Internal Locks

[Nightcrawler]

Now, while internal locks aren't the worst thing to happen to revolvers, they are, in my opinion, severly lacking in utility and often hurt the looks of a wheelgun, especially the S&Ws where the lock-hole is right under the cylinder release button.

So, Taurus and Smith & Wesson make their revolvers with internal locks. I've heard that Smith is trying to do this to their semiautos, too, but am unsure. (Why is it, exactly, that revolvers get mangled this way but semiautos do not? Except for, of course, Springfield...but at least Springfield's lock is easily removed.)

Thus far, Ruger has resisted doing this, and I hope they continue to do so. But if not, if they give in and put the silly locks on all of their wheelguns too, then what? With the exception of super-expensive Colts, it'll be more or less impossible to buy a new revolver without a silly internal lock! Fortunately, there's plenty of used ones out there, but the supply is limited.

Let's hope Ruger doesn't cave in and start "locking" their guns. Let us hope even more that at some point in the future Smith & Wesson STOPS doing it on, say, most of their guns, but has special "locking" models for sale in states where regulations require such things.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Nightcrawler,

"Ruger has resisted doing that."

Yep. And that is why we very soon will not be able to buy any new Rugers in Maryland. Ruger is apparently willing to give up selling in a fairly small state rather than bother trying to comply with the law. (And of course they listen to rants from you and others who will refuse to buy guns with the locks simply because you don't like the "looks".)

I do NOT like those laws, but we are stuck with them, and it is very unlikely that we can get them repealed. It is also unlikely that the makers will produce special models just for us. So if the makers tell us to go to blazes and that they are writing us off, there is nothing we can do.

Damn shame; I like Rugers and could even tell them how to put on unobtrusive locks, but I doubt they would listen.

Jim

 

[Nightcrawler]

It would hardly be undoable to make "maryland" versions of revolvers, just as rifle makers make "california" versions.

However, changing their design to incorporate an internal lock could require much in the way of retooling for Ruger; perhaps they don't think sales to Maryland are worth it?

Here's an idea; what is the wording of the Maryland law? Do all guns require a locking device (in which case you guys are really screwed) or will a manual safety suffice? A revoler with a manual safety might seem redundant, but might be easier to add than an internal lock.

And I never said I'll refuse to buy a gun with a lock. I'm thinking about a Taurus snubby, for example. A S&W with a lock...that might be a different story.

I don't dislike them just because of the looks; I dislike them because they're unnecessary and stupid.

Let's say Springfield Armory changed their M1A rifles so they couldn't accept 20 round magazines, to comply with a new California law. Many, many people would stop buying M1A rifles. Springfield would probably stop making the California rifles.

Would you get mad at the people who didn't buy the castrated Springfield becuase they made it so Californians couldn't get M1As?

Making "Maryland" models wouldn't be at all difficult for Smith & Wesson, since they already have the tooling. They'd probably cost more, if Smith removed the internal lock from their regular lineup, but not too much more because then no one would buy them.

 

[tiberius]

MD is too small of a state to think that they can get away with the same nonesense that CA does. Obviously the MD legislature passed this law in order to reduce the number of handguns in the hands of their non-felonious citizens. Get the silly law changed or move out of state and communte to work. You must be pretty close to VA or PA I would think. Don't blame Ruger though, internal locks may not be a BIG deal, but they will reduce the MTBF of a gun by a measurable amount and introduce new failure modes.....not a good thing.

 

[JNewell]

I really hate these locks, but at least the S&W version seems as nearly foolproof as these things can get. Even the looks are fairly unobtrusive. On the other hand, there were the reports of the Remington 870s that could apparently be locked without the key -- talk about a malfunction. Other than the Remington 870s, has anyone heard stories of these locks malfunctioning? Off the top of my head, Taurus, Springfield Armory and S&W now offer an integral lock.

