The more I listen the more I hear and vice versa. Give it a try some time between the repost.
M'bogo
Integral Lock Removal
- Thread starter brockgl
- Start date
- Status
The more I listen the more I hear and vice versa. Give it a try some time between the repost.
M'bogo
brentfoto
member
It's a lock, not a manual safety. It's a storage device, or at least that could be argued.
I think the concern with removing the Lock Flag is borderline hysterical with respect to legal ramifications in a self-defense shooting.
It's totally irrelevant. When you shoot someone intentionally you do so without the lock being engaged. When you shoot in self-defense you shoot intentionally. Whether the so-called Lock is operative or not is irrelevant and it's saddening to think that so many of you have such a distorted view of the legal system and lawyers with respect to this issue.
OTOH, if a child were to get his/her hand on the gun and it went off, it would likely be admissible as its highly relevant that the owner left his gun with a safety storage device designed in part, to protect children, that had been disabled. I could see it being admitted in such a criminal or civil prosecution against YOU for injury to the child or others from the child's act, and the CHILD OR HIS PARENTS if another is harmed.
It would likely be excluded at a homicide trial involving YOUR defense of self or others via a motion in limine as prejudice substantially outweighing probative value to admit such testimony or evidence.
Stop all this ranting. Putting aside considerations re child safety, remove the Lock Arm and go on about your business and have some fun! :banghead:
Notwithstanding, a very strong argument can be made against removing the Lock in the first place. I did only for 'peace of mind', and not based on any statistical probability. It turned out to be easy to remove. Perhaps it was a bit neurotic but I 'feel' better with it in disabled state.
The foregoing is not to be construed as legal advice under any circumstances.
I think the concern with removing the Lock Flag is borderline hysterical with respect to legal ramifications in a self-defense shooting.
It's totally irrelevant. When you shoot someone intentionally you do so without the lock being engaged. When you shoot in self-defense you shoot intentionally. Whether the so-called Lock is operative or not is irrelevant and it's saddening to think that so many of you have such a distorted view of the legal system and lawyers with respect to this issue.
OTOH, if a child were to get his/her hand on the gun and it went off, it would likely be admissible as its highly relevant that the owner left his gun with a safety storage device designed in part, to protect children, that had been disabled. I could see it being admitted in such a criminal or civil prosecution against YOU for injury to the child or others from the child's act, and the CHILD OR HIS PARENTS if another is harmed.
It would likely be excluded at a homicide trial involving YOUR defense of self or others via a motion in limine as prejudice substantially outweighing probative value to admit such testimony or evidence.
Stop all this ranting. Putting aside considerations re child safety, remove the Lock Arm and go on about your business and have some fun! :banghead:
Notwithstanding, a very strong argument can be made against removing the Lock in the first place. I did only for 'peace of mind', and not based on any statistical probability. It turned out to be easy to remove. Perhaps it was a bit neurotic but I 'feel' better with it in disabled state.
The foregoing is not to be construed as legal advice under any circumstances.
Last edited:
brentfoto
member
No, they will not sell it to you as it requires FACTORY INSTALLATION, and rightly so, imo. Check the website under those parts for your gun.
What's this grinding all about? Just remove the darn flag. Reinstall it later if you sell the gun or whatever.
brentfoto- I live in the real world, not in the ideal world where logic and reason are in charge. My world is full of lawyers whose job it is to screw me over if they oppose me in court. They are good at their jobs, screwing people over is what they are trained to do.
Should removing a storage lock be an issue following a shooting incident? No, it shouldn't. You and I and everyone else on this forum realizes this fact. But once again, I don't live in the forum world where people understand guns and have common sense. I live in that world full of lawyers where people get arrested and sued for defending themselves. How many threads have been posted about such cases?
I'm sorry if M'bogo or anyone else finds my comments redundant. The fact is that I do worry about the legal consequences of my actions. I'm not hysterical as one member suggested, but I am concerned. Anyone who isn't is very foolish IMO. That's why I carry insurance on my car and home and that's why I would never conscientiously give opposing counsel... be he a prosecutor in criminal court or a litigation attorney in civil court... something to use against me.
Dismiss the notion of the missing lock being an issue if you choose, the fact is an attorney WILL have the gun examined by an expert. The missing safety feature will be noted in the written report. The lawyer WILL use that fact to portray you as either a murderous Rambo wannabe or careless SOB to a jury specifically selected for its lack of knowledge about firearms. The missing lock might the deciding factor in going to trial, where even if you win the case it costs you $100,000 in legal fees.
No thanks.
I'll let it drop now since I appear to be irritating folks.
Should removing a storage lock be an issue following a shooting incident? No, it shouldn't. You and I and everyone else on this forum realizes this fact. But once again, I don't live in the forum world where people understand guns and have common sense. I live in that world full of lawyers where people get arrested and sued for defending themselves. How many threads have been posted about such cases?
I'm sorry if M'bogo or anyone else finds my comments redundant. The fact is that I do worry about the legal consequences of my actions. I'm not hysterical as one member suggested, but I am concerned. Anyone who isn't is very foolish IMO. That's why I carry insurance on my car and home and that's why I would never conscientiously give opposing counsel... be he a prosecutor in criminal court or a litigation attorney in civil court... something to use against me.
