What's with the lock on Smith and Wessons?


PDA






Alex45ACP
April 21, 2007, 02:59 AM
What's with the lock on Smith and Wessons? Why did they start putting those on there? Any chance they'll ever start making guns again without them? I hate those things :barf:

If you enjoyed reading about "What's with the lock on Smith and Wessons?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RNB65
April 21, 2007, 03:11 AM
What's with the lock on Smith and Wessons?

Political correctness run amok.

Why did they start putting those on there?

Lawyers.

Any chance they'll ever start making guns again without them?

Not likely.

I hate those things

Buy a Ruger. You'll be glad you did.

Blue .45
April 21, 2007, 04:53 AM
I hate those things

You're not alone.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=262780&highlight=locks+Smith

ARTiger
April 21, 2007, 04:58 AM
They are making the M&P autoloader line with or without locks. Hopefully that practice will find it's way through the rest of their guns.

Waywatcher
April 21, 2007, 07:04 AM
I hate those things

Buy a Ruger. You'll be glad you did.

+1

Thats what I did.

Stainz
April 21, 2007, 07:43 AM
"What's with the lock on (new) S&W's?"

Why, generally a little plastic bag with two keys.

Also... the company that own's S&W is named 'American Safe-T-Lock'.

I have more with the 'Infernal Lock' than without - and none have caused me any form of grief. I wouldn't specify a lock, given the choice. But... I won't let it's inclusion deter me from a new S&W purchase - they make some fine new revolvers these days. I also don't let Ruger's poor QC deter my new purchases... I just keep the tool box handy. Sadly, every Ruger has needed sometimes a lot of TLC - those 'lock equipped' S&W's worked fine right out of the box.

Stainz

PS The little 'L' is on the 'left' side - above the cylinder release... handy reminder of which way to grab the revolver - for the easily confused, of course.

ugaarguy
April 22, 2007, 02:53 AM
Any chance they'll ever start making guns again without them?

Not likely.
Actually the classic series model 40 shown at the SHOT didn't have a lock. It's supposed to stay that way on the production guns as well according to a recent issue of The Shotgun News. Of course it still had MIM internals, but that's for another thread. Otherwise it's just politics and lawyers (isn't it always) as others have already noted.

Nomad, 2nd
April 22, 2007, 03:14 AM
PS: The new Rugers have locks too... you just have to take the grips off to see them.

Jim March
April 22, 2007, 03:26 AM
So far, no reports of the Ruger "hidden lock" (on some newer SA models only) auto-engaging. I own one like that, and have been watching like a hawk for the merest hint of it happening. I've also studied mine and see no engineering flaw.

There ARE reports of auto-locking happening on S&Ws.

That's a pretty big difference.

I'll also say that Ruger QC appears on the upswing of late. My 2005-era New Vaquero was absolutely perfect, and an excellent shooter.

WeedWhacker
April 22, 2007, 03:37 AM
Is there any hard documentation on these "hidden locks" on Ruger handguns?

I'd heard rumors about Ruger succumbing to PC-crappiness, but never saw/read anything concrete.

mdao
April 22, 2007, 03:49 AM
Takes about 2 minutes with a screwdriver to disable the lock or remove it completely. Sure it's undesirable from an aesthetics standpoint, but it's a perfectly reasonable option in a shooter.

I don't like the things either, but it's not going to stop me from buying new S&W revolvers.

Nomad, 2nd
April 22, 2007, 10:28 AM
Mdao: Please share.

Weed Wacker: What do you mean by 'Hard documentation'?
Go look at a new Ruger Blackhawlk and take the grips off.

BlkHawk73
April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM
To keep thier products in some large markets they gotta do what they needed to alter the previous design. Like it or not they - the locks - are here to stay. Don't like them...don't buy 'em and be contenet with simply buying older or used ones from now on. Or...accept them and make the decision to either utilize them or simply ignore them altogether.

buck460XVR
April 22, 2007, 11:49 AM
I don't like the things either, but it's not going to stop me from buying new S&W revolvers.

same here.....I didn't like the locks on my new 870 or my sons new Remington pump 22...but like all S&W's, they are a quality firearm and I still bought em and we enjoy them.

As far as the locks being ugly, I don't even notice them. I guess it's cause I shoot them more then I look at them. Kinda like a mole on a womans face. If she's fat and ugly, it's kinda disgusting, but on Marilyn Monroe or Cindy Crawford, they're kinda sexy.

