Beating the S&W Lock

[machinisttx]

I do not remember whether it was on this board or elsewhere that I saw a post on one of these locks self-engaging after the revolver fell to the floor. Anyone heard of this?

Second question. How do you disable the lock? I do not have any Smiths with locks, but I am curious. I imagine they will get very cheap after Smith stops making them....

After looking at how the mechanism operates, I understand how and why these guns occasionally lock up during firing. it's not the best design.... A member over on AR15.com recently had his scandium framed .41 magnum lock up during a string of fire. S&W has claimed that they cannot duplicate the problem, but replaced the lock mechanism springs in guns that were returned for this reason. It does happen.

If you pop the sideplate and remove the internals on a lock equipped gun, it's easy to see how it works and how to disable it. This is an owner only job, no gunsmith will ever consider disabling the lock for a customer.

 

[BigBlock]

Your irrational fear of being prosecuted over a device not present in 95% of the revolvers in existence is Disabling the lock is far different from removing the hammer block or other actual safety device.

There is nothing irrational about it. If a lawyer wants to use that angle in court, you're going to have a HELL of a time explaining your way out of it. Just because one person got off once doesn't mean you will. Willfully disabling the lock would be an act of negligence and you are opening yourself up for a manslaughter charge. Even mentioning that in front of a jury of average people will put them on your bad side. The average judge, jury, and lawyer has no idea what the difference is between the lock and a hammer block. Did you explain to your mother the possible dangers before modifying her gun?


At least bake mom a cake before you visit her in jail...

 

[ugaarguy]

1. I know of exactly one case where a "safety" device being disabled was made an issue. The individual on trial was cleared of any wrongdoing. The lock on an S&W is more correctly called a "safe" storage device, not a gun safety device. Your irrational fear of being prosecuted over a device not present in 95% of the revolvers in existence is Disabling the lock is far different from removing the hammer block or other actual safety device.

Fear of lawyers twisting words in front of an uneducated judge & jury is not irrational. You and I know the difference between an internal lock and an internal safety, but the average person in our society does not.

2. She didn't ask me to do it. I did it because I know they ARE a damned hazard on a carry gun and I don't want hers to fail if she ever needs it. I'll also be paying for her CHL fee and/or instructor fee, problem with that too?

Paying for your mother's drivers license and insurance, and disabling a manufacturer installed safety device which you believe is unsafe on her vehicle without her consent are two entirely different things.

If you'd like to add something constructive about how we can get S&W to offer revolvers without locks, and thereby not be put in the predicament described please contribute. If you're alright with buying S&Ws with locks and disabling them talk about it in another thread.

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier just to buy a Ruger?

When Ruger makes a revolver with a lightweight titanium or aluminum frame that's also small enough for pocket carry I very well might. Until then I'll keep buying used pre-lock S&Ws, keep looking for no lock special runs, and continue seeking ways to show S&W the market for no lock revolvers.

 

[Shade00]

I don't think I'll be buying a carry revolver with an IL. There are plenty of good S&Ws out there without locks so you can avoid this dilemma altogether. I may consider a range-only .22, but that's it.

And I agree, Ruger needs to start making some lightweight revolvers. A lightweight Ruger would really float my boat. Hear that, Ruger?

 

[steveracer]

Never been a real problem in court, and NO ONE can site a single case where this backfired on a shooter who was in all ways legal.
I have said this MANY times here: The lock comes out, like the mag safety on HiPowers, and the ILS on SA 1911s. We have the ability to buy terrific revolvers from a reputable company. I buy them, because they are very, very good guns. I remove the lock because, like series 80 parts on a 1911, they have NO PLACE in mine. No lawyer is going to fault me in court for ANYTHING if I legally defend myself or my loved ones with a gun. They may try, of course, but my gun won't have locked up preventing its use in righteous self defense.
The "lawyer will find a way" has NEVER HAPPENED. The lock comes right out, without special tools. Why are people so resistant to this, but they take the magazine disconnect out of the HP without a second's thought? Or replace the J-locks on 870s with no-lock parts from Brownells? Or ditch the series-80 parts on 1911s and add the special shim to the frame?
This is irrational. The guns are still safe, legal, reliable, and YOURS to do what you wish with them. Someone, anyone, PLEASE show me one case resulting in fine/jail/penalty!

