Josh Aston
Member
Can the lock on Smithes be removed? And does anyone make a plug to fill in the hole after the lock is gone?
S&W lock removal
- Thread starter Josh Aston
- Start date
- Status
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Yes, you can.
Not that I know of.
Personally I wouldn't plug the hole, as that's just replacing one thing with something else that might fall out and tie up the gun.
I find the whole S&W lock thing to be much ado about nothing. It's been way overblown on the internet. There were a very few problems at first, but they are gone now.
If you are really really concerned about it, put a drop of blue Lock-Tight on the lock and be done with it.
rcmodel
Not that I know of.
Personally I wouldn't plug the hole, as that's just replacing one thing with something else that might fall out and tie up the gun.
I find the whole S&W lock thing to be much ado about nothing. It's been way overblown on the internet. There were a very few problems at first, but they are gone now.
If you are really really concerned about it, put a drop of blue Lock-Tight on the lock and be done with it.
rcmodel
pinkymingeo
Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 591
There's a tab on the "flag" that locks the hammer. It's just a matter of pulling the flag, grinding the tab down, then reinstalling. Doesn't take long. The gun looks 100% factory. The lock just, well, doesn't lock anymore.
And be prepared to get your ass sued off by a sharp lawyer if that gun is ever used in a shooting. I know most folks around here disagree but trust me, you shoot someone and he or his survivors try a civil suit, that gun WILL be examined and the missing lock WILL be noted in the report to the attorney and he WILL make an issue of it before the jury who will not understand that the lock was a storage lock and not really a safety. You will be portrayed as some sort of lunatic for making the gun unsafe by removing a safety feature and the jurors will be carefully selected for their utter lack of knowledge about guns. They very well may fall for the lawyer's line.
Since when do the police disassemble evidence that is being used in a prosecution?
You honestly believe that if the gun was fired in self defense and handed over to the authorities volutarily leaving no doubt that it was the firearm used in the shoot, the police are then going to proceed to disassemble it in the HOPE of finding something the prosecutor (let alone the lawyer in a civil case) can use against the defendant?
A good defense lawyer could probably have that gun removed from evidence because it had been unreasonably tampered with after it was recovered by police.
Slugging the barrel is one thing but disassmbling the gun without reason is another.
You honestly believe that if the gun was fired in self defense and handed over to the authorities volutarily leaving no doubt that it was the firearm used in the shoot, the police are then going to proceed to disassemble it in the HOPE of finding something the prosecutor (let alone the lawyer in a civil case) can use against the defendant?
A good defense lawyer could probably have that gun removed from evidence because it had been unreasonably tampered with after it was recovered by police.
Slugging the barrel is one thing but disassmbling the gun without reason is another.
GTSteve03
Member
Yes it can be removed.
In my opinion, you would be better off selling the gun if you have it already, and buying an older S&W without the lock. You would be getting a higher quality revolver, anyway.
In my opinion, you would be better off selling the gun if you have it already, and buying an older S&W without the lock. You would be getting a higher quality revolver, anyway.
Sun195
Member
I keep hearing that messing with the safety/trigger/etc. on a gun = lawsuit city if it's ever used in a shooting. It seems plausible, but are there any documented cases of this happening?
I ask in part because I'd like to remove the j-lock from my 870 and replace it with a regular lock. Trouble, or no?
pinkymingeo
Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 591
The best advice I've heard is to make sure there's only one person testifying. Actually, a lot of guys fret about lawsuits following a shooting. The answer for them, of course, is don't carry a gun. If you carry, and have to use it, make sure it's a good shooting. If you wind up in court, the facts won't matter much anyway. The lawyer's job is to confuse the jury and misrepresent the facts, not seek truth. Lock/no lock, type of ammo, type of gun won't matter much, if at all.
At least once.....
I was retained to do the disassembling and examination to see if the firearm (a U.S. M-1 Carbine) had been tampered with. It haden't.
If the circumstances of the shooting suggest that some tampering with the gun might have been a factor, one side or the other will have the gun checked out. This is especially true in a civil suit. If nothing in what happened indicated anything out of the ordinary it is unlikely the gun would be examined though.
