http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2001/5July01.html
5 July 01
Pistol "safety?"
I just had my hands on a Taurus PT145. It's a new, 10+1, compact, 45ACP pistol, designed for concealed carry. It's a nice size, reminiscent of a G36, only fatter.
What concerns me is its key-locked, conditional sterilization capability and its "loaded chamber indicator." S&W recently announced that all their new revolvers will have a similar key-locked capability. Springfield Armory advertises a like gadget now installed on their 1911 clones. From now on, all these guns will apparently not be available any other way.
I've been involved in several civil cases recently where plaintiff's attorneys have made an issue of the fact that the pistol in question did not have a "loaded chamber indicator." I'm assuming manufacturers are now rushing to add this device to their existing guns as a response. In all the cases in which I've been involved, we have been able to conclusively demonstrate that a "loaded chamber indicator" would not have affected the outcome one way or another, but that doesn't seem to matter to plaintiff's attorneys or panicked PR departments at the front offices of gun manufacturers.
The problem with the PT145 is that the "loaded chamber indicator" significantly weakens the extractor, making the entire pistol far less reliable than it would be without the device. S&W's "loaded chamber indicator" is a window cut into the top of the chamber. That may not weaken the chamber significantly, but it is, of course, useless in low light.
The key lock is also a great concern. I worry that the pistol might decide to sterilize itself in the middle of a fight! We've seen this happen, albeit rarely, with Taurus revolvers.
No thanks to all of it! I'm not about to offer up my body as a "beta test" for these untested "safety" gimmicks. I want only proven and tested guns that always work. I'm surely glad there are still several courageous manufacturers who are not knuckling under to this ill-begotten hysteria.
/John