Let's get to the bottom of the revolver lock issue once and for all

[SnWnMe]

It's fashionable to bash big companies.

Strange how some of these bashers do not own a single Smith and Wesson either.

I have locks and no locks. All are great guns

Better than any other brands of wheelies out there

 

[SnWnMe]

My intent in starting this thread has nothing to do with engineering. In fact, it doesn't really matter what the merits of the engineering of the various locks is because they are all superfluous equipment.

What I wanted to get at was a thread that gets at all of the attitudes people here have about ALL revolver locks, but also to put in one thread what people might think about the shortcomings of particular locks.

Practical? Aesthetic bummer? Hazardous? Non-issue? I was just trying to get it all in one place.

Engineering issues are a red herring

Like I said Boats, this is just another discussion about the locks then. No fresh views offered. No authorities cited. No different than the ones before it.

The same old crowd of apologists (me ) and haters will post.

 

[RON in PA]

Smith locks are ugly, like everyone says, and Taurus did a better job. The real reason for the locks IMHO is to protect the gun companies from law suits by people who are relatives of someone that has shot him/herself "accidently" because of "unsafe design". Note the quotation marks. It's a response to those that want guns regulated like other consumer products. Gun companies have spent a fortune in lawyers fees. The gun locks put the onus on the gun owner and hopefully gets the manufacturor off the hook.

 

[Zeke Menuar]

I won’t buy a gun with a lock as long as I can buy older handguns that don't have them.

Too add to the above quote, I will not buy ANY firearm with an integrated lock, period.

ZM

 

[Boats]

Who knows? If this thread stays civil and gets long enough, it may earn a sticky and everyone will know where everyone else stands, and newbies and old timers can vent in this thread about locks instead of in many.

 

[Boats]

Strange how some of these bashers do not own a single Smith and Wesson either.

I no more need to own a lockable Smith to realize their lock is inelegant and ugly than I need to own Paris Hilton's home video to figure out she has no morals

 

[Old Fuff]

Yes, I think that Boats has succeeded in DEFINING the issue, which I believe was his intent. I am sure there is sufficient evidence on other threads to substantiate that locks can, and do sometimes fail, although this is very rare, at least to date.

It has also been shown that feelings about internal locks cover a wide spectrum, and that those who object to them do so mostly on the basis of principal, appearance, and functional reliability.

To a degree this is a "hot button" issue because locks are being imposed on those who don't want them. At the present time one cannot buy a new revolver from Smith & Wesson or Taurus without getting a lock, and it would appear that Ruger won't be far behind. Remaining revolver manufacturers are inconsequential in the overall market.

One may sometimes deactivate or remove the locks, but this may impose some liability, and in the future may be illegal. Also one must consider that any alterations to the lock will void the maker's warrantee.

At the moment pistol buyers have more "no lock" options from different manufacturers, but this will probably change in the near future. At that point handgun buyers who don't want a lock for whatever reason will have no place to turn except the used gun market.

I would observe that if (or when) that happens the price of popular pre-lock models will increase substantially, and in time may become prohibitively expensive for some buyers.

Personally, my greatest concern is that a defensive handgun will be inadvertently left locked, and be in that condition when the owner/user needs it in a sudden emergency.

 

[mtnbkr]

Personally, my greatest concern is that a defensive handgun will be inadvertently left locked, and be in that condition when the owner/user needs it in a sudden emergency.

I would submit that any user likely to leave a gun locked inadvertently would also forget to load a gun or forget that the safety's on. Unlocking the gun simply must become part of your gun handling habits. Pick up the gun, unlock it, stuff into holster. Until it becomes habit, you don't use the gun for "serious" work. It remains a safe queen until your training can accomodate the extra step.

Chris

 

[popeye]

I've got 2 S&W's with locks. One is a 617 4", the other a 442. The 617 is strictly a range gun, the 442 I do however carry occasionally. I bought both new and have never engaged the lock. Can you tell from looking at the sideplate whether the gun is locked or not? The question may sound stupid but I never intend to engage the lock on either.

As far as integral locks are concerned, I think Murphy's law applies.

 

[Daniel Boon]

Lock interference

so does this lock thing interefere with the preformance of the weopon or not??

 

[Boats]

so does this lock thing interefere with the preformance of the weopon or not??

That is an open question. There is at least anecdotal evidence, appearing in American Handgunner, that on S&Ws anyway the lock has tied up a gun whilst firing it.

 

[carebear]

The question to ask about this anecdotal evidence is "Do guns with the locks have "random" non-predictable failures at a greater rate than Smiths without the lock?"

