|
|
09-05-2008, 06:14 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wilton,New York
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Why do shooters dislike the locks so much?
__________________
Anchors
|
09-05-2008, 06:14 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wilton,New York
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Why do shooters dislike the locks so much?
__________________
Anchors
|
09-05-2008, 06:27 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mass/Florida
Posts: 161
Likes: 3
Liked 62 Times in 16 Posts
|
|
They two most commonly stated reasons would be that they are really ugly and have been known to have reliability issues for a personal defense gun. While I suspect the reliability issues are in the minority, they do ruin they classic lines of some otherwise elegant firearms for no good reason. I am sure that Very Few people actually use them. They are just about as effective as the warning labels that Ruger stamps on the barrels of all their guns. I am a huge fan of S&W and all that they have done, but absolutely refuse to ever own one of their locking guns.For that matter I don't own any of the MIM part guns either. The recent release of a few "limited" non lock guns though is giving me a glimmer of hope. There are a number of PC guns I will own if they ever become lock free.
|
09-05-2008, 06:39 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Back in Kentucky!!!
Posts: 465
Likes: 347
Liked 122 Times in 49 Posts
|
|
That's pretty much it. They're horribly ugly, utterly unnecessary, and potentially dangerous.
|
09-05-2008, 07:12 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 7,330
Likes: 7,502
Liked 5,556 Times in 2,547 Posts
|
|
I'm not sure what utterly unnecessary means, but I don't think that it applies to The Lock. Many years ago, I would have used one under certain limited circumstances if a reliable one were available. Unfortunately, there is not a reliable one available from S&W.
The addition of a limited-use device that has malfunctioned in a way that could easily get one killed, in exactly the circumstances for which one is carrying a gun, is unacceptable in a defensive weapon. I don't see anything wrong with it for a target piece, although in my present circumstances, I have absolutely no use for one.
You can avoid them pretty easily by buying a used gun, or neuter one if you have to have a particular new gun.
__________________
Formerly Model520Fan
|
09-05-2008, 01:12 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Nicholasville, Kentucky
Posts: 903
Likes: 1
Liked 27 Times in 13 Posts
|
|
Quote:
the warning labels that Ruger stamps on the barrels
|
Now that's butt ugly.
|
09-05-2008, 01:37 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Liked 42 Times in 23 Posts
|
|
Further down the page you'll notice a thread about a no-lock frame failure. The general reaction is ho-hum. Mention the lock and the screams begin. Makes you wonder about some people's ability to keep things in perspective, doesn't it?
|
09-05-2008, 01:48 PM
|
|
Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: GSO NC
Posts: 6,106
Likes: 23,604
Liked 13,182 Times in 2,860 Posts
|
|
pinkymingeo - You didn't provide a link to the thread you referenced, but if you are talking about the cracked frame 638-2 thread, the reactions didn't seem "ho-hum".
Rather, the majority of the responses were of disgust with the inferior lock equipped revolver that Safety Wesson will likely replace the cracked 638-2 with.
Didn't notice any screams either Just disgust with the current production revolvers. Nothing new there, well, for some of us. Regards 18DAI.
__________________
7 +1 Rounds of hope & change
|
09-05-2008, 02:35 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 106
Likes: 1
Liked 10 Times in 6 Posts
|
|
I think it is generally agreed that the IL is a STORAGE lock, not meant to be locked on the gun if loaded, kept nearby for defense, or carried.
Then, as a storage lock, its function could be better supplied by an external trigger lock, either keyed or one of the combination type. That would satisfy the storage lock function without degrading and complicating the gun's design.
If the IL key is lost, then you have to have or get another one, or take the gun apart before it is ready to use. So if you can keep track of a key, why not keep track of a key or combination to an EXTERNAL separate trigger lock ? The IL is not truly internal anyway if it needs an external and separate key to work.
If Smith found it advisable to incorporate a storage lock, by the same precepts is it only a matter of time before there will be a safety switch/lever also ?
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|