I have a friend who just bought a new Ruger .44....and it's a very nice gun. He was seriously looking at Smith's also and used the lock as his excuse for not buying the 629. But........I know him well enough to know, it was the price difference and not the lock that was the major factor in his decision.

WeedWhacker
April 22, 2007, 11:50 AM
I mean something akin to photos of the external mechanism and an accurate description of what the parts actually do.

Many folks, including myself, do not have access to a new Ruger, and even if we did, wouldn't likely get the owner to agree to let us take the grips off.

Hawk
April 22, 2007, 12:13 PM
Nice picture of a Ruger "undergrip" lock here (http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-NewVaquero.htm).

Just Jim
April 22, 2007, 12:23 PM
I wonder:D People won't buy Smiths because of the locks. If Smith did away with the locks would the lock guns then be rare and collectable:banghead: (and at the gun show they say "hey they only made so many of these so you got to pay a high price":neener: )

jj

Chief 101
April 22, 2007, 12:42 PM
I bought a J-frame earlier this year and didn't like the lock but you just reminded me that it's there. It's a non-issue with me. The revolver does what it's intended to do,,, it shoots. Chief aka Maxx Load

Thaddeus Jones
April 22, 2007, 02:06 PM
I only buy pre lock S&W's. What ever they made/make after 2000 is of no concern to me. So, I guess I can say it's not an issue too!

antediluvianist
April 22, 2007, 02:19 PM
As everyone knows, the federal government can press a switch in Washington and all the locks will flip on and disable the guns. It's a government conspiracy. The only way to stop it is to wear an aluminum foil hat.

454c
April 22, 2007, 02:38 PM
lock vs. no-lock
emotion vs. fact
your choice

MICHAEL T
April 22, 2007, 06:01 PM
I also only buy pre lock S&W Smith doen't miss my money and I don't miss their lock or their crappy MIM internals.

WeedWhacker
April 22, 2007, 08:39 PM
Thanks, Nomad and Hawk, for the information! :)

lock vs. no-lock
emotion vs. fact
your choice

Fact: more moving parts means more parts to wear out and break, or simply fail to work correctly; means all other things being equal, more parts equals less reliability.

Fact: less reliability in a defensive firearm is a bag thing.

tinygnat219
April 22, 2007, 10:14 PM
They are needed to protect ourselves from ourselves. It's also a strategy to fool crooks when they break into our homes and take the guns away from us.
Yeesh... that's what the libbys say :banghead: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

351 WINCHESTER
April 22, 2007, 10:59 PM
Hey honey, someone is breaking down our door. Do you happen to remember where you hid my key? Honey, where is my key.

MassMark
April 23, 2007, 12:23 AM
It's called: "smart business practices in a climate where suing people has become a hobby".... Smith and Wesson made a choice that saved them from headaches, lawsuits, legal fees and lost capital. More lost capital than those who choose not to buy them because of a small dot on the side of the frame. Oh well, more for me.... ;)

DawgFvr
April 23, 2007, 01:29 AM
Quit whining already! I, for one, am getting tired of this Lock issue. Usually the people bringing it up are those that do not even own a S&W or some smug SOB that, "will only own a pre-lock" S&W. I own one. There is no issue. I have never had a problem with the lock..as I never use the lock...I do not intend to...I just ignore it. The weapon has always fired when I pull the trigger and I suspect it always will. If you do not like locks on the S&W, then purchase another weapon without a lock...and you better do it soon, cuz the trend is going towards locks of some kind. Perhaps if there is enough disgruntled people buying other revolvers...maybe, just maybe the price will go down on those superior S&W revolvers and I can add more to my collection.

mdao
April 23, 2007, 02:00 AM
Mdao: Please share.

Quick and dirty method to completely remove lock:


Make sure revolver is unloaded.
Remove grips.
Unscrew and remove side plate.
Untighten strain screw and remove mainspring.
Remove hammer block.
Pull trigger half way, remove hammer assembly.
Remove lock plate.
Remove lock spring with pliers.
Rest of lock removal should be self explanatory.
Pull trigger halfway, reinstall hammer assembly.
Reinstall mainspring and tighten strain screw.
Reinstall hammer block.
Reinstall side plate, screw into place.
Reattach grips.


Really, it took me about as long to write the explanation of how to remove the lock as it took me to remove the lock on my 627.