Cause, as we all know, sometimes stuff just breaks and revo's tie up. Sure the locks add to the number of parts to break, but do they actually break or fail, statistically, more often than non-equipped guns.

Remember, when mainsprings give up the ghost, or recoil takes its toll or any number of other failures occur, no one talks about them as long as they are uncommon. The locks are an ethical/moral issue that draw closer attention.

The parallel I would point to is the dreaded kB. If you aren't a Glock fan it's an ongoing issue with a real pattern. If you like Glocks, you point out all gun brands kB and the rates are minimal. It's the stats that will determine if it's a real, ongoing problem.

 

[Titus]

Smith & Wesson was purchased by a company that was in the firearms locks line of work.

This has been my contention about why the locks are there, and why they're not likely to go away. Too bad all the people online who talk about "We should buy Company X" didn't when S&W was going for cheap. If I had a business selling Yosemite Sam mudflaps and I bought Mercedes, well, I bet there'd be some complaining from the market too.

locks are ugly! I'd have half a dozen more S&Ws if they didn't have locks.

Sure. I didn't ask for the locks either, but either people are overly dramatizing the look of the lock, or they're a lot more sensitive than I am.

 

[Old Fuff]

mtnbkr:

A lot of these guns are being bought by inexperienced folks for home protection, not the kind of people that CCW everyday. Should they be better trained? Sure they should. But if mom should lock the lock, and dad faces an emergency in the night and grabs the handgun what might happen is obvious. This "for the children" stuff can be carried too far. Should guns in homes with children (especially small ones) be secured? Probably, but I not sure the S&W/Taurus locks are the best way to go about it. They are surely not the only way.

Decisions about locks should be made by the people that buy handguns, not lawyers working for gun-grabber advocacy groups.

 

[DR]

Can you tell from looking at the sideplate whether the gun is locked or not?

When the lock is engaged a little flag protrudes from the frame right next to the hammer. It says "LOCKED" on it. It's not really obvious but once you seen what it looks like it's easy to spot.

 

[VictorLouis]

It's not merely ANECDOTAL, Ladies and Gents!

It's a fact!

Taurus:
Poster "denfoote" has posted about a failure right here on this board(or was if TFL?)

John Farnam(IIRC) has written of a failure in one of his classes.

S&W:
The last I looked, there was at least three personal owners posting on the S&W Forum that had experienced inadvertent engagement while firing.

NO THANKS. Not on any gun for protective use.

BTW, my personal bias is toward S&W, and I'm also a weirdo that prefers their MIM guns.

 

[Gewehr98]

That's interesting.

Sure the locks add to the number of parts to break, but do they actually break or fail, statistically, more often than non-equipped guns.

I'll wager a truism, if I may. A pre-lock S&W revolver will NEVER suffer the same lock hammer-jamming failure that we're hearing about on the lock-equipped revolvers. Not one. Period.

That's reason enough in my book not to buy one. It's pure silliness - a double action revolver is one of the simplest, and cleanest, of all the defensive firearms that ever saw daylight. You grab the gun, pull the trigger through a relatively heavy double action, and it goes bang. If it doesn't go bang, you pull the trigger again as the cylinder continues on to the next round. Simple, safe, and elegant. It's so good that we now have DAO automatics that mimic it in trigger function. The gun doesn't need extra safety widgets. Even the Lemon Squeezer grip-safety equipped S&W revolver early in the last century fell by the wayside, if that's any hint.

Now, if my practice in welding continues one of these days, I may seek sponsorship, maybe by folks like Cylinder & Slide, to offer a service whereby offending lock and blackhead zit pimple are removed, filled, and polished out. If S&W has relegated themselves to permanent production of the unwanted widgets, then perhaps it's time to give buyers a choice, even if aftermarket.

Earlier in the thread, Leaky Waders asked if other handgun manufacturers were targeted by presidential lawyers. I would submit that both Glock and Browning were heavily pressured by the Clinton administration to sign a S&W-style agreement, complete with clauses for incorporating smart-gun or internal lock technology. Guess where Glock and Browning told them to go, posthaste?

 

[carebear]

Victor,

With all due respect, that's the MEANING of anecdotal. When you have individual stories all you have is evidence that that particular gun failed. You need significantly greater percentages of failures of the lock models over the same sample size of non-locked to show that the locks themselves are causing failures as opposed to merely being yet another failure source due to the same factors that cause non-locked to fail.

As they are essentially "prototype" models we would expect a learning curve to get the kinks out, much like the AR and every other weapons system went through.

