Disabling the S&W Lock

John, do you understand anything about law? Apparantly not.

Pig makes an assertion that if you disable the lock, and if you use it in self-defense, you will be prosecuted. Either criminally or civilly.

Such a case has never been prosecuted, yet you people insist that such a case will be prosecuted.

Do you have any idea how absurd that is?

BTW, you need to actually read the thread.

I said,

I've never read of anyone who successfully defended themselves with a handgun being prosecuted for carrying a) a modified handgun or b) reloads.

Click to expand...

Then pig came on and made his assertion.

Try to keep up.












.

My assertion was that armchair lawyers are blowing this out of proportion. I'm correct and you're merely proving my point.

If you want to disprove my point, you've got to prove pig's point, and you can only do that by citing the case.

Until then, I'm not going to waste any more time responding to your posts.

Again, to suggest that such a case is inevitable, when there has never been such a case, is moronic.

Saxon, those guns look terrible with the hole in them, I can't believe you keep them. Out of the goodness of my heart, I could give you a few bucks for them and get them out of your sight.

Before you two attack each other and SaxonPig again, I'd like to point out that you both missed the mark.
SaxonPig NEVER said that using a gun with a disabled lock would guarantee prosecution on either a legal or civil level. He only stated that it created the POTENTIAL for such and that a few lawyers agreed with that.
Just because it (supposedly) hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't or won't. Then again maybe it never will. But the question remains the same. Is it a chance you'd willingly take?

All I know is Mas Ayoob has been working as an expert witness in the use of deadly force cases for over twenty years and is universally accepted as an expert in this area; he says that if you don't believe disabling the lock will be an issue in a shooting you live in a fantasy world.

How do you quote in this forum?

Phydeaux642 "I can't imagine super glue being strong enough over time to do any good".

AAE Plastifletch Gel. Fletching adhesive for arrows, holds fletching onto shaft. I fired 20 rounds, took the sideplate off and the application was obviously still doing it's job. I might have applied more than a "drop" Did I "disable" a safety device? No, although it's very unlikely going to move, "accidently". I have attempted to insure that a "safety" feature of the gun doesn't accidently engage during shooting, locking the gun. Nothing is visible on the outside of the revolver and the Gel can (could) be removed with the proper solvent (not planning on it).

The hole in the side is ugly enough I won't own one. I don't even care for the new 40's because of the new cyl retention config.. I recently bought a LN 70's mod 36 for $400. A comparable new S&W is what, $200 more?

1. My username is SaxonPig. Please don't call me Pig as that is offensive.

2. I have said several times that anyone who is unconcerned about possible legal action from using a modified gun is free to do what they choose with the saftey device. You don't have to take my advice, or believe me, or agree with me or anyone else.

Do what you think is best.

However, I maintain that if you think a lawyer won't take notice of the missing safety on your gun, or will ignore it, or that you have nothing to worry about, I think you are being unwise. But it's entirely your decision.

I don't buy those IL revolvers, bypassing all the problems, or potential problems, of owning one.

I remove the lock. I understand the reason some don't, but I hate the blasted things. I have found that a threaded blank in the hole cleans it up nicely. I removed it on every "lock" S&W, Springfield, Taurus, etc. I've ever owned. I remove the magazine disconnect on all S&W and Browning autos I've ever owned. We're talking dozens of guns over the years. One of the HiPowers I used to own was used by a friend in a self defense shooting, and nothing came of the disconnect being removed. All the assumptions that this will lead to litigation is just silly.
Nobody can cite one case. Not one. Not ever. Ayoob talks about it like there have been rashes of them all over the country, and that CCW holders are going to jail in record numbers for their modified guns.
Nonsense. If that were the case, nobody would carry custom guns, ever. Gunsmiths would be out of work for carry guns, because they have all been modified, making them more deadly, and creating lawsuits nation wide.
Imagine what a jury would think of a Fitz Special!!! Oh the humanity!!!
Steve

You're right. I'm just silly.

Uh, what about a drop of blue Loc-Tite?

All you're trying to do is keep a light bit of metal on a small axle from turning by itself. We're not talking about a lot of force here.

If you want to, you could even lock it with the key, breaking the Loc-Tite. This wouldn't be "modified" at all.

