Lawyer Locks on guns....anyone use them?

Status
Not open for further replies.
heron said:
There's one on my Ruger 22-45 Mk III. Never used it; never noticed it.
Click to expand...
The one on my Ruger MKIII works smoothly, our Walther P22 was almost impossible to unlock.

We don't use the internal locks, if I wanted to inactivate a firearm, I would simply disassemble it. Anyone counting on the internal lock to keep the firearm safe for kids (the theoretical purpose) is asking for trouble, and fostering the bad habit of firearms being "safe".

On the other hand, I find the magazine safeties more annoying, at least the internal lock can be ignored, while a magazine interlock is an internal part that could possibly wear and fail.
 
Any gun with any type of safety has a lock...it just doesn't require a key to operate. I still think the whole issue is blown out of proportion.

I sort of understand the objection to them on principle but I simply don't buy that there is or ever has been a widespread functional failure issue.
 
I don't own any. I WOULDN'T own any S&W with one because their design is defective. ... I will NEVER trust my life to an S&W with the current lock.
Click to expand...

Not to call you out, but just to beg the point: And why would removing the lock be an insufficient rememdy to your concerns? With the tab or flag gone, there is no way for the lock to interact with the hammer at all. Seems pretty foolproof to me.

"I just don't want to," is an ok answer I guess, but seems just a hair pointless.

Of course not everyone would be comfortable disassembling the gun that far and that I do understand.

-Sam
 
The locks do fail. They are a nanny state intrusion which eliminates the two main reasons to buy or carry a revolver; simplicity and reliability.

If you want a second opinion, they are ugly too. :)

I won't own a S&W IL revolver. The IL and redesigned frame to accomodate it, have made them useless, to me.
 
Because to remove the lock would be to functionally change the design/operation of the firearm in question - which could then bring other issues into any situation in which the firearm comes to the attention of someone in any kind of legal proceeding.
Nope - I buy guns w/o the lock, am in the process of adding to same, and won't bother with one that does have it. Period. The good thing is that there's lots out there to choose from.
 
Not to call you out, but just to beg the point: And why would removing the lock be an insufficient rememdy to your concerns? With the tab or flag gone, there is no way for the lock to interact with the hammer at all. Seems pretty foolproof to me.

"I just don't want to," is an ok answer I guess, but seems just a hair pointless.

Of course not everyone would be comfortable disassembling the gun that far and that I do understand.
Click to expand...
1. Removing the parts leaves an unsightly hole in the side of the gun into which debris can find their way. New S&Ws aren't cheap. Why should I have to deface an expensive gun in order to be able to entrust my life to it?

2. As a general rule, I don't detail strip revolvers. A lot of gunsmiths won't do the work you describe for liability reasons.

3. I've got a safe full of proper S&W revolvers without the lock. Why would I intentionally buy something that doesn't meet my needs without modifications which either deface it, require work I don't do and others won't do, and which introduces legal complications? S&W doesn't currently make a revolver as good as my 3" Model 65, nevermind better, and nevermind either of my Model 27s or 29s. Why would I spend a lot of money to get something I don't like or want?
 
First of all, please understand that I mean neither disrespect for your opinions nor to start a fight.

That would be silly, as I understand and agree with your reasons!

However, I think it's reasonable to point out that neither of the answers you or Thaddeus posted relates directly to your statement that, "I will NEVER trust my life to an S&W with the current lock."

It may be ugly. (Agreed, though it doesn't kill my love for the gun.) It may be unneccessary. (Well, DUH!) It may be a bit more complicated to do than some folks want to bother with. (Ok. ***)

But we've not yet found a reason why you couldn't trust one for self-defense purposes. Crud getting in the holes is possible, but we all know we're supposed to clean these things, right? And that they have plenty of other holes for crud to get into. I really don't see this as an issue. If that little hole into the action worries you, in regards to crud getting into the works, and autoloader must terrify you! :p

And, TR, legal ramifications? I just don't believe it. Your opinion is as good as mine, of course, but, by the time the lawyers are fighting about that, they've scraped right to the bottom of the legal-issue-barrel, haven't they?

-Sam

*** -- I don't own any guns I haven't detail stripped, cleaned, lubed, and often, tinkered with or fluffed-and-buffed. So the idea that it's too complicated or that some gunsmiths might not want to do it really don't go too far for me, personally.
 