I'm not trying to defend the locks on either a practical or philosophical basis. I don't like the idea of them either, but it takes more than scattered stories to truly demonstrate a general problem.

 

[Sam Adams]

I own 3 S&Ws, 2 of which are pre-lock revolvers. My other is a semi-auto. None of them is my carry gun, for various reasons.

My only problem with a lock on ANY firearm (revolver or not) that is to be used for defensive purposes (especially concealed carry) is that its presence on gun MUST increase the chance of a failure to fire - even if only by a miniscule percentage. You see, guns without a lock will fail occasionally for various reason related to bad design, bad manufacturing practices, wear & tear or abuse by owners. Guns with locks will fail occasionally for those very same reasons PLUS they will fail some small percentage of the time because the lock mechanism is badly designed, badly manufactured, is subject to wear & tear, or is abused in some fashion by the owner.

If a gun jams on the range, it is a PITA. Maybe it even costs you entrance fees to a tournament and some repair bills - but you don't get planted in a box as would be the case if your carry gun failed.

I'm not too thrilled about S&W caving in to the Clintons, and the fact that even though they are under different management they refuse to disavow the agreement. However, IMHO they make a very fine revolver and I would buy another...except that I will NOT buy any lock-equipped revolver for concealed carry use. Just my non-engineering $0.02.

 

[Old Fuff]

>> I'm not too thrilled about S&W caving in to the Clintons, and the fact that even though they are under different management they refuse to disavow the agreement. <<

In fairness to Smith & Wesson's current management I will point out that the "agreement" was not between the company and president Clinton.

It was a stipulated out-of-court settlement of several lawsuits brought by two state attorney generals and approximately 30-some cities. As such it is part of a COURT ORDER and as such is still enforceable by the other parties,and cannot be easily disavowed.

 

[cortez kid]

Once and for all? I'm not so sure. By the time everyone contributes their "feelings" on the matter, the issue gets all muddled up. Every gun with that lock can fail. Have they? Haven't seen it. All MIM parts are substandard. Everyone knows this. They are bound to fail. Have they? Extractor rods will back out on old Smith's. Have they? (oh wait, heard lots about this, never mind). Where is the evidence? No not the usuall people(all 3) I mean this weekend! How many of you had a MIM part break, or a lock malfunction? OK, in the last month? An appologist? No, a realist. Don't label a guy cause he wants proof. Maybe I don't want to buy garbage. Are you guys holding out on a fellow forum member? I carry no ones water. I depend on what I read here to make decissions. Show me so I can make the right choices. Don't tell me they don't make them like they used to. I used to buy candy bars for a nickle and gas for 34 cents. I have old guns, I have new guns. Show me I made a mistake, and I'll sell my new .500 10" for $150, but you got to buy my pinned chief spl for $1300.
kid

 

[Big Bad Wolf]

Let me preface this with I do not care for the lock on S&W, but it does not stop me from buying if the price is right and the model is to my liking.

Yes they are not very pleasing to look at, yes it does add another part to go wrong, yes defective locks may very well engage when shooting and yes the company who bought S&W supplies these locks because that is what they specialize in.

But the biggest reason they are there....

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/28/210644.shtml

Smith & Wesson Settles Lawsuit
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, April 29, 2005
WICHITA, Kan. - The family of a boy left brain-damaged after he was shot in the face by a friend seven years ago has settled a lawsuit against gunmaker Smith & Wesson.

Neither side would discuss the specific terms of the deal announced Wednesday. But the victim's mother said the family would now be able to meet the boy's extensive medical costs.

Royce Ryan was 8 when a 15-year-old friend shot him with a semiautomatic pistol below the left eye, leaving him with permanent disabilities and brain damage.

Lawyers for the victim's family say the older friend thought the pistol, which he had taken from his parents' dresser, was unloaded.

The victim's family claimed the shooting could have been avoided if Smith & Wesson's Model 915 weapon had been childproofed and had been designed to show whether it was loaded.

"We can't prevent Royce's injuries but hope this settlement will help make gun companies childproof guns and prevent other children from being injured," said the mother, Lori Ryan.

Smith & Wesson said the shooting was the gun owner's fault. Ann Makkiya, an attorney for the Springfield, Mass.-based gunmaker, said in a statement: "This handgun was sold with a lock that would have prevented this shooting, if used."

She said the settlement "was dictated by economic and business realities."

The boy's friend, Jared McMunn, was convicted of aggravated battery and possession of a firearm in July 1998, according to juvenile court records.

This is an example of the kind of battles every gun manufacture face every day. Stupid lawsuits designed to hold the manufactures accountable of others stupidity.

