Smith & Wesson Locks ?
- Thread starter Bullet
- Start date
- Status
J Miller
Member
I voted for the "Get rid of them" choice. But only because the moderators would have deleted my post if I really told you what I'd like S&W to do with them.
Joe
mtnbkr
Member
I don't care much about the locks themselves (I see some value in them as an optional feature). What's more important to me is the Agreement they refuse to officially cancel.
Chris
Chris
45Badger
Member
Exactly why I won't buy one.
I'll just try to keep the secondary market in pre-lock guns afloat....
Offer a choice, it keeps everyone happy.
I personally HATE the locks, I think they have the potential to bring reliability down, and they distract from the looks somewhat (I don't consider them as ugly as most seem to though).
But I know there will be some folks who want the locks, and I have no problem if its offered as an option (i.e. pay more to GET A LOCK).
The way it is now sucks, because those of us who hate the locks either have to buy a used gun (somewhat risky--you never know if a gun has been abused), or a new one with the lock. I'm not so anti-lock that I won't buy a new Smith, but I certainly do think that the pre-lock Smiths are a lot more desirable.
I personally HATE the locks, I think they have the potential to bring reliability down, and they distract from the looks somewhat (I don't consider them as ugly as most seem to though).
But I know there will be some folks who want the locks, and I have no problem if its offered as an option (i.e. pay more to GET A LOCK).
The way it is now sucks, because those of us who hate the locks either have to buy a used gun (somewhat risky--you never know if a gun has been abused), or a new one with the lock. I'm not so anti-lock that I won't buy a new Smith, but I certainly do think that the pre-lock Smiths are a lot more desirable.
Ohen Cepel
Member
I haven't bought a S&W with the lock on it an have no plans to do so.
I just can't stand them. At least with the Taurus I could switch out the hammer to do away with it, or with the Springfield .45 you can get rid of the mainspring housing and it goes away. The S&W solution to the non-existant issue is going to leave a hole in the frame.
I just can't stand them.
I just can't stand them. At least with the Taurus I could switch out the hammer to do away with it, or with the Springfield .45 you can get rid of the mainspring housing and it goes away. The S&W solution to the non-existant issue is going to leave a hole in the frame.
I just can't stand them.
Beachcomber
Member
Get rid of 'em! ...unless
I think S&W should remove the frame lock from their revolvers and go back to supplying the trigger guard locks. I don't see any benefit for the end user other than the ability to disable their revolver without the need to use an after market gun lock.
The only benefit I could see for "some" S&W end users is the ability to be able to purchase some otherwise unavailable S&W handguns in states such as California and Massachusetts.
Given my choice... I would much rather use the standard Master Lock style trigger locks that I've been using for the past 25-30 years as compared to having a hole in my revolver frame, a small metal flag (that you can't see) which pops up when locked and, most importantly, the remote possibility of the revolver accidentally locking up.
At least with an aftermarket trigger lock the "offending user" would have to work a bit to find a key that was cut for the trigger lock as compared to using any generic key supplied by S&W.
To date, I only have a 696-2 with the infamous "ignition switch" and that's only due to the difficulty I had in locating this model revolver at a price that I could afford. Thankfully all of my other S&W's are of the older style and EACH (including the 696-2) has it's own separate Master Lock trigger guard lock.
Thanks for putting up with my ranting.
-Rick
I think S&W should remove the frame lock from their revolvers and go back to supplying the trigger guard locks. I don't see any benefit for the end user other than the ability to disable their revolver without the need to use an after market gun lock.
The only benefit I could see for "some" S&W end users is the ability to be able to purchase some otherwise unavailable S&W handguns in states such as California and Massachusetts.
Given my choice... I would much rather use the standard Master Lock style trigger locks that I've been using for the past 25-30 years as compared to having a hole in my revolver frame, a small metal flag (that you can't see) which pops up when locked and, most importantly, the remote possibility of the revolver accidentally locking up.
At least with an aftermarket trigger lock the "offending user" would have to work a bit to find a key that was cut for the trigger lock as compared to using any generic key supplied by S&W.
To date, I only have a 696-2 with the infamous "ignition switch" and that's only due to the difficulty I had in locating this model revolver at a price that I could afford. Thankfully all of my other S&W's are of the older style and EACH (including the 696-2) has it's own separate Master Lock trigger guard lock.
Thanks for putting up with my ranting.
-Rick
- Status