It's a bad design and I'm not interested in rewarding a lack of design talent with scarce funds.

I'll stick with my various pre-lock S&Ws which are better guns in general which are far more to my liking. I don't like stainless steel or round butts on guns with a longer than 3" barrel.

SaxonPig, I'm not calling you silly. I just think the fear of litigation is silly, not you.
I fear litigation myself over certain things (kids hurting themselves playing on my property), and I recognize that my fear of it is silly, but I don't consider myself a silly man. Please don't think it was a personal comment. No offense meant.
Best,
Steve

Can we please stop calling the internal lock a "safety"device? It's not. It's a security device. Nothing more than a built in trigger lock. The only time it comes into play is if the gun is in storage. If you disabled it and someone got your gun while it was stored and an accidental shooting resulted then it would be an issue because the case could be made that had it been functional you "might" have locked it and prevented the accident. The same as it would be an issue if you had it stored without being locked up in a container or with a trigger lock.

Having the lock disabled puts the gun in the same condition as it would be unlocked, which is the condition the lock would be in while carried. Although I have seen more than one post where someone locked it for storage and forgot to unlock it before carrying only to discover at the end of the day they had been carrying a locked gun. Talk about the potential for disaster. Disabling the lock only serves to remove the possibility of the gun failing, when it's needed most, due to the lock self engaging.

If it's a questionable shoot the prosecution will bring it up but they will also bring up the type of ammo, the type of gun, the caliber, your active membership on the THR and other firearms related forums, your NRA membership, that you have your number one car radio preset to the local talk radio station, and any other thing they can. Just because they will bring these up and try to make them an issue doesn't mean they will be. You will have a defense attorney whose job it is to point out ridiculous assertions made by the prosecution and any half competent attorney will make the removal of the lock a non issue. Heck, if the removal of the lock is a non-issue so would the person choosing to buy a non-locking version over one with the lock. The only way the lock can have any effect on a self defense shooting is having it engaged when it shouldn't be either because it locks itself or was inadvertently left locked . If either of those happen prosecution won't be a concern because you will probably be dead.

S&W really screwed up when they put these locks in their guns. The design is poor and it was a solution to a problem that didn't exist. They have created a new set of problems worse then the one they were meant to solve.

SaxonPig's discussion with the attorney's just confirms that attorneys generally are slime balls.

As a senior officer in the Army once told me "If you wear your mustache according to Army regulations you look like an a-hole; therefore everyone with a mustache is an a-hole".

The point being no one will hold it against you if you don't have a mustache and no one will hold it against you if you don't disable your IL.

I have no problem with the lock other than it looks like crap. I buy mostly non IL S&W and Colt revolvers but in some cases I want to take advantage of the new revolver technologies that S&W is pioneering (e.g. 327 night guard). There is a lot of hype over the IL but I have seen no statistical evidence that there is a systemic issue with lock failures that would warrant the hype. Last I read S&W had had only a handfull of revolvers returned for lock failures and couldn't reproduce the failure in any of the revolvers returned.

I have no problem with the lock other than it looks like crap. I buy mostly non IL S&W and Colt revolvers but in some cases I want to take advantage of the new revolver technologies that S&W is pioneering (e.g. 327 night guard). There is a lot of hype over the IL but I have seen no statistical evidence that there is a systemic issue with lock failures that would warrant the hype. Last I read S&W had had only a handfull of revolvers returned for lock failures and couldn't reproduce the failure in any of the revolvers returned.

Click to expand...

S&W and the IL in their revolvers are very much like IBM and the CMI hard drives in the IBM PC-AT. The policy is to just keep denying there's a problem, no matter what.

There used to be a VERY long thread on documented failures on the S&W Forums.

Since the lock is a completely unnecessary add-on to the gun and has no role to play in the firing operation of the gun, except to make it less reliable, even one reported failure is too many. There are way too many reports of them failing over on the S&W forums to ignore. Of course S&W will not admit to a problem because they would have to recall all of those guns and remove the lock.

