizing all integral locks utilizing handcuff keys?

Ruger, S&W, and Springfield are on the right track for unobtrusive integral locks. I think the location of the Ruger lock are best so far I've seen. The S&W is okay where it's at, just don't stare at it too long or it'll start to p**s you off thinking about it. Of course with locking mainspring housings you can just replace the MS/H for a better aftermarket part anyway.

BTW the pistol I was talking about earlier was the Taurus 24/7. Its safety lock looks like a giant puss-filled pimple on the face of an otherwise nice looking and capable pistol. :eek:

Marshall
June 30, 2005, 12:26 AM
Standing Wolf,

Have any cars or trucks with automatic transmissions? I'm sure you know how to manually shift. ;)

Mauserguy
June 30, 2005, 12:32 AM
As far as the motivation for adding these superflous devices, yes I am offended, but having said that, I would consider the gun if it:

1. doesn't offend me on a historical basis, such as a M1911 with a stupid lock hole in the side.

2. doesn't represent a home defense problem. My buddy and I went shooting once. He forgot is J-lock key and couldn't use his 870. Immagine having to look for the key when the Night Stalker is coming for you.

3. doesn't offer negative features, like a cruchy trigger. I've read that the magazine disconnect devices mess up the trigger pull and have to be removed for the proper functioning of the arm.

4. is obvious is if it engaged or not. I don't want to have to second guess whether the idiot safety is engaged or not. I want to be able to grab the gun and go.

Mauserguy

EghtySx
June 30, 2005, 12:38 AM
No internal locks in my guns safe, and especially not in my holster!


Ya, me too.

Also, really, I like older revolvers better anyway. Makes sense I guess since Colt still holds the most attraction for me. Old Colt blue still gets me every time.

Black Majik
June 30, 2005, 01:29 AM
Hmm... I suppose the internal lock on the S&W revolvers would annoy me, since its an eyesore to look at. But I consider it almost the same level of eyesore as the Ruger labels on the barrels.

Magazine disconnects dont bother me that much if it is easy to remove, such as the BHP.

Springfields 1911 with the ILS, a change of the MSH will fix that. No biggie.

Only thing that really doesn't bother me is the Series 80 FPS/schwartz safeties. Unless it had an ill effect on the guns reliability I'll still continue to buy Series 80/II guns.

Remington 870 shotguns, same as the SA 1911s, easy part to switch out. I haven't switched out my J safety button yet, but I dont really see a need to. Its not my HD shotgun and it hasn't failed on me.

Standing Wolf
June 30, 2005, 01:55 AM
Have any cars or trucks with automatic transmissions?

Nope. Never owned one. If my arthritis continues to worsen, I may end up with one some day, but doubt I'll like it. I've driven rental vehicles with automatic transmissions, and kept stamping the floor with my left foot. I don't care for electric windows, either, and I can't tell you how much I hate the leather seats in my car. Next one will have honest cloth that doesn't freeze my back side in the winter and stick to me in the summer.

Ornery old son of a gun, eh?

cobb
June 30, 2005, 09:25 AM
I have a weelie with a key safety. I've never locked this safety and the key has been in a drawer since new. I don't even know it's there. Why be upset, just don't use it.

It is maybe the looks more than anything, but as I said earlier, it is my money and I just don't want to spend it on a gun with this ugly safety. I am about 50, so I really doubt that in the future that I will ever run out of firearm options out there without the built in safety lock.

HSMITH
June 30, 2005, 09:34 AM
I will not buy a gun with a lock on it that can't be easily and completely removed. Locks are not safeties to me, they are political statements.

Marshall
June 30, 2005, 12:00 PM
Nope. Never owned one. If my arthritis continues to worsen, I may end up with one some day, but doubt I'll like it. I've driven rental vehicles with automatic transmissions, and kept stamping the floor with my left foot. I don't care for electric windows, either, and I can't tell you how much I hate the leather seats in my car. Next one will have honest cloth that doesn't freeze my back side in the winter and stick to me in the summer.
Ornery old son of a gun, eh?

Hahahaha,

We'll just call you Stone Age. :neener:


What kind of a car has leather, a stick and no heated seats? Vette? Stang? SS? Ferrari? Lambo? Mercedes? BMW?