Sam mused:
And, TR, legal ramifications? I just don't believe it. Your opinion is as good as mine, of course, but, by the time the lawyers are fighting about that, they've scraped right to the bottom of the legal-issue-barrel, haven't they?
Click to expand...

Oh, I dunno Sam.....call me a skeptic, but when lawnmower manufacturers have to put a label on a mower deck telling you not to put your feet/hands under it when its' running.....what wouldja call that? Or even putting a lock on a gun in the first place? I don't NEED someone "protecting" me or mine - that is MY job, and if I can't do it, then Darwin wins.

And from the look of some folks, Darwin needs to win a tad more often.:D
 
However, I think it's reasonable to point out that neither of the answers you or Thaddeus posted relates directly to your statement that, "I will NEVER trust my life to an S&W with the current lock."
Click to expand...
All of your objections relate to the revolver WITHOUT the lock, said lock having been modified or removed in some way.

There's simply no reason for me to spend a LOT of money for something that doesn't do what I want, in the way in which I want it done.

The hole in the side of the revolver is the biggest one in the frame, and leads right into the lock mechanism.

Sorry, there's simply no reason for me to have an ILS equipped S&W revolver. And I never will.
 
I would not trust my life to an IL S&W revolver because of the added risk of failure. Engineering 101, the more parts you add to a machine, increasing it's complexity, the less reliable it becomes.

None of my S&W revolvers will ever fail due to an internal lock, why? Because none have it. Oh, you may spare me the common refrain of; "well your revolver could fail for another reason like a high primer, or the bullets could jump crimp, or a loose ejector rod...". No, none of my revolvers has ever failed for any of those reasons, or for any other reason. No failures in 38 years. So why would I want to purchase a substandard, current production S&W IL revolver and screw up that record?

Take out the internal lock you say, and then its a non issue? Why on earth would I want to do that? Give money to a company that insists on NOT producing a product I need, or desire? Whos business model is that? Go prop up your own sacred cow if you wish.

If I wanted to spend too much money on a handgun, that needed parts removed or tweaked, out of the box, in order to be made reliable........I'd buy a Kimber! :) TJ
 
Oh, I dunno Sam.....And from the look of some folks, Darwin needs to win a tad more often.
Click to expand...

TR, point well taken! LOL!

The hole in the side of the revolver is the biggest one in the frame, and leads right into the lock mechanism.
Click to expand...

Oh, now, that's not true at all. The hammer rides in a hole in the frame that's 10x the size of the lock hole. AND, the hammer rocks back and forth acting very much like a large feeding mechanism to pull as much crap as possible down into the lockwork as it rotates. It's an active dirt-feeder, rather than the lock hole which is more of a passive one.

I still don't like the hole, but I'm not going to refuse to own the gun becasue of the dirt arguement.

And, to put a finer point on it, the part I'm talking about removing is just the little tiny "flag" up by the hammer. The lock cylinder stays in. So, really, we're talking about a hole that's like 1/32" wide and maybe 1/4" long. Tiny.

Sorry, there's simply no reason for me to have an ILS equipped S&W revolver. And I never will.
Click to expand...

Well for heaven's sake don't apologize! I'm not trying to sell you one! :p I'm just questioning the statement that you couldn't trust your life to one.
You've explained a lot of reasons why you wouldn't buy one, but not why they're not reliable.

Let me put it another way: I'd never buy a Glock. But I sure could trust my life to one.

-Sam
 
Someone ought to market a slightly tapered "Hillary Hole Plug" that taps into the hole and can be polished flush with the frame facing.

Someone ought to have done that for imported Tokarevs long ago, too.

Either that, or you make friends with a guy who owns a lathe and some steel dowel stock.
 
a slightly tapered "Hillary Hole Plug"
Click to expand...
... I feel dirty for some reason...:barf:

It would be a lot easier to fill the round hole than the oblong one.

'The mind wobbles...