Dismiss the notion of the missing lock being an issue if you choose, the fact is an attorney WILL have the gun examined by an expert. The missing safety feature will be noted in the written report. The lawyer WILL use that fact to portray you as either a murderous Rambo wannabe or careless SOB to a jury specifically selected for its lack of knowledge about firearms. The missing lock might the deciding factor in going to trial, where even if you win the case it costs you $100,000 in legal fees.
No thanks.
I'll let it drop now since I appear to be irritating folks.
brentfoto
member
As a lawyer, who is NOT giving legal advice, I resent your obnoxious comments, above.
Moreover, there has to be a causal connection between removal of the lock and the damage incurred. I don't see any in a self-defense scenario, and any competent judge would throw it out, and there wouldn't be a hint of mention of it at trial.
Perhaps you should devote more of your energy to learning and understanding the rules of engagement and self-defense in YOUR State than waste your time with this concern. It would be time better spent, imho.
You worry too much.... !
Moreover, there has to be a causal connection between removal of the lock and the damage incurred. I don't see any in a self-defense scenario, and any competent judge would throw it out, and there wouldn't be a hint of mention of it at trial.
Perhaps you should devote more of your energy to learning and understanding the rules of engagement and self-defense in YOUR State than waste your time with this concern. It would be time better spent, imho.
You worry too much.... !
crebralfix
member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,356
Michael Bane had such a failure and he wrote about it. Whether or not he's lying is a different story.
Link to Internal Lock Failures
http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/500103904/m/228102718
http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/500103904/m/228102718
DawgFvr
Member
Ask a reputable gunsmith if he/she will remove the lock for you. Do you wonder what their response will be?
Keep it stock. If you don't want a lock, why did you purchase it in the first place? Buy a pre-lock S&W or get a Ruger.
If you want to Joe-Bob it...have at it. If I were on the wrong side of a tampered weapon, I would definitely use it in a court of law...I know how hand-picked, liberal juries can be swayed away from justice on just such an action. If I would do it...why wouldn't a BG?
Keep it stock. If you don't want a lock, why did you purchase it in the first place? Buy a pre-lock S&W or get a Ruger.
If you want to Joe-Bob it...have at it. If I were on the wrong side of a tampered weapon, I would definitely use it in a court of law...I know how hand-picked, liberal juries can be swayed away from justice on just such an action. If I would do it...why wouldn't a BG?
Locks--locks--locks when will it end!
Read Bane's article carefully. I was a Sc .44M that had trouble AFTER an overhaul. How many rounds before with no trouble to need an overhaul.
I hope S&W doean't any more changes or the world will stop spinning. Sorry for the rant-----
Read Bane's article carefully. I was a Sc .44M that had trouble AFTER an overhaul. How many rounds before with no trouble to need an overhaul.
I hope S&W doean't any more changes or the world will stop spinning. Sorry for the rant-----
Stephen A. Camp
Moderator In Memoriam
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,430
I have personally seen two different S&W revolvers with locks malfunction, ie: the locks self-engaged while the owners were firing them. I did not get the date and time nor obtain notarized witness statements so I suppose this is not "documented". Even so, I suspect that the number of malfunctioning revolvers due the lock self-engaging during shooting vs. the total number of lock-equipped revolvers is very small. That said, I'll continue buying pre-lock S&W's or buy Rugers.
I would ask that folks having problems with each other to either let it drop or take the discussion to PM's. Thanks in advance.
I would ask that folks having problems with each other to either let it drop or take the discussion to PM's. Thanks in advance.
Evyl Robot
Member
IMHO & WADR (with all due respect): My wife's 627 malfunctioning? Less than 100-rds of factory .357 and .38 ammunition through an N-Frame? I once saw the pattern that you did. At this point, we don't have a revolver in the house that has one enabled. One pre-lock, three disabled. I don't want that kind of surprise in the heat of the moment. The lock is easy to disable, and easy to reinable if need be. I'm not talking about bubba-ization here. I'm talking about competent parts-manipulation. I'm wearing one on my hip right now.
--Michael
brentfoto
member
My current Centennial 442 'locked up' on me or nearly so, when it was new and had only been dry-fired 100x or so.
However, I apparently mistook lack of lubrication of the internal parts for lock malfunction. I went inside and the internals were 'bone-dry'. I lubed the internals in my brand new 442 and that resolved the problem almost immediately.
It was only then, after lubrication, that I activated the lock and it seemed to work without incident. Engage and disengage. Engage and disengage, about 20x.
However, since I was already inside, I also removed the Lock Arm (aka the "flag") for 'peace of mind'.
Before I went inside, I was able to pull the trigger but with great difficulty after those 100 or so dry-fires. When I did engage the lock, it was different. The trigger would not budge in the slightest.
I'm reasonably certain it was NOT the lock engaging. I would think that it's much easier to tell if the lock is the problem with exposed hammer firearms.