454c
April 23, 2007, 04:34 AM
QUOTE:
***Quit whining already! I, for one, am getting tired of this Lock issue.***





And you still clicked on a thread title about locks?:scrutiny:

DawgFvr
April 23, 2007, 11:48 AM
Yup. I try to head off the naive people, S&W bashers and those with hidden agendas in order to stop beating on this dead horse. I would, at the least, attempt to direct this topic to the legal/political area...as it really is about persuading people to not buy S&W in hopes of making them change their evil manufacturing ways. I doubt that will happen and I think that the thousands of newly purchased S&W revolvers in the hands of newer/older weapons owners should be allowed to post on here without the continual reminders of these so called "experts" about the evils of the lock and how all these revolvers, at any given moment, will fail to function at the cost of the buyer's life in a real world encounter, etc., blah, blah...blah.:scrutiny:

Radjxf
April 23, 2007, 12:30 PM
We all appreciate your efforts Dawg, but I think I'll keep on buying nice, old mostly hand fitted guns made from real steel, without idiot locks, injection-molded metal and transfer-bar firing pins:rolleyes:

Hawk
April 23, 2007, 01:16 PM
I only recently acquired a revolver or two but all this talk about S&W locks has piqued my curiosity sufficiently that I might have to buy one just to see what the fuss is about.

Pictures of the thing are reminiscent of what we "baby boomers" used to associate with clock-key wind-up mechanisms. I'm wondering if I could convince an anti it's a key hole for winding up the full-auto cylinder turning mechanism. Then again, it's not clear why I would want to do such a thing.

As something of a disinterested observer, I'm wondering if "Pre-lock S&W" has already reached the rare air where resides "Pre '64 Winchesters"? That'd be quite a trick given that the Winnies are over 40 years out of production while the Smith has only been gone around 5 years. While I was certainly old enough to remember "Pre '64 Winchesters" I wasn't paying any attention at the time.

Any old guys remember if there was more gnashing of teeth and rending of shirts in '64 or if the S&W lock has it beat?

Deanimator
April 23, 2007, 02:30 PM
Is there any hard documentation on these "hidden locks" on Ruger handguns?
Plenty at http://www.smith-wessonforum.com.

If the "trend" is toward internal locks, why are they OPTIONAL on S&W's hottest new item, the M&P semi-auto?

There is exactly ONE state which mandates internal locks, and the trend is NOT toward requiring them.

The ONLY apparent reason to put them on ALL revolvers besides the Model 40 is because "Safe-T-Hammer" bought S&W.

People who claim that the unencumbered mechanism can fail are absolutely correct... so then why add ANOTHER possible point of failure???

I've got a safe literally full of S&W revolvers of all types. I don't own a revolver with a lock. I never will.

454c
April 23, 2007, 04:34 PM
QUOTE:
***Yup. I try to head off the naive people, S&W bashers and those with hidden agendas in order to stop beating on this dead horse. I would, at the least, attempt to direct this topic to the legal/political area...as it really is about persuading people to not buy S&W in hopes of making them change their evil manufacturing ways. I doubt that will happen and I think that the thousands of newly purchased S&W revolvers in the hands of newer/older weapons owners should be allowed to post on here without the continual reminders of these so called "experts" about the evils of the lock and how all these revolvers, at any given moment, will fail to function at the cost of the buyer's life in a real world encounter, etc., blah, blah...blah.***



FACT - ALL mechanical devices fail.
FACT - Internal locks are mechanical devices.
FACT - Internal locks are NOT necessary for the gun to function.
FACT - Internal locks increase the odds of failure.

You say the no lock crowd are naive, bashers, those with hidden agendas and in an earlier post that they were non- owners and smug sob.

I say they are people who accept facts and spread the truth. I fail to see how hiding facts from fellow shooters can be helpful.

Like I said earlier, it's facts vs. emotion.

RevolvingCylinder
April 23, 2007, 05:31 PM
I have a friend who just bought a new Ruger .44....and it's a very nice gun. He was seriously looking at Smith's also and used the lock as his excuse for not buying the 629. But........I know him well enough to know, it was the price difference and not the lock that was the major factor in his decision.
Maybe he likes a modern design that won't beat itself to death on hot rounds that the revolver should be able to handle. So much for Ruger being the "cheap POS". That "cheap bastard" saved a whole $90 on a clearly "inferior" revolver.:rolleyes:

I love my Model 29 and the N-frame but I can't deny that the S&W has its flaws. Not to mention that S&W's quality has been on the decline while Rugers remain excellent. New S&W revolvers are merely 2nd rate replicas of real S&W revolvers.