J Miller
June 30, 2005, 12:24 PM
I will not buy a gun equiped with afterthought lawyer inspired locks that I cannot remove. These devices are not saftys. They are function prevention devices. I do not want, and will not have a gun so equiped. End of story.


Joe

Hawkmoon
June 30, 2005, 12:34 PM
There are many things about many new firearms that bother me, and for that reason I tend to seek out clean, "low mileage" examples from a few years ago.

I agree on the 1911. The Springfield Armory lock goes away when you replace the mainspring housing, and I prefer a flat MSH anyway so it's a no-brainer. However, I believe SA uses 2-piece barrels in their 1911s and I don't want a 2-piece barrel, so SA still isn't on my shopping list.

Gewehr98
June 30, 2005, 01:02 PM
Remington quit with the ISS (J-lock) on their recent production bolt guns. Good for them. So whoever quipped that integral gun locks are here to stay can put that example in his pipe and smoke it.

But the ISS was also easily replaced with a normal bolt shroud, so if I found a rifle so equipped for a reasonable price, I'd grab it, then convert it.

The key lock in the Springfield 1911's mainspring housing is easily replaced with a standard mainspring housing, so that's an easy fix, too.

Same goes for the upcoming Ruger Vaquero lock, which resides under the grip panels. A non-locking replacement part will be out posthaste, I'm certain, if not by Ruger, then aftermarket.

The S&W zit/pimple? Not easily removed, at least, not the hole in the sideplate. I'll leave that one on the dealer's shelf - there are still lots of pre-lock S&W revolvers out there for me to buy. ;)


I never considered my intelligence to be insulted by a manual transmission automobile. Maybe I just never trusted a slushbox-equipped car to shift gears by itself. Even my old pro-street dragster had manual valve bodies.

My 25+ year predilection for stick gearboxes infuriates my wife and stepsons. My wife finds clutch/gearshifts tedious, and we never bothered to teach the stepsons how to drive with a manual. So dad's happy, he drives his 5-speed truck without fear of his stepsons wanting to borrow it, and the wife is happy with her slushbox-equipped sedan. A win-win situation, in my book.

SteveS
June 30, 2005, 01:26 PM
I have a S & W with the lock and it doesn't bother me. As for appearance, I didn't buy it to look at, so I don't really care. In terms of functioning, I can understand that argument.

I do this all the time, it is my choice, and my money.

Exactly. Buy what you want, there are plenty of choices out there.

Marshall
June 30, 2005, 01:38 PM
Remington quit with the ISS (J-lock) on their recent production bolt guns. Good for them. So whoever quipped that integral gun locks are here to stay can put that example in his pipe and smoke it.

My post specifically refered to revolvers not bolt action rifles. Got an example of them? Big difference politically.

taliv
June 30, 2005, 01:38 PM
i dont' think it's that big of a deal.

personally, i don't use the mechanical safeties on any of my guns (except the 1911), much less the internal locks,

but i have a couple, like a taurus .480 and a rem700 with the little J key.

they're mildly annoying, but no more so

bosshoff
June 30, 2005, 01:44 PM
I have made the mistake of buying a Rem. 700, and a 870 that had the riduculous J-safeties, and a Springfield 1911 with the ILS. I am going to get rid of the two on the Remngton's, and the Springer's is long gone. It is good that I like to futz with stuff, but in the future, I am going to pay more attention. I am tired of dropping $20-30 here abnd there to fix/swap-out stuff that should not have been broken/in-place, in the first place.

Boats
June 30, 2005, 02:59 PM
Extensive scribbling on a Ruger revolver? I am still waiting for someone to so easily remove the hole from a S&W frame.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=25565

MICHAEL T
June 30, 2005, 04:47 PM
Their locks not safetys and they don't belong on pistols. I have 1 on my Bersa,thats only one I own. I also agree with OLD Fuff .Theirs to many good used guns to buy modern cast junk. I own 1 auto car. My Cuda is 4speed and my Chev full size 4x4 is a small block 5speed with loud pipes, my daugthers love it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you pass on buying because it has a safety?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!