indigo8675
Member
Safety Minded Policies Result in Unsafe Practices
by Tim Schultz
We all have seen it happen, at work, in government and just about any organized institution. I'm talking about policy makers within any organization who attempt to improve upon what is already working. You have probably also heard the phrase, "if it isn't broken don't fix it", but that is exactly what happen so many years ago during the Clinton administration. They made a deal with Smith and Wesson to have an internal locking mechanism put into their revolvers. Revolvers without the internal lock have proven to be one of the safest, and most reliable firearms you can purchase, but that wasn't enough. Here is the result of what internal safety locks on revolvers have actually accomplished.
#1) First and foremost we must look at how these changes have positively improved safety. The sad answer is they have not. In fact there has been no significant changes in the number of deaths related to having an internal locking mechanism vs. any other safety gun lock. So why could this issue not have been foreseen? The answer is that people who do not really know anything about firearms should not make firearm policies. Offering a safety lock with each firearm is not a bad idea but why should you have one with an internal lock that impedes function?
#2) Revolvers now have the potential to lock up on their own and in fact they sometimes do. Regardless of what Smith and Wesson employees who are afraid of losing their jobs tell you. Basically you have taken the most reliable handgun possible and made it less reliable because more internal moving parts equals more chances for things to go wrong and in fact they do.
#3) I'm sure that the potential for other parts to now go wrong is possible but let's talk specifically about the internal firing pin. If you pick up a pre-Clinton Smith and Wesson with an external firing pin you will notice that there is a roll pin that securely holds the firing pin in place. This can easily be changed by anyone once it becomes worn but with an internal firing pin you will probably have to take it to a Gun Smith to have it done.
#4) It is a fact that revolvers with an internal firing pin require about 25% more power to pull the trigger. Even if you get a trigger job done on the revolver, it is still a stiffer less responsive firearm. Anyone who compares a trigger job done on a firearm with an external trigger vs. and internal trigger will instantly notice the difference.
#5) Accuracy suffers when you have a stiffer trigger, because follow up shots will cause the barrel to rise up and down resulting in less accuracy. I don't know about you but I thought that accuracy was a safety issue in and of itself.
So there you have it. The people at Smith and Wesson who actually know the difference are probably worried about keeping their jobs so they won't tell you these points. In fact if you look on their website they tend to show lots of views of the revolver from the right side to cover up the drilled hole with arrows on the left side. If I were an officer I would purchase a revolver from the past that I know will work when I need it. Can you imagine pulling it out to protect school children or a family and it locks up? Or how about if the Secret Service had to protect the president but missed their target because of an inaccurate follow up shot? Lastly, if you were part of the failing anti-gun campaign you might want to make small changes because over time this will make a big difference. Policy makers who impede the function of the very firearms we depend on are in fact eroding the Second Amendment.
by Tim Schultz
We all have seen it happen, at work, in government and just about any organized institution. I'm talking about policy makers within any organization who attempt to improve upon what is already working. You have probably also heard the phrase, "if it isn't broken don't fix it", but that is exactly what happen so many years ago during the Clinton administration. They made a deal with Smith and Wesson to have an internal locking mechanism put into their revolvers. Revolvers without the internal lock have proven to be one of the safest, and most reliable firearms you can purchase, but that wasn't enough. Here is the result of what internal safety locks on revolvers have actually accomplished.
#1) First and foremost we must look at how these changes have positively improved safety. The sad answer is they have not. In fact there has been no significant changes in the number of deaths related to having an internal locking mechanism vs. any other safety gun lock. So why could this issue not have been foreseen? The answer is that people who do not really know anything about firearms should not make firearm policies. Offering a safety lock with each firearm is not a bad idea but why should you have one with an internal lock that impedes function?
#2) Revolvers now have the potential to lock up on their own and in fact they sometimes do. Regardless of what Smith and Wesson employees who are afraid of losing their jobs tell you. Basically you have taken the most reliable handgun possible and made it less reliable because more internal moving parts equals more chances for things to go wrong and in fact they do.
#3) I'm sure that the potential for other parts to now go wrong is possible but let's talk specifically about the internal firing pin. If you pick up a pre-Clinton Smith and Wesson with an external firing pin you will notice that there is a roll pin that securely holds the firing pin in place. This can easily be changed by anyone once it becomes worn but with an internal firing pin you will probably have to take it to a Gun Smith to have it done.
#4) It is a fact that revolvers with an internal firing pin require about 25% more power to pull the trigger. Even if you get a trigger job done on the revolver, it is still a stiffer less responsive firearm. Anyone who compares a trigger job done on a firearm with an external trigger vs. and internal trigger will instantly notice the difference.
#5) Accuracy suffers when you have a stiffer trigger, because follow up shots will cause the barrel to rise up and down resulting in less accuracy. I don't know about you but I thought that accuracy was a safety issue in and of itself.
So there you have it. The people at Smith and Wesson who actually know the difference are probably worried about keeping their jobs so they won't tell you these points. In fact if you look on their website they tend to show lots of views of the revolver from the right side to cover up the drilled hole with arrows on the left side. If I were an officer I would purchase a revolver from the past that I know will work when I need it. Can you imagine pulling it out to protect school children or a family and it locks up? Or how about if the Secret Service had to protect the president but missed their target because of an inaccurate follow up shot? Lastly, if you were part of the failing anti-gun campaign you might want to make small changes because over time this will make a big difference. Policy makers who impede the function of the very firearms we depend on are in fact eroding the Second Amendment.