DawgFvr
April 23, 2007, 05:34 PM
So...go and purchase Taurus revolvers if that makes you feel better...leave the new S&W revolvers to us. I have a friend who has a friend who knows somebody that believes in Ghosts. I don't. Ghosts = post lock failures. Until I see one or experience one, I say it is all Hogwash. After firing beau coup rounds thorugh my new Lock S&W, I have had no problems. Now...as stated before: Quit whining. Move out and draw fire.:barf:

Nails
April 23, 2007, 06:27 PM
I'm more of a Glock guy than anything but I do own a 442 that I carry sometimes. My wife owns a 642 that she carries all the time. Both have locks. My 442 has just over a thousand rounds thru it and I believe my wifes has a little under that.

I don't really have much of an opinion on the dang locks one way or another but I do have a question I've wanted to ask folks for a while now.

I've heard quite a few people say that the lock can engage under recoil. However looking at it I can't imagine how that would be possilbe. The unlocked position for the lock is back toward the butt of the gun. Recoil drives the gun backwards. So the recoil is driving the lock back toward the unlocked position.

So how in holy heck could the recoil engage the lock? I'm honestly not trying to argue and I'm about as far away from a physics professor that one can get, but I just don't see how recoil could make the lock go in the opposite direction from the force being exerted on it.

buck460XVR
April 23, 2007, 08:40 PM
Quote:
I have a friend who just bought a new Ruger .44....and it's a very nice gun. He was seriously looking at Smith's also and used the lock as his excuse for not buying the 629. But........I know him well enough to know, it was the price difference and not the lock that was the major factor in his decision.


Maybe he likes a modern design that won't beat itself to death on hot rounds that the revolver should be able to handle. So much for Ruger being the "cheap POS". That "cheap bastard" saved a whole $90 on a clearly "inferior" revolver.

RevolvingCylinder....don't know where in my post you read where I called the Ruger "inferior" or a "cheap POS". If you look again you see my exact words were "...and its a very nice gun." The part about my friend being a "cheap Bastard" you are correct about.:D

BTW...I owned a "old Model" Super Blackhawk, years ago myself. Had no problem with it except the way it fit my hand. Believe I paid around $150 for it brand new.

RevolvingCylinder
April 23, 2007, 09:01 PM
It sounded like you were putting down the Ruger as a "cheap" alternative. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. When you consider a new Redhawk(particularly that new 4" model) you don't save a lot. I personally like them both(new Rugers and older S&W).

Man With A Gun
April 23, 2007, 09:23 PM
Easily removed.

Open side plate, use Dremal Tool on the strange protruding stud just under the unlocking bar ( the thumb piece is on the outside of this bar ) Grind that sucker off and throw away the key.

Hope this helps.

Tberger688
April 23, 2007, 09:35 PM
Hello, in reality I like both S&W and Rugers, however I did have a problem with my Smith. The little “flag” that locks the S&W on the new guns is held down (unlocked) buy a little spring. If you take something with a small point you can raise the flag and when it is released it will snap down to its unlocked position by this spring. Well something happened to my spring and now I can engage the lock by turning the gun upside down and shaking it. Now if I raise the flag it will no longer snap down.

I believe this is what S&W means when they say they “replaced the spring” when guns are returned for a lock failure? It just a range gun so it’s not a big deal so I'll just get it fixed.

DAdams
April 23, 2007, 09:49 PM
When the locks are gone the ILM will be a collectors item. :neener:

sw686plus
April 24, 2007, 12:25 AM
My only two weapons are both 4 inch, one a S&W686+ and a Ruger GP100.

Both are great, Rugers are definitely not inferior to S&W's. GP100s in fact are probably the strongest .357's you can buy today.

However, after info from the S&W site I did elect to have my lock removed. Maybe it will fail, maybe not. I decided to never take the chance. The gun still functions perfectly, I can use compressed air to blow out the little hole left in the frame, and have already studied enough on the legal stuff to know that the folks saying lawyers will jump all over having the lock removed are not accurate. In a true self defense shooting the removed lock will never be an issue.

454c
April 24, 2007, 03:17 AM
QUOTE:
***Until I see one or experience one, I say it is all Hogwash. ***




So let me see if I understand your line of reasoning correctly. If someone doesn't see or experience something, then it simply can not exist or happen?

