Ruger internal lock question

[Nightcrawler]

I've heard Ruger is adding internal locks to its guns. However, all the info I can find on it is that the two new pistols (the 345 and the Mk.III) will have them.

Are they also retrofitting their revolvers with them? If so, where is the lock located? What kind of design does the lock have? Any chance it can get messed up and jam up the gun (like Taurus revolvers apparently have)?

Or is it just Ruger's new models that will have the lock? What about the magazine disconnect? They're not going to be retrofitting the P89/90/94/95/97 with this feature, are they?

Just curious.

 

[J Miller]

Nightcrawler,

I've heard Ruger is adding internal locks to its guns. However, all the info I can find on it is that the two new pistols (the 345 and the Mk.III) will have them.
I suspect that as they introduce new models they will be equiped with the locks. As of now only the two you mentioned have them.

Are they also retrofitting their revolvers with them? If so, where is the lock located? What kind of design does the lock have? Any chance it can get messed up and jam up the gun (like Taurus revolvers apparently have)?
I sincerely hope not. I have no idea. I haven't seen one of the new Rugers in the flesh yet, and from the pics I've seen you can't tell where they locks are. No idea of what kind of design they are using, or how reliable or unreliable they are.

Or is it just Ruger's new models that will have the lock? What about the magazine disconnect? They're not going to be retrofitting the P89/90/94/95/97 with this feature, are they?
I'm really hoping they don't retrofit their guns with these locks. Especially the revolvers. I have catagoricly refused to buy new S&W's and all the others with this idiotic gadget on them. So if Ruger retrofits all their guns, I might as well vote Democrat for all the good they will do me.

Joe

 

[JNewell]

Redesigning existing models to incorporate internal locks is beginning to look like a trend. It's not just S&W...it's Taurus, Glock, Springfield Armory...I'm sure there's others.

Ruger has always been one of the more liability-conscious companies out there. Combine that with various state laws and it would be surprising if they don't.

Not all of these designs are created equal. I have never heard of a S&W lock malfunctioning. Can't say the same for Taurus.

 

[Jim K]

There is a report that Ruger, along with some other companies, is looking at a hammer block for single actions that would be installed under the loading gate and be totally invisible with the gate closed. I suspect the real problem with it is legal. The idea is obvious and I think already patented, so a company either has to shell out royalties or work out some different system.

The lock on the Mk III .22 is very unobtrusive (it's almost invisible) and locks the safety in the ON position. It is a small, five sided hole just below the safety thumbpiece.

Jim

 

[Standing Wolf]

Not in my gun safe!

 

[JNewell]

I hear ya, man, and I agree, but if everyone else feels the same way, there won't be any handgun manufacturers left in business. Zero sales is tough on the bottom line, and they don't necessarilly view this as a market-drive (either way) issue.

 

[Ben Shepherd]

You want to sell me a trigger lock with the gun? Fine. I'll throw it in the garbage on the way out the door.

You want to sell me a gun with the lock built in? Nope, not happenin'.

 

[WonderNine]

I can see that trigger locks have a real use for people that like to leave guns and ammo laying around for their 7 year old to play with.

 

[Jim K]

I am not fond of built-in locks, but if we are going to have any new handguns in this state, they have to have locks. We might get the law repealed or modified, but no one is holding their breath.

I honestly don't understand the fanatic, nearly insane, opposition to locks, though. The ones I have seen and used have been fool proof, and do not interfere in any way with the normal operation of the gun. No one needs to use the lock if he does not want to.

I am not sticking up for internal locks, or supporting laws requiring them, but I wonder if those who go frothing at the mouth about them are consistent and remove the ignition and door locks from their cars.

I am even more puzzled by the comment that a gun with a lock will never be put in "my gun safe". Doesn't the safe have a lock? What is the difference in terms of accessibility?

Jim

 

[Boats]

Give up Jim you're making too much sense.

