Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkymingeo
Reliability should not affect the decision to buy an IL revolver, because the lock is easily disabled. Simply isn't an issue. Both of my 11.5oz pocket carry guns have disabled locks, and are 100% reliable. When many of us buy a new gun we change grips, sights, springs and pins. Fixing the IL is just another customizing step. Rabid lock haters aren't worried about the gun going bang. They have other gripes, I think.
|
The question of disabling the lock revolves around possible increased liability and prosecutor arguments if the gun is used in self defense or is stolen. There is the Catch 22 of the lock:
If the gun is stolen and it is IL equipped and in an unlocked condition, you may be liable for a criminals misuse of the gun. If it is locked, it is as usless to you as a stone.
Some prosecutors MAY argue that you have disabled a safety device and therefore were out looking to get into a gunfight. The fact that the IL is a STORAGE DEVICE and NOT a SAFETY DEVICE doesnt matter to the prosecutor or plaintiffs lawyer. Its just more wind that can come out of his mouth that you have to defend against.
So which is cheaper? A) Buying a NON I(L equipped gun or B) Paying a lawyer to defend against BS Arguments?
The mitigating argument is that S&W is now producing NON IL equipped guns such as the 642-1, now on gunstore shelves. For S&W to do that, there must be a market for NON IL guns and/or there is a problem with the IL that they havent admitted.
Now, given S&Ws refusal to admit that the IL fails, if you get killed in a gunfight due to a locked gun, an expert has to prove that the guns IL failed, which is easier said than done. The guns chain of custody must be proven to start with. No one tampered with it. Then proof other than someones word that the IL engaged on its own. That would be tough to prove in Court, especially with S&Ws experts swearing that this has never occured even once out of a gizillion guns.