Sundles
April 24, 2007, 10:29 AM
Putting another mechanical device on the gun wont make it any safer. The only safety is between the ears.

Not only does it cost more to make and install more parts on the new S&W revolvers, but that "safety" is a liability should you really need the gun to go bang.

The only reason those safetys exist is because of pure lawyering, period.

Stainz
April 24, 2007, 09:03 PM
As any engineer knows, a MTBF (mean time between failure) analysis of any component in a device pre-supposes that component is both necessary and functional in said device's operation. Simply stated, the lock is neither functional in the normal operation nor necessary for that operation. Certainly, a catastrophic failure can occur... from a dropped firearm, for example. Sudden impact damage, from falls off counter heights to concrete floors, will cause damage to other firearm components, not to mention an accidental discharge possibility from a primer's cup being too high - or it's anvil being loose. Poor maintenance will rust through many items - with carbon steel going long before MIM parts. BTW, MIM parts are more durable - and much more uniform in construction (ie, less hand fitting required) - and definitely are a cost savings - as is SS!

But, when it is all over, it is a highly personal decision. I have had miserable luck with S&W's from the Bangor Punta era - SS or blued - and will avoid them. I have had miserable luck over the last three years with EVERY new Ruger - yet I still buy them (The generally can be fixed at my home... but my new 5.5" .45 SS Redhawk had to go 'home' for some r&r.). My new S&W's take a little break-in - replacement of the grips and springs for the 'fun' guns, PD types just get cleaned after the break-in. Again - buy what you want... but don't flatter yourself by thinking your promises to avoid lock-equipped will impress S&W to the point it effects a change. That little Spaniard on his burro, shouting at windmills, was more effective!

Highly opinionated...

Stainz

PS Ever found a real dud round? Do you still buy or reload ammo??

WJR
April 25, 2007, 12:06 AM
Stainz,

You put it well. It is a highly personal decision. I respect others decision to buy Smiths with locks, just as I expect other to respect my decision not to buy Smiths with locks.

I will not buy a Smith with a lock. The whole M&P hypocrisy makes me sick. If only an elite unit wanted to use Smith revolvers without the lock and order them in high numbers, we would see no-lock new smiths in a heartbeat.

Thanks,

WJR

orionengnr
April 25, 2007, 12:21 AM
QUOTE:
***Until I see one or experience one, I say it is all Hogwash. ***


So let me see if I understand your line of reasoning correctly. If someone doesn't see or experience something, then it simply can not exist or happen?


Wow, a fool could follow that logic train forever. Right off the edge of this flat earth.

I've never seen Pluto, so it must not exist.
I've never had cancer either, so it must not exist.
I've never seen Bin Laden, or even Ted Kennedy, for that matter.
Must all be hogwash. :rolleyes:

Wow. Just... frickin'.... wow.

ugaarguy
April 25, 2007, 01:15 AM
I've posted this in the 642 club already, but S&W apparently has listened. A recent issue of The Shotgun News ran a feature on new firearms shown at the SHOT show. The article had a few paragraphs about the Model 40 that S&W will be rolling out this year in their classic series. They specifically noted that it was shown without an internal lock at SHOT, and that the S&W reps confirmed it would be sold to consumers as such.

For it to be such a non issue S&W certainly is making a significant change. Note the previous classic series reissues did have the internal lock.

454c
April 25, 2007, 02:12 AM
QUOTE:
***but don't flatter yourself by thinking your promises to avoid lock-equipped will impress S&W to the point it effects a change. ***



On the other hand, blindly buying everything that comes down the line never changed much either. Can you imagine what type of guns we would be stuck with if we never questioned or refused to buy what was offered? The market is customer influenced, not manu. dictated.

John Henry Holliday
April 25, 2007, 02:22 AM
Howdy folks.

I bought a Smith with the lock because at the time it was the only 7 round .357 I could fine.

I removed the lock, however and will not be putting it back in. It's not necessary and if I could have found a 7 rounder at the time without it, I'd have gone that route.

Frenchy
April 25, 2007, 07:21 AM
The vast majority of Smith buyers don't inhabit forums, and if they did, S&W would have been out of business years ago.
The fact is that the buying public that Smith depends on, could care less about the lock, and indeed probably appreciates it for family safety.
Thank them for even having a company to buy from.
My opinion, of course! ;)

6Gunslinger
April 28, 2007, 01:32 AM
I'm fairly new to revolvers (guns in general for that matter) and I own a Smith with a lock and one without.... I read what I could find on it at first so that I could make an educated decision on the blasted "lock" and came to the conclusion that while I would try and seek pre-lock revolvers if I could find them at a decent price... I didn't really care one way or another... if a lock ever did fail I would just remove it. I can't understand why people spend hours and hours complaining when they have the choice? Would it be illegal to remove the lock? Regardless.... for the short time I have have been involved in these forums I have seen enough written on this topic to last a lifetime and it seems pretty ridiculous.... its not like we're being forced to put internal locks on our older Smiths... I just don't think much more can be said, we know what they are, we know what they're not and ultimately we can make the decision.....if I never see another thread on this topic it will be too soon, but thats just my humble opinion

Nomad, 2nd
April 28, 2007, 01:41 AM
6Gunslinger: it is obvious you do not carry your Smith for personal protection... where if it fails you may not live to remove it.

It is not illegal to remove the lock. (Why would it be?)

As far as not liking threads on this... feel free not to read.

cbsbyte
April 28, 2007, 09:02 PM
The lock debate is a dead horse since many companies are now designing internal locks into their new models. Like it or not, in the near future most new handguns will have internal locks. The naysayers will just have to buy used pre lock models or adapt to the lock.

Surefire
April 28, 2007, 09:10 PM
So far, no reports of the Ruger "hidden lock" (on some newer SA models only) auto-engaging. I own one like that, and have been watching like a hawk for the merest hint of it happening. I've also studied mine and see no engineering flaw.

There ARE reports of auto-locking happening on S&Ws.

That's a pretty big difference.

I'll also say that Ruger QC appears on the upswing of late. My 2005-era New Vaquero was absolutely perfect, and an excellent shooter.

My 686+ 4" locked up once. Simply putting the key in and unlocking it fixed it. It hasn't done it since though. Its not a big issue for me because I use it only as a range/target gun. If it was a defense gun, I'd be worried of course.

I would NOT depend on a defense gun with a lock. That is why I use my older 686+ 6" (Pre-lock) for home defense.

MICHAEL T
April 28, 2007, 09:13 PM
We all appreciate your efforts Dawg, but I think I'll keep on buying nice, old mostly hand fitted guns made from real steel, without idiot locks, injection-molded metal and transfer-bar firing pins


+1 on above

6Gunslinger
April 29, 2007, 05:13 AM
thanks for your concern Nomad. I don't carry yet, I don't yet have my CCW. I just bought a pre-lock 640 so that I won't have to worry about the lock.... what I meant was that if a gun failed during practice I will remove the lock.... I won't put my life on the line with a "lock" gun, but I wouldn't stop from buying one for a BUG or for range use, etc. you asked why would it be illegal... are you serious? even if it wasn't... do you really doubt that a lawyer wouldn't bring that up in court just so the mere appearance of neglegence (however inconsequential) could possibly persuade a jury. I'm guessing that you "read" these threads so that you can disuade others from buying guns with locks which is admirable if you truly care about their safety, but some people just want to bash others to make themselves feel better while others just want to read that "locks are no big deal" so that they feel better about their own purchase... I just don't see the point, what more can be said? why beat this thing to death, aren't their better things to talk about... what could possibly be said that hasn't already been? but thank you for your advice about not reading these threads, your permission is very much appreciated... sorry, I don't mean to sound like a jerk, I just didn't really appreciate your reply, but I suppose that'll be "obvious" to you as well....

Nomad, 2nd
April 29, 2007, 10:34 AM
NOPE, I WANT everyone to buy the guns with locks... more guns w/o for me.:D

As long as you enjoy it...;)

6Gunslinger
April 29, 2007, 05:27 PM
haha! fair enough man, atleast you're honest. I suppose these threads do serve a purpose then.... I've only heard of a few lock failures, I just hope to God it never happens when someone's life is on the line. take it easy

Nomad, 2nd
April 29, 2007, 05:35 PM
And that's my concern.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound like such an @$$, I'm just kinda blunt.

Enjoy shooting your babies...

6Gunslinger
April 29, 2007, 06:44 PM
yeah, me too, no problem, sounds like ultimately we care about the same things, thanks man

If you enjoyed reading about "What's with the lock on Smith and Wessons?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!