We need to contact Lew Horton for a run of no-lock Smith revolvers, and see what results they get. This will give us the most realistic response, as they are a BIG distributor.

 

[18DAI]

OK lets cover this again, THE LOCK IS NOT A SAFETY....IT IS A SAFE STORAGE DEVICE.

ONLY ONE STATE MANDATES INTERNAL LOCKS.....MARYLAND.....NO OTHER STATE REQUIRES INTERNAL LOCKS.

If I want to pay too much for a substandard handgun, and have to take it apart, remove parts, and tweak it to be reliable before I can use it, I'll buy a Kimber.

 

[prisoner6]

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier just to buy a Ruger?

Could be. And when they make a lightweight revolver suitable for pocket carry they will become a consideration. I like and respect the SP101, but lightweight it is not.

 

[pps]

OK lets cover this again, THE LOCK IS NOT A SAFETY....IT IS A SAFE STORAGE DEVICE.

ONLY ONE STATE MANDATES INTERNAL LOCKS.....MARYLAND.....NO OTHER STATE REQUIRES INTERNAL LOCKS.

If I want to pay too much for a substandard handgun, and have to take it apart, remove parts, and tweak it to be reliable before I can use it, I'll buy a Kimber.

Some of us just like revolvers though. In particular, I like the S&W trigger. So, for the time being, I just have to do a deep cleaning whenever I get a S&W revolver and remove all thet lock debris.

 

[Matt-J2]

In regards all the court comments, isn't that what the defendant hires their own lawyer for?

 

[Shade00]

As they say Matt-J2, you can't unring the bell - once a prosecutor has railed on something, no matter if he's incorrect, it is nigh impossible to make the jury forget.

 

[Matt-J2]

This is true, but if you have a lawyer who can use the truth to make the prosecutor look like an idiot, that sticks too.


Course I know I sure can't afford a lawyer that good.

On the flip side, you have to hope a DA is actually good at their job, so as to actually convict the real criminals out there.

Quite the conundrum when I think about it.

 

[Deanimator]

I am reluctant to say "never" as the supply of pre-lock smiths may dry up one day.

I'm not reluctant at all. As long as the lock exists in its current form and location, I will NEVER buy (or even accept as a gift) a S&W revolver so equipped. My life means more to me than the ego of those at S&W who persist in that farce.

 

[machinisttx]

OK lets cover this again, THE LOCK IS NOT A SAFETY....IT IS A SAFE STORAGE DEVICE.

Exactly. Some people can't comprehend that it isn't a safety or relate in any way, shape, or form to the actual safe use of the firearm.

 

[ArmedBear]

BTW Ruger now makes their revolvers with internal locks, although their website doesn't make it clear which ones. It may be all of them.

What I don't get is this: how is the lock a "safe storage" device? If the gun is lying around where someone who shouldn't get at it, can get at it, how is that "safe", locked or not?

 

[Deleted member 66305]

Good luck explaining to the lawyers why you disabled the lock if you ever have to use it.

I can't imagine how disabling the S&W lock would even be an issue in a SD investigation -- it shouldn't be engaged at all while being carried. It's not like a thumb safety.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

There is nothing irrational about it. If a lawyer wants to use that angle in court, you're going to have a HELL of a time explaining your way out of it. Just because one person got off once doesn't mean you will. Willfully disabling the lock would be an act of negligence and you are opening yourself up for a manslaughter charge. Even mentioning that in front of a jury of average people will put them on your bad side. The average judge, jury, and lawyer has no idea what the difference is between the lock and a hammer block. Did you explain to your mother the possible dangers before modifying her gun?

I would imagine that would only have any bearing if she claims the gun "just went off".

