1) The lock serves no legitimate purpose, and should not be there. I do not care about the esthetics of its presence; I am moderately bothered by the politics, but the lack of utility, combined with the small but not zero chance of failure makes it a no-go for me. Note that at least one poster other than I has pointed out being aware of LE agencies prohibiting S&W revolvers with the lock. That's called a clue.

2) The fact that other flaws have resulted in failures is not relevant. That just means that mechanical devices can have flaws, and have to be properly examined before shipping (*cough*), sale (*cough*) and being put in service. I saw plenty of failures of 3rd gen semi-auto pistols on the range (a staggering number, in fact), including brand new, taken out of the box in my presence, 4566s. There were agencies that bought the 2 piece barrel L frames and had an awful time with them (one comes to mind in particular, a state corrections system in the SE, IIRC). There is an agency right now suing a manufacturer for fraud due to changes in the models delivered from what was tested (NJSP and Sig, IIRC, but don't quote me), and of course, there was the EoTech debacle with their fraud settlement after at least a decade of hard use folks pointing out their excremental nature. (IMHO, people should have gone to prison.)

I recall seeing problems with Glocks (good idea fairy and stupid specs, badly built), and as a rule I would not have a Sig that I had not tested a lot, and then only one of their traditional DA/SA models (I have a 239). I ordered a new Sig some years ago and it was so poorly made when it arrived the dealer refused it without even calling me first.

3) The line of questioning posited hypothetically above (about removing a safety device) is grossly improper. I have never seen a real lawyer actually propose or advocate for such questioning. It would violate evidence rules (not relevant); require having had a qualified expert firearms examiner testify incorrectly or falsely, would require a prosecutor to violate ethics rules, require a defense attorney to be a lazy buffoon (any decent qualified defense attorney would get pre-trial rulings prohibiting that), and would result in a reversal on appeal if anyone had a clue. (I'll admit there are a lot of really crummy lawyers out there; I beat them regularly and I scream bloody murder about their actions when they are allegedly fellow prosecutors. As a use of force litigation consultant, I see utterly awful work and my opinion of that would cause collective heart failure in the mods if I expressed it.) I do get questions from other prosecutors, in and out of my office on gun stuff, and help them do it right.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.