Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee's Landing Billy
A S&W rep told us to our face that we would never see another S&W revolver with an exposed hammer without a lock. He said it would be a legal nightmare to remove a "safety device" once it was introduced into production. This was 2 years ago at the dealers meet in Columbia, S.C. at the fairgrounds.
|
Exactly what I've been saying for years. They'd get pilloried by the media and every AD thereafter would result in a suit & big settlement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silversnake
And yet, they were able to introduce the M&P Shield with a thumb safety, only to release a safety-less version a couple years later?
Why would the exposed hammer make any difference?
Edit: If there's really some reason they can't make one with an exposed hammer, how about producing a K-Frame centennial? I'd buy a new 66 (or even something like a Nightguard 315 or 386) with a concealed hammer if it meant no internal lock.
|
Because the SA trigger on an S&W revo is about 1/2 the weight of an M&P and doesn't have the take up. Bottom line is, once they put it on revolvers, it'd be easier to put toothpaste back in the tube than remove it.
A K-frame Centennial: my thoughts exactly! Especially a 3" scandium .357 (a "319")