Here's an analogy. Suppose it's determined that the rear DVD player in Toyota's vehicles can cause the engine to seize and brakes to fail when traveling at highway speeds. Would you buy one of these vehicles? If you owned one would you leave it installed? The DVD player serves only to entertain the kids, which can be achieved lots of other ways, and adds nothing to operation of vehicle except the potential for failure. Similarly the IL adds nothing to the functionality of the gun except an increase in the risk of catastrophic failure (I consider having your gun suddenly freeze in a SD situation catastrophic) while adding nothing to firearm security that cannot be achieved more effectively by other means.

Can someone please tell me specifically WHY altering a sefety device would make a damn bit of difference on a revolver if used in self defense????? What am I missing here? Plenty of revolvers dont even have safety devices, so when all of the sudden you get one that does and try to modify it, it is now a legal issue???? I thought the only mod you could make to a gun that would be illegal would be shortening the barrel below the legal length(doesnt apply to wheelgun) or making it full auto(also doesnt apply to wheel gun). I find this very confusing as to what the actual "problem" is here. I mean honestly, what the hell kind of difference does it make if you defend yourself with a 686 with an unmodified IL or a modified IL. It doesnt make the attacker/rapist/thug that was coming after you any less dead one way or the other...but apparently now that the safety has been modified, it is not OK...bizzarre. This is a serious question, so a serious answer would be appreciated.

Can someone please tell me specifically WHY altering a sefety device would make a damn bit of difference on a revolver if used in self defense????? What am I missing here? Plenty of revolvers dont even have safety devices, so when all of the sudden you get one that does and try to modify it, it is now a legal issue???? I thought the only mod you could make to a gun that would be illegal would be shortening the barrel below the legal length(doesnt apply to wheelgun) or making it full auto(also doesnt apply to wheel gun). I find this very confusing as to what the actual "problem" is here. I mean honestly, what the hell kind of difference does it make if you defend yourself with a 686 with an unmodified IL or a modified IL. It doesnt make the attacker/rapist/thug that was coming after you any less dead one way or the other...but apparently now that the safety has been modified, it is not OK...bizzarre. This is a serious question, so a serious answer would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

It has everything to do with perception. Everyone here knows that a lock that is disabled is done so to keep the firearm from failing in the moment of need. Unfortunately, the majority of people don't know this and probably don't care. If there is an unscrupulous attorney, prosecutor or otherwise, that knows why a lock was disabled and understands that this modification has zero impact on the gun other than to keep it from failing but still presents it to a jury as a dangerous modification that resulted in the death of a bad guy, well, you could be in a mess.

It's unfortunate that our legal system can operate like this at times.

Hopefully, you will get a good lawyer if you're in civil court.

He/she will get a gunsmith to explain the function of the lock to the jury, as well as why you'd remove it, and you will get an opportunity to explain that you don't need a lock, since you, a responsible gun owner, keep the gun in a safe when you're not around -- much safer for the community, children, et al. than the simple lock and a gun that can easily be stolen and used in crime.

A hassle, to be sure, but not insurmountable. Might not be worth it in civil court, though. Keep it clean if you can. 9/12 and a preponderance of evidence, along with the idiots in the jury box, is not a difficult hurdle for a good ambulance chaser, at least in some stated.

But what about Loc-Tite to keep it from spinning on its own, without disabling it?

Any thoughts from anyone?

Or must all these threads just degenerate into tirades about S&W?

SaxonPig is a smart guy and there is no arguing with his post. It is spot on.

The question becomes do you...

A- adapt the lock to a safer situation by gluing or filing on it, knowing that the chances of using it for self defense is relatively low

B- trust that the jury might not be stupid

C- sell your revolver and buy a gun without the ugly, poorly designed lock

I am a BIG proponent of C.

Click to expand...

I'm going to point this out, since it hasn't been brought up: police don't generally disassemble handguns they get unless they have a very specific reason to do so (i.e., serial number is missing so they're looking for markings on other parts). The reason is that doing so can destroy evidence like fingerprints and wipe blood traces from slick metal surfaces. Taking it apart also opens them to "tampering with evidence" arguments. They may examine your gun, but unless they fully take it apart, they're unlikely to even KNOW that the lock has been disabled, nor are they likely to test it. Most of these modifications are NOT visible from the outside, and some, like the superglue method, will likely simply break free if someone actually tried to use the lock.