However, even then, the S&W lock isn't part of the normal set of safeties present on a carried weapon -- it's for storage purposes.

It would be a far bigger issue if the gun were found by a child and tragedy ensued.

 

[ryanl]

edit

 

[Cougfan2]

This is the text of a letter I sent to S&W regarding the internal lock. Just sent is so haven't heard anything back and may not. Tried to be respectful.

Dear Sirs,

To start, I am a long time fan of Smith and Wesson products and have owned many over the years. That being said I wish I could purchase an S&W pistol without the internal lock. I have heard others say that you have responded that you included the lock at the advice of your attorney’s. Meaning no disrespect, I’m not buying it. There are many revolver and pistol manufacturers that produce pistols without an internal lock. The reason for my aversion to the lock is that it is one more thing that could go wrong at a critical time. As unlikely as a malfunction may be, I won’t stake my life or the life of my family on the chance that it PROBABLY won’t happen.



I know manufacturing costs need to be kept at a minimum in order to keep your products in an attractive price range, but I think you would see a big surge in new sales if you would offer the pistols with the option of no lock. Without that I am limited to Ruger or a few other firearms manufacturers.



Thank you for taking time to listen to my concerns.

 

[printcraft]

nub gone storage lock

Open the side, pull the flag, file off the lug, replace the flag, no hole in frame.

"Storage lock" I have the bar lock that came with my new 649. If I want to lock it for storage I'll use that lock. I do NOT want my gun to "LOCK" for my safety after the first shot. (hold on BG I need to get out this little key here..... ok don't move..... ok good.)

On the flip side of the Prosecutor argument.... "So Mr. Smith you purchased a pre lock model of your revolver knowing all the time that there was a safer model with a Safety lock available...... ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it's clear that Mr. Smith had nefarious plans.........) insert your own fears here.

 

[BigBlock]

OK lets cover this again, THE LOCK IS NOT A SAFETY....IT IS A SAFE STORAGE DEVICE.

This is irrelivant semantics. The general public are sheep. No wait...not just sheep...stupid sheep. A "lock" is a lock, PERIOD. A gun geek can call it whatever they want. It will still be an important safety device in the eyes of the jury. And to call it a "storage device" is ridiculous.

So when the prosecuter asks, "Why sir, did you remove the locking device manufactured with your gun?", what are you going to say? "Uh...'cause it shoots easier that way"? You're totally screwed at that point.

If you think "justice will prevail" in the American justice system, you are living in a fantasy world. The whole reason we need guns in the first place is because "the system" doesn't work.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

So when the prosecuter asks, "Why sir, did you remove the locking device manufactured with your gun?", what are you going to say? "Uh...'cause it shoots easier that way"? You're totally screwed at that point.

Ah, I just noticed you live in Oregon. That might have something to do with your fear of prosecution. You could solve that problem by moving to a state that typically starts with the assumption that a SD shooting was justified, and doesn't poke around for reasons to arrest a law-abiding citizen.

 

[BigBlock]

You could solve that problem by moving to a state that typically starts with the assumption that a SD shooting was justified

I am unaware of any such place in the entire world.

You shot somebody = you go to court. That's the way it works. Justified or not isn't relivant.

(and for those that are going to bring it up, NO, the castle doctrine isn't going to protect you either)

For the record, Arrogant Bastard, Oregon's gun laws are more free than Texas.

 

[publiuss]

Political, and ease of disabling arguements aside, my problem w/the locks is not really the locks themselves, but their location. That hole in the sideplate is just too much for me. They could have hidden it somewhere like Taurus did on the back of the hammer. I still don't like the stupid concept of the lock but S&W could possibly sell me a revolver if they relocated the hole to a less obvious spot.

 

[Phydeaux642]

You shot somebody = you go to court.

I'm not so sure that that is always the case. There have been cases where someone was not charged and dragged into court because the situation was deemed self-defense. It may not happen often that way, but it does happen.

 

[Shade00]

It's not always going to be the case. If the grand jury decides the shooting was justified, you're not going to have to go to court.