 

[one45auto]

No Boats, Jim is comparing apples to oranges with his car door analogy. Cars have locks to prevent theft rather than as a forced safety measure. A more accurate parallel would be the proposed breathalyzers which some have suggested installing on all car ignitions to prevent drunken driving. Now, using that argument, is it truly unreasonable for the average car buyer to be upset at the suggestion that he or she be incovenienced by a device whose installation was prompted by the threat of lawsuits or the actions of a small fraction of drivers? Would you want such an unsightly device forced upon your dashboard or steering column? Wouldn't you feel as though it was going too far, that it was treating you as though you were irresponsible and thus had to have such a safety device built in to the item rather than relying upon your safe handling?

 

[BlkHawk73]

I am even more puzzled by the comment that a gun with a lock will never be put in "my gun safe". Doesn't the safe have a lock? What is the difference in terms of accessibility?

Excellant point! I'm also curious what all the stern opponents of these features are gonna buy when liability and laws require all models to have these features? It won't be long. Just think all 1911's or Glocks made with these features, will it still have all the steadfast fans expounding them?

 

[WonderNine]

I am not sticking up for internal locks, or supporting laws requiring them, but I wonder if those who go frothing at the mouth about them are consistent and remove the ignition and door locks from their cars.

Worst analogy ever...

And the thing is, you know what's going to happen is some dope is gonna leave his gun lying around locked thinking it's safe and the lock will malfunction and his kid will shoot himself in the face. Then the gun industry is gonna be back in court only even if the immunity bill passed they wouldn't be immune from this.

Not to mention it will have the undesired effect of lessening respect for the four rules.

 

[BlkHawk73]

some dope is gonna leave his gun lying around locked thinking it's safe and the lock will malfunction and his kid will shoot himself in the face.

There is the law about endangering the welfare of a child in this incident not to mention at least one rule of firearm saftely being broken as well. :banghead: Also, I would hope those with firearms and children would have the smarts to educate the children.

desired effect of lessening respect for the four rules

that'll at least weed out the stupid ones.

 

[JNewell]

I don't quite understand the reaction either. I really dislike them, and have to be honest avoided buying guns that had them, but you don't have to use them. And, if we all boycott any new gun with them, there are going to be a lot fewer gunmakers in a few years, which would please some people we all know quite a bit.

WonderNine's comment is right on. No gun is foolproof, nor any lawnmower or chainsaw or ladder or car. I think all these "safety" devices encourage foolishness and carelessness, which is a serious error with a firearm.

 

[OtG]

I think of mandatory locks like I think of mandatory bicycle helmet laws: SOUNDS like a good idea (It's for the children!), but doesn't work, and serves to stigmatize the activity in question (riding bikes IS DANGEROUS, don't do it; guns WILL KILL YOU if not locked up, don't own guns). They limit rational though about the subject at hand.

When wearing a helmet or owning a gun lock is voluntary, the stigma is applied via advertising from helmet companies and gun control groups.

Voluntary use of these things is an entirely different topic.

-Owen the analogizer

 

[James Bondrock]

Internal locks in and of themselves, IMO, are benign devices. You are still given a choice of whether to actually use them. There might even be times when you may want to use them, although I am hard pressed to think of any. The real problem is if you are required to use them at all times.

Oh, wait, that's already happened in a few places!

 

[Jim K]

The anti-gun police chief in an adjoining county campaigned for locks, saying that any one in danger needed only "a few seconds" to unlock the gun. When he was asked why, then, police carry guns were exempted, he cursed the questioner, called him names, threatened to beat him up, then walked out of the room, slamming the door. Another fine example of our kind, courteous law enforcement officers.

The chief left soon after and is now contaminating some other unfortunate county or city with his presence.

Jim

 

[russlate]

A friend bought a Walther P22 for his wife. The lock broke.

If you want, you can buy one with a lock. I won't do so.
I will buy used ones that don't have the locks.

In California, you can have a CCW. But if the gun you buy today is not listed on the approved list next year, you cannot carry it. My uncle had that happen when he renewed and had to buy an approved gun to renew with.

What they ( those pushing the locks ) see happening is for those locks to be eventually made so they can be activated electronically. Look at the S&W agreement.

As for child endangerment laws, it's simple. If you have a child, it is your business to keep your child off my property. That should be easy because if you are idiot enough to fall for the slime pushing their agendas onto gun owners you aren't welcome in my house either.