John Wayne
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,133
That ugly hole in the side of my revolver does nothing to add safety. If you want to properly secure a gun, do it with a cable lock through the cylinder or barrel, not with a dinky little key and lock held in place by a spring detent.
I have owned 6 S&W revolvers, only 1 of which had a lock. I've had my eye on a model 60 Pro, 686, and 340. The MIM parts don't bother me, but I cannot bring myself for shell out that kind of money for something with that hideous lock. I like my revolvers to be functional as well as good looking. I could get over a keyhole lock on a Glock, but not on a S&W. That's why all the guns I've bought are lock-free. Until S&W figures that out, they won't be making any money off of me.
I thought we were making some headway with the lock-less 442s, but I haven't seen that being implemented in other models.
I have owned 6 S&W revolvers, only 1 of which had a lock. I've had my eye on a model 60 Pro, 686, and 340. The MIM parts don't bother me, but I cannot bring myself for shell out that kind of money for something with that hideous lock. I like my revolvers to be functional as well as good looking. I could get over a keyhole lock on a Glock, but not on a S&W. That's why all the guns I've bought are lock-free. Until S&W figures that out, they won't be making any money off of me.
I thought we were making some headway with the lock-less 442s, but I haven't seen that being implemented in other models.