S&W internal locks ?

[ArchAngelCD]

It is a safety device. It is made to make the gun safe while stored and to prevent accidental discharge.

I haven't seen any statistics but my guess would be that the don't fail any more often than other mechanical aspects of a revolver, and that means almost never.

hinton03,
If you need a lock to prevent the discharge of your weapon while being stored there's something very wrong with the whole situation. Why would you keep a gun loaded in your safe? Even if you had the gun out of the safe a trigger lock is a better tool for keeping the gun safe than the ILS.

As for the ILS malfunctioning, you may be right, it might not malfunction more than other part of the gun BUT, it's an unnecessary part which will lock the gun when it does malfunction. It's taking a needless chance with your life since a trigger lock will achieve the same end but when that trigger lock is removed it's really gone and can't disable the weapon all by itself. My main beef with the ILS is how it works. If a tiny little spring breaks, by default the revolver becomes useless. If the revolver would remain usable in the event that tiny little spring breaks there would be much less resistance to the ILS. It's a bad setup and it's dangerous on a defensive weapon.

 

[hinton03]

If you read my previous posts I do not care for the locks and only own one revolver with the ILS and only because the new Nightguard is a design I couldn't get without one.

Like it or not, the fact of the matter is S&W revolvers have them and will likely continue to have them. If you don't want the ILS don't buy one, but diabling it is asking for trouble.

Personally I don't care for the grip safety on a 1911 either, it was not part of the original design and thyere are many instances where the safety prevented the gun from being fired based on the grip the user had to take in close quarters. There are plenty of SAO pistols without a grip safety and they are no less safe than the 1911, but try and get a smith to disable or pin one. If you talk to the same smiths I talked to they require that you sign a waiver stating that the pistol is only to be used as a target weapon and will not be used for self defense....I wonder why that is. It is because a DA will not only screw you but them as well for disabling the safety, even if it has nothing to do with the threat or your need to use justifiable deadly force. I appauld Novak for their new "answer" design, and I would have that modification performed on my 1911s if I could afford it.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

You're doing it again. You are equating the ILS with a actual safety feature, the grip safety on a 1911. Disabling the grip safety on a 1911 will effect the possibility of the gun firing, disabling the ILS won't.

 

[hinton03]

I understand that. The point is it isn't needed and there are many SAO guns out there without a grip safety that would not be call into question if used, but disable the 1911 safety and it would be a problem even though it is no more unsafe than a Sig SAO P220.

Modifying the ILS on a S&W would be used against you period. I don't understand why you believe the DA has to be logical or fair, he will use anything to win once the decision is made to prosecute, and that decision is just as likely to be political as it is righteous.

 

[hinton03]

Direct answer on this very question by Mas Ayoob, I know some here think they are smarter on this subject than he is, from the firing line forum, 2005-12-01.


"Anyone with a three-digit IQ knows that unscrupulous attorneys may come after them with unmeritorious arguments in the wake of a justified shooting. Telling them "Aw, don't worry about it" is kinda like Sarah Brady telling people, "Aw, criminals won't come after you. You don't need a gun."

People know the crapload of trouble they can get into after the most justified shooting. It can make people hesitate long enough to be killed. That's why I make a point of educating folks how to deal with the aftermath, so they'll know they can get through it and not die from fatal hesitation in the moment of truth.

Why do you think you won't find a reputable gunsmith who will remove a safety device from a firearm? Did you think I scared them? They know what is likely to happen in a litigious society when a money-hungry plaintiff's lawyer or a politically-motivated prosecutor goes after someone who was in a "clean shoot" and tries to make them appear reckless and irresponsible.

The jury will have been cleared of knowledgeable gun folks during voir dire, the jury selection process. When opposing counsel presents their "theory of the case", they will need to establish recklessness. Removing a safety device from a lethal weapon plays right into their hands.

You, the shooter, now have to convince the jury that you know more about the gun than its designer and manufacturer. Pretty high mountain to climb.

In a manslaughter case in Miami some years ago, famed defense attorney Mark Seiden did a case in which the prosecutor made a big deal about the deactivated magazine disconnector safety on the defendant's Browning Hi-Power, which was in his car at the scene but was not even the death weapon. The case was plea-bargained, and Mark prefers that his client's name not be used to spare him further humiliation, but Mark himself will confirm that it happened.

Haven't personally seen a case involving the S&W lock, but the same principles would undoubtedly apply. Personally, I just make a point of using pre-lock models for my J-frame carry needs.

Decision is yours, folks. It's your life and your future. But get all the information and make a fully informed decision."

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I give up... You are going to believe what you want so I'm done.

 

[Guillermo]

the facts are pretty clear

A-the IL increases the chance, albeit small, that your gun will not function

B- it is poorly designed as the rotation matches the force generated by recoil

C-the lock is there due to a deal with the Clinton administration

D- in most people's opinion it is ugly

E- most customers do not like it

So to buy a S&W is to spend money with a company that continues to put a poorly designed, ugly lock that can possibly cause your firearm not to function despite the desires of its customers.

Sounds like positive reinforcement for bad behavior to me

 

[Old Fuff]

I need to defend Smith & Wesson...

But just on one particular point. The present owners and management did not make any kind of a deal with the Clinton Administration. The "deal" was made by a previous owner based in England. When the current owners bought the company - at a substantially discounted price - one of the conditions was that they had to honor ALL of the agreements made by the seller. They also had to take over the company's debts and other obligations.

Now one can argue that they shouldn't have bought the company with this sort of stipulation, but in that case there would be no Smith & Wesson Co. today. If the sale didn't go through the U.K. owners were ready to shut the operation down. Be that as it may, I'm glad they are around to make guns for those that don't have any objection to the lock.

 

[Hawk]

the facts are pretty clear

A-the IL increases the chance, albeit small, that your gun will not function

B- it is poorly designed as the rotation matches the force generated by recoil

C-the lock is there due to a deal with the Clinton administration

D- in most people's opinion it is ugly

E- most customers do not like it

They're not all that clear to some of us.

A. Concur.

B. I go along with poorly designed but I'm not sure that's a reason. There's a number of "flag up / hammer back" reports and the hammer is being forced against, rather that away from, the frame by recoil impulse. The "flag and lug" has to move up and back.
Cunningham's got some interesting notes here:
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2008/05/lock-mess-monster.html

C. This is the one that seems odd. The lock doesn't comply with the agreement which calls for keys "unique" to the gun rather than one size fits all. See:
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/sw-hud.html
The purchaser was a lock company after all with intent to incorporate reported early on:
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2001/05/14/daily1.html

Barring someone who actually knows (which I don't), Occam's Razor would lead one to believe that a non-compliant lock is there more because of the purchaser's existing line than an attempt to comply with an agreement with a non-compliant lock. If Garmin bought Ford and every new Ford suddenly showed up with a GPS this would be understandable without invoking anything more complicated. The fact that the lock is non-compliant makes the square peg a possible but "forced" fit into the "agreement" round hole.

D. I doubt it. It may be ugly to most revolver enthusiasts and / or most internet gun board posters but I doubt that appraisal spills over into the real world mostly because...

E. They're selling just fine. John Q. revolver buyer doesn't care - I have AFMER2002 to AFMER2006 and S&W's revolver sales have gone from 118,000 to 185,000 in that time. Customers have a habit of not buying what they don't like but they've gone up over 15% just from '05 to '06.


I'm forced to conclude that the general "real world" buying public bears little resemblence to the picture painted on internet gun boards.

It'll be interesting how the limited "no locks" have sold and if they'll be followed by any others. While I would very much like to see some more no-lock product, I'd bet the rent their sales would NOT increase enough to be statistically significant.

First, there will be a significant number of folks that won't be won over by no hole in the frame so long as MIM, crushed barrels, matt finishes, shallow rifling or whatever else remains.

Just because someone won't buy a S&W with a lock doesn't mean they will buy a new one without the lock.

 

[hinton03]

Can someone tell me which guns are part of the limited run "no lock" production and when will they be available?

Thanks

 

[Guillermo]

Just because someone won't buy a S&W with a lock doesn't mean they will buy a new one without the lock.

On this there is no argument. My last new gun purchase was a Springfield XD45. I did not even consider the M&P competitor due to the lock on the Smith revolvers.

They're selling just fine

This is due to lack of competition. Taurus is a mixed bag. It is annoying to buy a new gun that needs trigger work so Ruger is out. What else is there? Charter Arms? No...thank you anyway.

John Q. revolver buyer doesn't care

True...therefore when you buy a Smith you are supporting a company that plays to the lowest common denominator, the dumb masses.

Of course I support your right to buy whatever firearm you would like, including a Smith. This is (or recently was) America.

I reserve my right not to do business with a company that creates a product that includes an ugly, poorly designed, superfluous lock that might render my weapon virtually useless.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Fuff, my understanding is that the new owners who bought S&W from Metropolitan plc (which also owns Burger King) have NOT followed the HUD deal or other settlements --which is why they were able to revive the company after consumer boycotts had cut their sales literally in half and nearly killed the company outright, leading to the acquisition of S&W for virtually a song.

 

[batmann]

Nothing like a S&W IL thread to get things moving. Time to put on the Popcorn.

 

[Norvell]

Hinton03:
I bought a no-lock 642-1 on 1/11/09; it had been test fired at S&W on 10/28/08 and shipped out the next day.

 

[Old Fuff]

Fuff, my understanding is that the new owners who bought S&W from Metropolitan plc (which also owns Burger King) have NOT followed the HUD deal or other settlements --which is why they were able to revive the company after consumer boycotts had cut their sales literally in half and nearly killed the company outright, leading to the acquisition of S&W for virtually a song.

Pretty much true. When Bush followed Clinton rather then Gore it was made clear that the new administration would not assist the Petitioners in this case in any way or form. This took the wind out of their sails, so they sort of backed down. For 8 years S&W, as well as the rest of the handgun industry was able to operated without being under an axe. But now that may change. We shall see.

 

[hinton03]

Very cool. Thanks

 

[johnchamp]

im back they said by the summer time,ive been busy over the SMITH&WESSON FORUM! anyway thats all the info i have they did come out with a compact 1911 metal frame

 

[FullEffect1911]

therefore when you buy a Smith you are supporting a company that plays to the lowest common denominator, the dumb masses.

Guillermo

Seeing as I take insult to that (or i would if this wasn't an internet forum), perhaps you should choose your words more carefully and remain highroad.

 

[Guillermo]

FullEffect1911,

It was not my intent to insult anyone. I have never come across anyone who LIKES the lock...only those that are ambivilent.

 

[FullEffect1911]

FullEffect1911,

It was not my intent to insult anyone.

Well alright then, no insult taken.

I have never come across anyone who LIKES the lock...only those that are ambivilent.

I agree completely, and pretty much sums up the whole thread imo.

For me it usually comes down to either getting some close to what I want (an IL S&W), or not having it at all. If it came in I will be going today to get a new 620, and I look forward to it.

 

[Guillermo]

FullEffect,

Thank you for accepting my apology.

This stuff can get emotional and sometimes we forget who the enemy is. I have no desire to insult my allies.

Guys like you make this the High Road.

Be Well
Guillermo

 

[ultramag44]

LONE GUNMAN said: 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.

That is another reason I live in Texas. We have the castle law (also covers your place of business and car).

The bad guy 'plucks' up, we shoot, NO criminal charges, NO civil litigation, NO problem!

 

[johnchamp]

update: got rid of my 642-1 and bought a 640-3 with the lock no failures what so ever 357 ammo & 38spcl+p through it and no problems!

 

[Marvin KNox]

It's been a good while since I noticed this thread.

Since posting last, I've had extensive trigger work done on both of my J frames. Since they were in the hands of an expert - I took the locks out.

They didn't strike me as something to worry a great deal about - as I said before. Still, I always said that if I had them opened up by an expert I'd have him do the work on the locks. No charge to me at all. That was a good thing.

I didn't think much about them before and I don't think about them at all now that my guns are "post lock" models.

The only thing that really p.ssed me off before, and still does, is the fact that Smith and Wesson drilled an ugly hole in the side of my favorite guns - that and the politics of it all.

 

[ArmedBear]

My last new gun purchase was a Springfield XD45. I did not even consider the M&P competitor due to the lock on the Smith revolvers.

Hmmm....

This about sums it up.

Personally, I find the lock to be a bit silly on a handgun. A handgun is pretty easy to "snatch and grab", locked or not.

I mean, if I'm afraid of it falling into the wrong hands, I'll lock it up in a secure container of some sort or another. That's one reason I like handguns: you can do that easily, even in a car or hotel room.

That said, I've actually used the S&W lock to comply with NPS regs when I found myself in their jurisdiction unexpectedly. Soon, that won't be an issue.

Personally, I can see more use for a lock on a long gun that you might leave in camp with some people whose judgment you don't entirely trust, for reasons of inebriation among other things.

I fall into the "ambivalent" camp. I have more pre-locks than locks, but if a gun is a recent introduction, the lock doesn't prevent me from buying it. And it certainly wouldn't keep me from buying an M&P -- I just already own the XD in question, too.