 

[Gary A]

This may or may not be relevant to this discussion but I have believed that a very big reason Smith and Wesson is now working on adding locks to their firearms is that they are now owned by Saf-T-Blok, a company which owes its existence to developing and making locks for handguns.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Gary, I'll bet that's it. When I first heard that Smith was adding locks, my first reaction was, "WHY?" What was the motivation? I couldn't figure it out.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Not in my holsters, in my gun safe, or in my bank boxes!

 

[Tamara]

Nightcrawler,

(Why is it, exactly, that revolvers get mangled this way but semiautos do not? Except for, of course, Springfield...but at least Springfield's lock is easily removed.)

Actually, Taurus, Bersa, Steyr and HK semiautos have locks. Glocks were supposed to start shipping with optional internal locks this year, but I haven't seen any yet. Maybe they're all going to MD?

 

[C.R.Sam]

Smith had their lock design worked out before they were bought by Safe-T-Hammer.

Sam

 

[SnWnMe]

Like it or not, these devices are here to stay. You guys already know about incumbent Gov Davis' last gun law. By 2006 mag safeties and "geladen" indicators will be mandatory in Kali. Can you imagine a 1911 with a mag safety? Or a Glock? But, what can we do? We can't NOT buy guns. I wish gun companies as a whole would cut off sales to Kali LEOs until this law is repealed though. Let the state feel the pinch.

Not patronizing complying gun companies' products is silly. Yeah so Smith sold out before. Ruger IIRC was all for limiting firepower back in the late 80s early 90s. I may not like the policies of some of their head honchos, but I have no problem with their products. So I will continue to buy them.

If gun companies fold then our RKBA is affected/jeopardized. That is what the Anti Self responsibility folks want.

Yup, if they can't outright ban em, they'll chip away at em.

 

[Gary A]

C.R. Sam - thanks for that information. I sure didn't know that but have learned to give much credit to what you say. Also, thanks for correcting my mangling of their name.

 

[Brian Dale]

I don't like that manufacturers add things to guns for any reason but to improve their performance. It's their right to do so, and it's their business decision to make. I don't like to have my choices limited by the shenanigans of rights-violating legislators in places where I don't live, but I don't want to see these companies go broke, either. For myself, I will continue to buy guns that I like, functionally and aesthetically.

I buy guns that don't have locks.

I buy lever rifles that don't have crossbolt triggerblocks.

I buy guns that fit me well.

And it had better be a great shooter if it's ugly.

YMMV

 

[J Miller]

Personally, for my self, I wish S&W had gone under with the boycott.
That would have sent a big message to the other gun makers to stand up and support the 2nd Amd, and those of us citizens who buy their products.

However since that didn't happen, I'll just have to refuse to buy any new gun, that has an afterthought safty or lock in it, no matter who makes it.

I won't buy handguns with key locks or saftys.
I won't buy lever guns with cross bolt or tang saftys.
(The only exception might would be one on which the lock was easilly removed. Such as the Springfield 1911 types, or Marlin lever guns.)

And if the lovers of guns with saftys don't like it, too bad.
I feel for the residents of CA and MD, but it's your own states voters fault for electing the pond scum that passed these laws.
Don't drag the rest of us down with idiotic safty gadgets and key locks, just because your state has passed a stupid law. Get it repealed! Get rid of the anti gunners in office in your states.
And quite whining about Ruger not caving in to these laws.

Somebodies got to stand up and say; enough is enough.
And that somebody is ME, and others like me.
And if Sturm Ruger and Co. wants my business they won't put any locks on their guns.

 

[Tamara]

J Miller,

And if Sturm Ruger and Co. wants my business they won't put any locks on their guns.

...or sell neutered magazines, and continue to not sell CCW-appropriate guns.

If you're going to boycott any company in this business for caving, that should be number one with a bullet on your list.


"No honest man needs more than ten rounds..." -Bill Ruger

"I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20- or 30-round magazines or my folding stock." -Bill Ruger

"I see nothing wrong with waiting periods." -Bill Ruger

"No honest man needs a handgun smaller than a canned ham." -Golgo-13 spoofing Bill Ruger

So, obviously you don't care that a company doesn't support your right to CCW. Oh, wait... I just saw that you live in Illinois...