MachIVshooter
Member
When the gun IS the crime. If it is believed that the gun was modified internally in such a way that laws were violated, they will tear it apart. Such mods as filing the secondary sear to make it full auto, etc. I imagine they may also investigate the internal workings of the gun if the shooting was "accidental", and the defendant claims the gun malfunctioned.
However, I can't recall ever hearing about a gun that was used in a bona-fide defensive shooting being dismantled to inspect internal parts. There would be no good reason to. In a case of self defense, the individual who fired the gun has admitted to doing so intentionally, making the function of safeties within the firearm a moot point. Why would it matter if the lock or other safety was disabled if you intended to fire the gun?
strangelittleman
Member
In N.C. the weapon is most often taken to the SBI lab, where the weapon is often taken apart for inspection to check for illegal modification/mods that make weapon unsafe & faulty/broken parts that resulted in weapon unintentionally being fired, etc. This is for both L.E. and civilian weapons. The weapon can be in the SBI/ L.E.A. possession for the duration of the possible criminal legal action. Often this means 3weeks to 9months, maybe longer depending on backlogs in court and at the lab. Once the weapon is returned to owner or dept. it should be completely reassembled/ in same condition as sent. Once or twice in the distant past the owner or dept. received the weapon in a sack disassembled, the state was lambasted and they return the weapon properly now.
Sorry for the long answer, but this is probably the case in most of the U.S. This is why I have never taken the mag disconnector out of my mk3 BHP nor made any such mods to my weapons.
Sorry for the long answer, but this is probably the case in most of the U.S. This is why I have never taken the mag disconnector out of my mk3 BHP nor made any such mods to my weapons.
If a gun is used in a shooting, justified or unjustified, of necessity it has to be in an unlocked position anyway. How could someone argue that it should have been locked? In a defensive shooting it had better not be locked. Seems to me the status of the lock, even the very existence of the lock has no bearing on an intentional firing of the weapon, since the lock is designed to be used when it is in storage, not when it is in use. If a child found the weapon and there was an injury or death because the lock was disabled, I could see a lawsuit, but the lock has no bearing on the intentional firing of the weapon.
strangelittleman
Member
Perpster & Gary A, I know what you mean...It's Satan's children (lawyers, but not all of them, yes, there are some good honest ones left) that are the ones that pervert and twist everything to their advantage. Sadly, to some, justice means nothing in a court of law these days, it's all about winning, losing, feeding egos/reputations and fattening wallets.
CSA 357
Member
this is why i have no smiths with locks!
MCgunner
Member
I'd disable it, probably with loctite, the easiest way. Either a shooting is justified or it isn't. Whether the lock on the revolver works is moot unless it's a kid that finds your gun and shoots himself or someone. But, then, you SHOULD be sued, prosecuted, whatever.
I have decided that if I want a new Smith, I ain't gonna let the lock scare me off.
I have decided that if I want a new Smith, I ain't gonna let the lock scare me off.
carebear
Member
That legal argument would fall apart with the first expert witness for the defense's testimony, if not on the basis of the logical argument already expressed.
If there's an actual citation of the removal of the BHP mag drop safety (which again is irrelevent in a justifiable shoot) or of disabling a storage device (the Smith lock) influencing a trial, I'd like to read it.
Since there isn't (either example), and even I could destroy such an vapid argument on the stand, I wouldn't worry about it.
If there's an actual citation of the removal of the BHP mag drop safety (which again is irrelevent in a justifiable shoot) or of disabling a storage device (the Smith lock) influencing a trial, I'd like to read it.
Since there isn't (either example), and even I could destroy such an vapid argument on the stand, I wouldn't worry about it.
kingpin008
Member
Well, when there's a noticeable HOLE where a piece of the gun used to be, I'd imagine someone would investigate to see what that piece was. And when they find out it was a locking mechanism, you might have issues.
Josh Aston
Member
I personally find the idea of the locks to be repulsive. And if I want to remove it I will. I have never and don't ever intend to live anywhere that taking the trigger lock off of a gun would even be considered a bad idea. And if I did, then I'm perfectly capable of dealing with the consequences of my actions.