Anyway, it's such an easy 'fix' that I'm sick and tired of seeing this ILS issue on the web. Removing the Lock Arm disables the mechanism. It's more difficult removing the hammer than gently prying the Lock Arm up and out from the frame. You can leave the other ILS parts intact in the gun. You can reinstall the Lock Arm for resale at any time.
I'm not thrilled about this whole lock issue but I believe it to be too extreme a thought to outright refuse to buy S&W in the future due to displeasure with the appearance or concern about the lock function. Perhaps had S&W not been acquired by a lock company it may not have been installed that way.
All I know now is that I'm extremely pleased with the gun.
You see, this was a replacement gun because the original one had a trigger stud break with only 1500 or so dry-fires and 300 +P through it. The gun continued to operate and the broken stud was only discovered upon a routine internal inspection. The sideplate pressure apparently kept everything in place, and when it was removed the action would not cycle.
I attribute some of that problem in the first gun to perhaps putting too much stress on the stud by tying back the trigger near the break point over the course of a few nights. This should not have solely caused the broken stud and I believe mine was defectively manufactured and would not have happened but for 'luck of the draw'. This had been recommended by people in the know to help with breaking in the mainspring. I'd rather be safe than sorry so I'm not about to tie the trigger back again.
I think my $400 was well-spent. You get what you pay for. I'm not out a dime and feel totally confident in the firearm. I'm much happier with it than with my old M49, which I sold after 18 years. It was simply too heavy for pocket carry and was not rated for +P.
Yes, I sold a pre-lock 49 in order to help purchase a post-lock Airweight. My gun weighs in empty at 14.3 oz. with Bantam grips. It fires every time with all kinds of ammo. All I did was slick up the rebound slide, placed a reduced power rebound slide spring from Wolff in the amount of 14#, dry-fired and shoot the gun. Action is becoming smoother.
However, I apparently mistook lack of lubrication of the internal parts for lock malfunction. I went inside and the internals were 'bone-dry'. I lubed the internals in my brand new 442 and that resolved the problem almost immediately.
It was only then, after lubrication, that I activated the lock and it seemed to work without incident. Engage and disengage. Engage and disengage, about 20x.
However, since I was already inside, I also removed the Lock Arm (aka the "flag") for 'peace of mind'.
Before I went inside, I was able to pull the trigger but with great difficulty after those 100 or so dry-fires. When I did engage the lock, it was different. The trigger would not budge in the slightest.
I'm reasonably certain it was NOT the lock engaging. I would think that it's much easier to tell if the lock is the problem with exposed hammer firearms.
Anyway, it's such an easy 'fix' that I'm sick and tired of seeing this ILS issue on the web. Removing the Lock Arm disables the mechanism. It's more difficult removing the hammer than gently prying the Lock Arm up and out from the frame. You can leave the other ILS parts intact in the gun. You can reinstall the Lock Arm for resale at any time.
I'm not thrilled about this whole lock issue but I believe it to be too extreme a thought to outright refuse to buy S&W in the future due to displeasure with the appearance or concern about the lock function. Perhaps had S&W not been acquired by a lock company it may not have been installed that way.
All I know now is that I'm extremely pleased with the gun.
You see, this was a replacement gun because the original one had a trigger stud break with only 1500 or so dry-fires and 300 +P through it. The gun continued to operate and the broken stud was only discovered upon a routine internal inspection. The sideplate pressure apparently kept everything in place, and when it was removed the action would not cycle.
I attribute some of that problem in the first gun to perhaps putting too much stress on the stud by tying back the trigger near the break point over the course of a few nights. This should not have solely caused the broken stud and I believe mine was defectively manufactured and would not have happened but for 'luck of the draw'. This had been recommended by people in the know to help with breaking in the mainspring. I'd rather be safe than sorry so I'm not about to tie the trigger back again.
I think my $400 was well-spent. You get what you pay for. I'm not out a dime and feel totally confident in the firearm. I'm much happier with it than with my old M49, which I sold after 18 years. It was simply too heavy for pocket carry and was not rated for +P.
Yes, I sold a pre-lock 49 in order to help purchase a post-lock Airweight. My gun weighs in empty at 14.3 oz. with Bantam grips. It fires every time with all kinds of ammo. All I did was slick up the rebound slide, placed a reduced power rebound slide spring from Wolff in the amount of 14#, dry-fired and shoot the gun. Action is becoming smoother.
I encourage all fans of the current company calling itself S&W, to quickly put all those old pre lock S&W revolvers, up for sale.
You will be much happier with the new stuff, and those of us that wouldn't touch a new S&W, with a proverbial 10 foot pole, will give those old revolvers good homes.
You will be much happier with the new stuff, and those of us that wouldn't touch a new S&W, with a proverbial 10 foot pole, will give those old revolvers good homes.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
For the life of me I will never understand why people keep referring to the "lock" as a safety device when it's NOT. The "lock" is a storage device. It's no different than a trigger lock except when the trigger lock is removed, it's gone and can't potentially disable the handgun inadvertently. If you remove the ILS it's no different than removing the trigger lock.
Glock Holiday
Member
Buy a pre-lock J frame and be done with it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked