S&W internal locks ?
- Thread starter regal
- Start date
- Status
To save a lot of time, look at the green bar at the top of the page, and click on SEARCH. Enter the key words, "internal lock," under the heading "Threads," and you will soon know far more then you ever wanted to.
Smith & Wesson's internal lock is a very controversial issue on this forum, and has been discussed at great length. You may want to limit your search to the Revolvers sub-forum.
Smith & Wesson's internal lock is a very controversial issue on this forum, and has been discussed at great length. You may want to limit your search to the Revolvers sub-forum.
1. Your gun will not be damaged by +P. It will not be excessively worn by +P. It's a myth that +P is in any way a warm load.
2. Many many many many many discussions on the S&W lock. Why not just ignore it as I do? If you disable or remove it be prepared to be sued if the gun is ever used in a shooting because according to the three attorneys I have asked about this it would likely be an issue in a civil case. I seem to be just about the only person on any gun forums who believes this. Everyone else (except the lawyers) says I'm wrong. Your choice.
2. Many many many many many discussions on the S&W lock. Why not just ignore it as I do? If you disable or remove it be prepared to be sued if the gun is ever used in a shooting because according to the three attorneys I have asked about this it would likely be an issue in a civil case. I seem to be just about the only person on any gun forums who believes this. Everyone else (except the lawyers) says I'm wrong. Your choice.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Hey Saxon Pig, I agree with you that disabling a safety device on a firearm would be a potential problem in a civil law suit.
Oh I believe you, although much if not everything would depend on what the status of the lock was, and if this had anything too do with the circumstances of the case. It would most likely come up in an instance where a child or someone else not authorized to have the revolver, managed to get their hands on it and did what might be expected. The situation for the gun owner would be considerably exuberated if the gun were not otherwise secured.
On the other hand while the gun owner might be sued over a secure storage issue, they couldn’t be held liable for a lock that was never there. What the lock does do is give a possible litigant another avenue of attack.
If you disable or remove it be prepared to be sued if the gun is ever used in a shooting because according to the three attorneys I have asked about this it would likely be an issue in a civil case. I seem to be just about the only person on any gun forums who believes this.
I agree, too. It's stupid, it defies the laws of common sense, but there is little to no common sense in the court room.
I agree, too. It's stupid, it defies the laws of common sense, but there is little to no common sense in the court room.
It is also not too bright to use a firearm for personal protection that comes with a superfluous gadget that can go wrong at a critical time or be inadvertently left on when you desperately need it to be off. The trend toward internal locks did not come from the marketplace, but rather from anti-gun legislators and lawyers that would prefer that all weapons owned by ordinary people be made so that they were non-functional. Unless one wants to let bliss-nannies dictate what they can or can’t use, there are two options: (1) disable the lock, or (2) buy a handgun (or whatever) that doesn’t come so equipped. I find the second choice to be a viable solution. Others can do whatever they like.
krs
Member
Well, your honor, the reason my gun's lock was disabled was to insure that it didn't work. You see, if my pistol had locked accidentally I'd be dead and you'd be asking these silly questions of the other guy.
bottom shelf
Member
Internal Lock
No Internal LockLone_Gunman
Member
I am not sure being a smartass is going to help your case.
Civil litigation is held to a different standard than a criminal case. The plaintiffs are really just trying to get money out of you. If the plaintiffs attorney can make you out to look reckless and overly aggressive, he figures his payout will be bigger. Disabling safeties and hair triggers can make you look bad, even if the shooting itself was justifiable in criminal trial.
Without a doubt there is a serious LACK of common sense in litigation. I would just rather not give opposing counsel ANYTHING that could be used against me.
I have a hard time understand the level of vitriol expressed over the lock. I personally don't like it and I wish it wasn't there. End of story as far as I'm concerned. I don't get all the yelling and pronouncements of "I refuse to buy one!" I have one new S&W with the lock and I simply ignore it. (The lock, that is, not the gun which works just fine lock and all.)
If you really can't stand having a gun with the lock, then don't buy one. But the rest of us really don't need to hear about 20 times a day. Does it help to keep stomping your feet and holding your breath over it?
I have a hard time understand the level of vitriol expressed over the lock. I personally don't like it and I wish it wasn't there. End of story as far as I'm concerned. I don't get all the yelling and pronouncements of "I refuse to buy one!" I have one new S&W with the lock and I simply ignore it. (The lock, that is, not the gun which works just fine lock and all.)
