[gamboolman]

Please define or tell me where to find a definition of the " internal lock" that is being put on some new revolvers and auto's.

I have searched this forum and googled.

All I can get is alot of dis-cussing on why people hate them.

I just can't find out what they are and why they are hated so much.

Thanks for any real help.

gamboolman.....

[rondog]

Basically, it's a lock inside the gun that you can lock with a key, to render the gun inoperable. Usually a small round hole on the frame somewhere that looks like it shouldn't be there.

[rbernie]

It is a small locking mechanism that is built into the gun itself by the manufacturer. Its function is to keep the firing mechanism from working so that the weapon can be considered unusable/safe while the lock is engaged.

The Remington rifle/shotgun version is called the 'J lock'. S&W and Taurus and others have included them on their handguns.

[jdh]

With pics:

http://www.taurususa.com/newsreviews/tss-longguns.cfm

http://www.taurususa.com/safety/tss-pistols.cfm

http://www.taurususa.com/safety/tss-revolvers.cfm

[DickM]

They are hated, at least the version on S&W revolvers, for a number of reasons.

First, they're a solution to a problem that didn't, and doesn't, exist. If you want to make a gun inoperative for storage, a questionable goal in itself because you should be storing guns in some sort of secured container anyway, then there are any number of trigger (and other) locks available for the purpose.

Second, they're unsightly. S&W revolvers are works of art and shouldn't be defaced for no purpose. We don't need little holes (with arrows and an "L" showing us which way the lock works, fer Chrissake) marring their beauty.

Third, and most importantly for many people, there are substantiated reports of the lock engaging unexpectedly and rendering the revolver inoperative. It's undeniably a rare event, but it happens.

Finally, (and this one is most important for me) it's a constant reminder of the growing encroachment of government into every aspect of our lives. Let the marketplace decide if we want internal locks in our guns, and let those that manufacture guns make their decisions accordingly! The damn government even tells us how much water we can use to flush our toilets. There are obviously more egregious examples of this problem than little holes in the sides of revolvers, but it still annoys the hell out of me. Mini-rant over.

[CDH]

All I can get is alot of dis-cussing on why people hate them.

I just can't find out what they are and why they are hated so much.

For those of us who don't like them, the issues are several:

1. They only showed up because of the Clinton administration's persecution of the gun industry which means that gun makers who built them into perfectly good pistols had "caved" and hurt the cause of 2nd Amendment proponents.
Buying a pistol with an internal lock is considered to be either funding those who caved, or giving in to the anti-gunners on a personal level.
To best understand the emotion behind that, consider the "First They Came..." poem where people often add a line: "Then they came for the guns..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

2. None of the guns that have the locks now, have ever needed a lock. They (pre-lock pistols) operated perfectly safe just as they were designed and intended. So no real benefit was added from a design standpoint.
If you feel a lock is beneficial for when kids are around, then ask yourself why the pistol was allowed to fall into a kids hands in the first place.

3. More parts, more things to fail, break, or get in the way of intended operation. Statistically, locks have failed during use, but also statistically, I've heard of no locks failing during the pistol's use in a defensive shooting.
That's one of those "do you feel lucky" things.
Some feel that pushing one's luck unnecessarily is not a wise thing to do.

4. With a lock, even when you don't "normally" use it, you can be faced with a situation at 2:AM with an intruder breaking a window downstairs that will have you wondering in total darkness: "Is the lock on?... or off?... I think I did... but maybe I didn't."
Some locks have visible indications, some don't.
So if are you comfortable with a situation in which you don't know if the defensive weapon in your hand will work or not, at exactly the same moment when you shouldn't have to worry about anything other than what's coming up the stairs, you might be comfortable with a pistol that has an internal lock.

5. The bottom line is that guns are simple machines, and adding more complexity to a simple machine invariably makes the machine more prone to breakage and less reliable. That's a stone cold fact. The only thing left that a person might argue about is frequency of failure.
Those of us who object to internal locked pistols don't like our frequency of failure rate (due to an unnecessary feature) to be more than a rate of "0".

External locks are great. You can see them, they are effective as any internal lock, and it's a great option for those who want their pistols to be non-functional.
Internal locks add lot's of questions to the operation of a defensive handgun.

[bigfatdave]

First, they're a solution to a problem that didn't, and doesn't, exist. If you want to make a gun inoperative for storage, a questionable goal in itself because you should be storing guns in some sort of secured container anyway, then there are any number of trigger (and other) locks available for the purpose.
External locks are great. You can see them, they are effective as any internal lock, and it's a great option for those who want their pistols to be non-functional.
Internal locks add lot's of questions to the operation of a defensive handgun.

If I wanted to disable a firearm, and couldn't 100% guarantee that it couldn't be accessed - I would (and do) disassemble it. Adding a lock is just stupid.
I don't worry about buying the guns with locks, but I lock up the silly keys in a separate case from guns. Keeping my firearms out of the hands of kids is my problem, adding a lock doesn't solve the problem, in fact it might quash that healthy sense of unease regarding the loaded status of firearms.
Don't worry kids! Those guns are safe because mammy and daddy locked them!

[gamboolman]

Thank you all. I agree with what appears to most folks feelings, and I don't like the concept at all. If I get revolver or pistol or long gun I will get the IL removed.

Thank you all for your prompt and excellent responses :)

gamboolman....

[PT1911]

+1 to bigfatdave... i have several guns with internal locks, I just choose to not use them, and keep the keys far away...

[CDW4ME]

I've got a nice 442 made about 1993; no lock, but not rated for plus P ammo either. I never intended to buy a gun with an unnecessary lock, but I recently bought a S&W 638 that has the useless lock and it's plus P rated.

[earlthegoat2]

There is such a thing as a trigger lock and they have been around longer than integral locks. This is a big reason behind peoples anti-ness as well.

[Deanimator]

+1 to bigfatdave... i have several guns with internal locks, I just choose to not use them, and keep the keys far away...
If any of them locks by themselves during a defensive use, you will regret that decision. If you must use one, make SURE you have the key close at hand.

[dmazur]

Thank you all. I agree with what appears to most folks feelings, and I don't like the concept at all. If I get revolver or pistol or long gun I will get the IL removed.


It's not that simple. There can be trouble with this concept, although it's hard to believe.

It seems many gunsmiths are afraid of the liability of removing a safety feature and they will refuse to do this.

So, you can

1. Buy an older model that was made before the IL was added, or
2. Play amateur gunsmith and remove it yourself.

Note that there may still be liability attached to removing it yourself, should a child be injured with that gun. (IANAL...of course)

Responsible gun owners will lock up their guns without a government requirement, but there must be some irresponsible gun owners out there, because some clown dreamed up IL's as a solution. If children just never get ahold of guns, this wouldn't have gained any traction.

What I find beyond belief is the assumption that the IL will be used, just because it's built into the gun. The whole concept is insane.

[Thaddeus Jones]

The internal lock is an abomination.

It is also a poor answer to a question that was not asked.

It's ugly too :)

[bigfatdave]

If any of them locks by themselves during a defensive use, you will regret that decision. If you must use one, make SURE you have the key close at hand.

If an internal lock engages in the middle of a gunfight, fumbling for the tiny key is after unloading the magazines and throwing the rounds by hand. Realistically, how likely is a successful unlocking?

That said, the HD and CCW picks I have made happen to lack locks (HD is from 1979, and CCW has an oddball disabling method I'm not worried about failing), but I worry more about magazine disconnects than internal locks. Mag interlocks actually move and wear, while the locks just sit idle.