I imagine there is some bean counter sitting in a cubicle at S&W who crunches numbers like will the addition of additional safety measures create a loss of revenue greater than what the company is forced to pay out with lawsuits like above. My guess would be that the figure in loss of purchases is not enough to offset the payout in lawsuits.

 

[Stainz]

I wish the locks weren't there. I wish my new Jeep Liberty had vent wing windows, like my old Alfa Romeo Berlina sedans. Wishing won't change a thing. Alfa Romeo lost it's US dealership many years ago... and had stopped putting in vent wing windows, anyway. My Liberty is a lot more dependable - and offers many more creature comforts - and can negotiate any streets (AR had to put stickers on their NYC dealer windows re their poor clearance!). My S&W's are fine revolvers, despite the infamous lock and MIM parts. At least they are once again American owned, built, etc. Too bad about my German-owned American made Jeep (Daimler-Chrysler!).

I have tried my best to make the few locks I have 'engage' during firing... there just is no practical way, save a component failure. Half engaged and bumped, they go to off... every time. I think a bad round is orders of magnitude more common... and I have only had one bad commercial round, discounting A-Merc (Hey, they were really cheap... for a reason!), of course, in my years of shooting all calibers. If you have young children, you must be super careful anyway - the lock may be a great answer there. The only time one actually bothered me was in 9/02, shortly after buying my first lock-equipped revolver, a 4" 625-8. When cleaning it, Hoppes wouldn't budge that blemish over the cylinder release! I now use my reading glasses when cleaning...

I buy S&W due to the value - and the American heritage. Unlike the major names in evil-bottom-feeders - and that line of mostly ported revolvers - S&W's are not made in Brazil... they are made here - in the USA. Actually, in a state where their very purchase & ownership is difficult, to say the least. Buy lock-equipped or not, certainly it is your option. Deleting the lock-equipped from your purchase plans means a lot of really neat new revolvers will never be yours... that is sad.

The lock is ugly - but, for country-wide continued sales, as DesCartes would term, it is 'A necessary Evil'. My keys are back in the boxes, where they resided since S&W placed them there - until last month when I had to try to fool them... what wasted effort!

Stainz

PS Even if they make them with pink colored stocks, I would still buy S&W... I have spare grips... besides, I drive a Liberty - the quitescential soccer-mom's SUV... maybe I'd like pink??

PPS Boats - You have that Paris Hilton video in DVD??

 

[Gewehr98]

So the bean-counters are in collusion with the engineers and liability lawyers...

to save us from the idiots who can't see where the real gun safety responsibility lies:

The victim's family claimed the shooting could have been avoided if Smith & Wesson's Model 915 weapon had been childproofed and had been designed to show whether it was loaded.

My aching backside. Darwin will always win, given an inquisitive enough volunteer. A locked S&W revolver means our intrepid ankle-biter of a trigger-puller would've looked high and low for the key, and if he found it, (probably inside the foam of the original gun box) he would've proceeded to unlock the revolver and commence to lobotomize the victim. And then we'd be reading about the victim's family clamoring for a breathalyzer attachment for the gun that would detect the combination of Oreo cookies and milk, or Cheetos, and disable the gun. For only then would they truly be safe. It's for the children, you know...

Never mind how many safety steps were bypassed before Dufus #1 picked up the gun to begin with. You know them, the ones where the kid is butt-paddled to within an inch of his life by Dad for even touching the gun, Dad keeps the ammo and gun separate if he's not home, the gun is in a lockbox, safe, or he's not around to supervise, or if he's home, he has at least a modicum of situational awareness when the kids head for the nightstand or gun cabinet.

Stainz said:

If you have young children, you must be super careful anyway - the lock may be a great answer there.

Sure, but that's not the only thing you're gonna teach your kids about gun handling and safety, is it? Or are you gonna rely on that one widget to prevent harm to your children, it's the Holy Grail of gun accident prevention?

And that's why I despise internal gun locks, regardless if they're S&W, Ruger, Springfield, or anybody else's. They're a panacea, with a side effect that they sometimes prevent the gun from being used for it's intended purpose, too. I can't wait to see the next generation of S&W revolver, once the bean counters, engineers, and liability lawyers come to a consensus on what makes a perfect revolver. Reminds me of the horse that OSHA redesigned for safe cowboy work:

 

[magsnubby]

No problem. Pop the side plate, remove the hammer, remove the plate (or whatever the offical name is) that has the stud that locks the hammer and grind it off. Your gun is now offically "unlocked". I did my 642 and 66 in less than 10 minutes.