If you really can't stand having a gun with the lock, then don't buy one. But the rest of us really don't need to hear about 20 times a day. Does it help to keep stomping your feet and holding your breath over it?
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,713
Then do as many of us do. Buy early S&Ws without The Lock and it is a non-issue. Unless you want to prosecute me for buying the wrong gun.
Wishing accomplishes nothing. Ignoring it works, until it decides to lock itself. There are just enough examples of this occuring (I know someone who had it happen to him, and you can be certain that he is a believer...as I became, after his experience) to concern those of us who view a self defense weapon as a tool, which should be devoid of extraneous add-on flaws. Hold your breath, stomp your feet all you want. (The popular term is denial.) It changes absolutely nothing.
End of story as far as I'm concerned.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
The so-called storage safety device is not a secure system since all the keys are the same. Anyone who has bought a S&W revolver equipped with the ILS system has 2 keys which fit all S&W revolvers.
"Your Honor, the gun was locked when I put it away, someone must have unlocked it!"
"Your Honor, the gun was locked when I put it away, someone must have unlocked it!"
Kind of Blued
Member
The internal-lock brings me to the lowest common denominator by assuming that I may "get stupid" enough at some point to need to "lock" a loaded gun and leave it lying around for anybody and everybody to play with, instead of just keeping it out of those hands in the first place.
It's offensive, ugly, and becomes depressing when I must acknowledge it.
It's offensive, ugly, and becomes depressing when I must acknowledge it.
mauiglide
Member
The ILS on my S&W revolvers doesn't bother me one bit. I don't look at it and I don't use the key to lock it. To secure my firearms, I place them in a safe and lock it. I've never took issue with it and never will.
sourdough44
Member
I thought they were now selling a few of the S&W models without the lock?? I just ignore mine though.
FoMoGo
Member
I disable the locks on mine.
If I get sued... I will be alive to defend myself.
Jim
If I get sued... I will be alive to defend myself.
Jim
ArchAngelCD
Member.
SaxonPig,
I wasn't speaking of myself. (but thank you for your concern) I wouldn't be in that situation because I don't leave any of my guns lying around where someone who isn't supposed to touch them can. (just like most of us) Even if I did have to leave a handgun out of the safe for some reason there's always a trigger lock. I kinda like trigger locks because once I remove it, it's really gone and can't disable the revolver all by itself.
I wasn't speaking of myself. (but thank you for your concern) I wouldn't be in that situation because I don't leave any of my guns lying around where someone who isn't supposed to touch them can. (just like most of us) Even if I did have to leave a handgun out of the safe for some reason there's always a trigger lock. I kinda like trigger locks because once I remove it, it's really gone and can't disable the revolver all by itself.
Rmac58
Member
I have a S&W with one, no issues. It's had a few hundred rounds through it, and has been dropped.
I have read on a S&W forum about this. The consensus was that of new weapon failures, and being dropped.
I have read on a S&W forum about this. The consensus was that of new weapon failures, and being dropped.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Rmac58,
Just to be punny, it's like leaving a loaded gun laying around. If the lock fails at a bad time you can DIE. The problem is, if the lock mechanism fails the default state disables the revolver. If it were the other way around there would be much less resistance from me. I still wouldn't like the ugly hole in the side but I would worry about my SD gun becoming inoperable because a tiny spring inside fails.
Just to be punny, it's like leaving a loaded gun laying around. If the lock fails at a bad time you can DIE. The problem is, if the lock mechanism fails the default state disables the revolver. If it were the other way around there would be much less resistance from me. I still wouldn't like the ugly hole in the side but I would worry about my SD gun becoming inoperable because a tiny spring inside fails.
Much of the vitriol over the lock comes from the politics involved. To many people's eyes, S&W sold out the gun industry by buckling to superfluous legal arguments and political pressure. They had the option to stand and use their substantial position in the industry and profits to fight off Clinton administration attacks, but they cut and run. The locks are part of the parcel of that cowardice and lack of commitment to the industry and gun rights.
Many people care about ethics, not just the little pimple on the left side of the frame. And this is where much of that vitriol comes from. The "old" S&W is dead, and the current VC vultures who picked up the company in the aftermath of the boycott and the backlash don't do very much to endear them to the long-time customers.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
I just can't understand why S&W and now others are adding internal locking "storage devices" when every handgun you buy comes with an external lock anyway. (either in the form of a trigger lock or a big pad lock)
- Status