S&W Internal Lock...

Not open for further replies.
Maybe we need a poll. The lock-zit on my 686+ is no biggie to me either. The thing is tiny and I think I've lost my key too. There's enough in the field now that we'd have heard about a reliability issue.

Same deal with that Remington 870. Mine has the integral lock and I don't care. Why not on the cop-model? Doesn't matter since the police are not always known to pick firearms for intelligent reasons.
1.) Does anyone know of a lock failure that has tied up the gun?
Yes . . . at least, secondhand. The salesman at the gun counter at Oshman's told me he'd bought a Steyr pistol with an integral lock which would inexplicably and unpredictably tie up the pistol until he unlocked it. He had to send it back to the factory (importer?) who in turn must have sent it back to the factory overseas, so he was without the pistol for a couple of months.

I suspect the S&W revolver locks are very different from the Steyr lock, but I, for one, want NOTHING on my pistol that complicates the mechanism and adds NOTHING to utility or function. This is the sort of useless geegaw that just rubs me the wrong way . . . like the warning on the side of the SW1911 that the pistol may fire without magazine, or the cr@p Ruger writes on the side of their firearms. :barf:
"there is no law"

The hell there isn't. In MD no new gun can be sold without a lock. I would prefer not to have it, but if it is a choice between a lockable gun and no gun I will take the lock.

Some of the opponents are reasonable and express real concern over possible failure. But, alas, I have become convinced that most are just plain nuts. Presumably they lock their houses and cars (assuming they have graduated from tricycles); those locks don't fail and cause cars to crash, so there is no reason to assume that gun locks will fail.

I would rather not have them. And yes, I resent the "nanny" attitude that fosters them. But the screaming, rabid insanity I have seen here and on other sites is beyond any rationality or intelligent discussion.

I have three objections to the lock, if you can call them "objections"

1. Has nothing to do with the lock itself, but when I see a revolver that has one I know that the insides have been cheapened, that the precision workmanship that was the hallmark of earlier guns may be missing, and you can't kid an Old Fuff about what they are and what they used to be.

2. I worry that someday someone may need to use one quickly, and find out the gun is locked and the key isn't handy. Of course one can always leave the gun unlocked, but there is always that little chance. Never forget Mr. Murphy.

3. Last but not least, Sarah Brady and her bunch are not going to dictate what features I must have on a gun. They may force the manufacturers to change, but I have other options. There are a whole lot of "lockless" guns out there. Fortunately I live in Arizona not Maryland. And yes, I moved here for a reason.
those locks don't fail and cause cars to crash, so there is no reason to assume that gun locks will fail.
Gear shifters lock the transmission in park, but there has been recalls of cars that shifted out of park with the motor running and accidents occured.
I own one s&w with a lock, it is a 22lr plinking revolver. I also own one without a lock and it is something I would consider as a bedside gun or a truck gun since it is simple.

I dislike a lock because it adds parts and joints to clean, it is not something I like to consider being on one of my guns, and it plain bothers me since it could cause trouble.

I will agree with others that if a gun had to have a lock, s&w did it well.

I have learned after one that my guns will not have locks.

I feel sorry for those in states that have to have them, but that is about the same as feeling sorry for those who pay more in property taxes than I do.

I make my choices, and I spend my money according to them.
Not open for further replies.