-Sam
 
Sorry but I gotta chime in

The whole argument of lock vs. no lock is a bunch of crap. Imagine for a moment a person needs his gun for self defense, he fires off a shot, misses and before he can fire again the lock jams up the gun. He's beat silly by the BG and left for dead. He recovers after a long hospital stay, gathers the evidence of the failed gun, hires a lawyer and sues the pants off of S&W or Taurus or whoever made the gun with the faulty lock. He'd win without doubt. Think there'd be locks on any new guns after that? Of course not. Manufactures wouldn't leave themselves exposed. Locks do what they're supposed to do - if you decide to use them. I have several guns with locks on them. They look no prettier or uglier than my guns without locks. They have uncountless thousands of rounds through them and know what people - THEY STILL WORK AS DESIGNED - PULL THE TRIGGER - GO BANG! These stupid arguments really piss me off! :cuss::banghead::banghead:

Argue about something that's indisputable - like is Obama going to confiscate all guns, pictures of guns, water pistols and things which can be made into guns.:neener:
 
I've got 3 of them. I just keep them in a safe, and don't bother with the lock. I'm not too worried about a malfunction at a critical moment, since they're only used at the range. I'd rather they not have the lock, but it's really never caused me any trouble at all. Emotionally or otherwise.
 
I'm just questioning the statement that you couldn't trust your life to one.
You've explained a lot of reasons why you wouldn't buy one, but not why they're not reliable.
Click to expand...
Again, you're talking about guns with the lock removed or neutralized in some way. That's NOT a gun WITH the lock. Why should I buy one of those when I can get a good gun without a lock that I have to fool with?

As to failures, go to http://www.smith-wessonforum.com. There's an ongoing discussion of them.

I don't trust them and never will. Until they change the design or make it optional, I'll never buy a new S&W revolver.
 
Deanimator: "Until they change the design or make it optional, I'll never buy a new S&W revolver."

Some are made without the Hillary Hole.
 
Some are made without the Hillary Hole.
Click to expand...
Essentially ONE is made without it, the current version of the Centennial. I already have a J frame that I carry (a 36 "no-dash"). Any other no-hole guns are overruns from foreign contracts, not catalog items.
 
Not a big fan of the "Hillary Hole" myself but if that makes people feel better and I still have the option not to use it then it doesn't bother me. While on the topic, I bought a Taurus before i know what lawyer locks we're and since hind-sight is 20/20, I don't mind it.
 
Aint got locks.

Now padlocks with a string around the guns sure.... from time to time.

Other than that... zip, nada, nope etc.

We did a home invade drill with the trigger locks on the guns wrapped in thier comfy gun cases. I "died" trying to find the key on the keyring to fit the stupid lock. 14 seconds from bang on the door to wife acting as invader coming round the mountain.

Tossed the crappy things and have the guns at a ready state. I only need 4 seconds from anywhere in the home, same with the wife.

We only use em on transport in the vehicles. CCW will take care of the handgun later.
 
I did a quick read of this thread and didn't see a mention of Ruger's internal locks for SA revolvers. These are almost acceptable, as they are optional (if you don't drill a hole in the grip, it's an internal part you can't even see) and appear to be failsafe.

Rather than lock hammer rotation near the pivot, Ruger's lock prevents hammer strut movement through the mainspring.

As long as the spring isn't just shortened to make room for the lock, without any other regard to function, this should be an OK lock.

(However, I'm glad I got a SBH without the durn lock... :) )
 
IMHO over blown. I like adding newly made guns to my collection and they all have internal locks which is no big deal. Kinda like not buying a car with an air bag. :)
 
It might be wrong to buy 'em, but I don't think that it's evil. Might be a crime against art, taste or engineering, but it's fixable. I agree that we shouldn't have to, but I can live with that.

I bought my Smith Model 22-4 because I'd rather have the ugly hole in the side and disable the storage lock than buy a 1917 and chop the barrel to three or four inches for possible future carry.

It's fun to shoot.

In answer to the OP's other questions:
-No, I never use the storage lock and I expect that I'll remove it.
-No, it hasn't malfunctioned yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Use for Safety Locks?
Replies
19
Views
950
Mal H
Mal H
Cosmose
  • Locked
internal locks??
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Chuck Jennings
C
FlSwampRat
  • Locked
Chinese gun locks
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
X
  • Locked
Locking gun in suv?
Replies
15
Views
1K
PaleRyder
P
S
  • Locked
Integral lock question
Replies
5
Views
611
orionengnr
O
Back
Top