And thanks to those who gave a helpful answer.
And thanks to those who gave a helpful answer.
Master Blaster
Member
After spending 12 years in a previous career working for a Large property casualty insurance company, 6 spent handling major claims, big dollar liability lawsuits ( including product liability, pollution/toxic tort, medical malpractice)nothing a lawyer would say or do to win a lawsuit would surprise me.
BUT, the lawyers always go after the deep pockets, which means the manufacturer, or insurer. There has to be some relation to the perceived injury suffered, and damages sought, that would be clear to the jury.
In an intentional self defense shooting, the lock is a moot point.
If the lock or lack of one were the cause of the injury, however, the lawyer could also allege that since the store where the firearm was purchased also carried guns with locks and you picked one without the lock, an intentional and negligent act on your part was the cause of the injury..........
I have seen this very theory used in a product liability suit with great success.
So picking a poorly designed and faulty firearm with no lock when an improved model with a child safety lock was availible was a a grossly negligent and intentional act on the part of the defendent, and was the proximate cause of the injury to the 14 year old burglar who stole the gun and accidentally shot his friend in the head....
Or suppose the gun has the lock, and you just didnt lock it, and a 14 year old found the gun and accidentally pointed it at his friend and shot him....
Or perhaps in your jurisdiction local law says that guns should be stored unloaded, and you left yours loaded.....
You get the idea
BUT, the lawyers always go after the deep pockets, which means the manufacturer, or insurer. There has to be some relation to the perceived injury suffered, and damages sought, that would be clear to the jury.
In an intentional self defense shooting, the lock is a moot point.
If the lock or lack of one were the cause of the injury, however, the lawyer could also allege that since the store where the firearm was purchased also carried guns with locks and you picked one without the lock, an intentional and negligent act on your part was the cause of the injury..........
I have seen this very theory used in a product liability suit with great success.
So picking a poorly designed and faulty firearm with no lock when an improved model with a child safety lock was availible was a a grossly negligent and intentional act on the part of the defendent, and was the proximate cause of the injury to the 14 year old burglar who stole the gun and accidentally shot his friend in the head....
Or suppose the gun has the lock, and you just didnt lock it, and a 14 year old found the gun and accidentally pointed it at his friend and shot him....
Or perhaps in your jurisdiction local law says that guns should be stored unloaded, and you left yours loaded.....
You get the idea
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
I think that what most people are afraid of is the perception that someone removing a safety device on a firearm shows a "willfull disregard" irrespective of the justifiability of any particular shooting incident. So most people will be discouraged from making said modifications.
That being said, most lawyers are not gun people, wouldn't know what the lock is anyway, and wouldn't realize that that hole isn't supposed to be there.I have not found any documented cases where modifications to a weapon were an issue in a self-defense action (accidental shootings, yes). But don't take my word for it. If anyone has any info on cases where this has been an issue, I'd be very interested.
That being said, most lawyers are not gun people, wouldn't know what the lock is anyway, and wouldn't realize that that hole isn't supposed to be there.I have not found any documented cases where modifications to a weapon were an issue in a self-defense action (accidental shootings, yes). But don't take my word for it. If anyone has any info on cases where this has been an issue, I'd be very interested.
JERRY
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,850
Browning Highpowers have had thier magazine disconnectors removed religeously by many....and im sure at least one has been used in self defense.
shouldnt there be a big bruhaha about the civil suit that followed? that is if there was one?
many folks make the "prosecution" in a civil trial look like Gods, but dont give any credit to the "defense" attorneys....
making a "hair trigger" is not even in the same realm as removing a lock that only stops a gun from firing when not intended to do so by the rightful user....
however if you live in California or new jerseystan i could see where this might be an issue....
shouldnt there be a big bruhaha about the civil suit that followed? that is if there was one?
many folks make the "prosecution" in a civil trial look like Gods, but dont give any credit to the "defense" attorneys....
making a "hair trigger" is not even in the same realm as removing a lock that only stops a gun from firing when not intended to do so by the rightful user....
however if you live in California or new jerseystan i could see where this might be an issue....
Gator
Member
Definitely not gone, the locks are still causing problems.
+1
- Status
