Tell me more about the lock
- Thread starter TinyDee
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
flgolfer29
Member
I've heard of an instance or so where the lock self engages while shooting, rendering the revolver unshootable.
I have a 686 with lock and have had no instances, to date, of unwanted lockup.
I have a 686 with lock and have had no instances, to date, of unwanted lockup.
ray45
Member
Just a dumb idea. Better to lock your guns in a safe for storage.
What is the thinking on this.....let me lock my revolver so the kids can play with it???
What is the thinking on this.....let me lock my revolver so the kids can play with it???
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 27,669
- Reaction score
- 21,359
It is more of a storage safety device than something you activate in a hurry. It was put in the guns due to Federal political pressure at a time when the factory was publicly trying to be in the government's good graces, pretty much alone among the major gun makers.
Many resent the device being put on the guns at all, and there have been (rare) documented instances of the lock tying up the gun from functioning. Personally, I rarely buy guns of the lock era and only if an equivalent no-lock model is unavailable.
Many resent the device being put on the guns at all, and there have been (rare) documented instances of the lock tying up the gun from functioning. Personally, I rarely buy guns of the lock era and only if an equivalent no-lock model is unavailable.
wheelgunnut
Member
The infernal integral lock
You will hear anecdotes of failures jamming up a piece as well as the "I've never had a problem" stories. Bottom line: it's an unnecessary mechanical device which can fail at the worst possible time. Not to mention a kowtow to anti-gun elements as much as warning labels hammered into barrels and devalues the gun.
BILL SHANER #2148
You will hear anecdotes of failures jamming up a piece as well as the "I've never had a problem" stories. Bottom line: it's an unnecessary mechanical device which can fail at the worst possible time. Not to mention a kowtow to anti-gun elements as much as warning labels hammered into barrels and devalues the gun.
BILL SHANER #2148
Last edited:
RetLawman590
Member
Don't want the hijack the thread, but has anyone chance that manufacturers will begin to produce without these internal locks? Are there any new laws in the works?
Thanks
Thanks
photoman
Member
photoman
Member
The internal locks are not legally mandated. I can't imagine this Congress or ~any~ Congress passing a law that outlaws internal locks on handguns.
Smith & Wesson makes new J frames without the internal locks. I recommend everyone buy as many as you can, while you can. Of course I recommend everyone buy as many J frames as you can anyway.
aterry33
Member
Pretty much what everyone said above, plus:
Most of the recorded lock failures (I have seen one at the range myself) have come with shooting hot loads out of the very light "3" series revovlers, i.e. 329, 340, etc. It is by all appearances very rare but it has happened. All things considered, there is absolutely no need for this sort of lock on a firearm. We know it, Smith & Wesson knows it, but I don't think their lawyers will let them change.
Most of the recorded lock failures (I have seen one at the range myself) have come with shooting hot loads out of the very light "3" series revovlers, i.e. 329, 340, etc. It is by all appearances very rare but it has happened. All things considered, there is absolutely no need for this sort of lock on a firearm. We know it, Smith & Wesson knows it, but I don't think their lawyers will let them change.
NFrameFred
Member
They are making HAMMERLESS double-action only J frames . . . not complaining, just don't understand the reasoning. The model 40 re-intro's with a back-strap safety I could see as arguable as to whether or not a small child could operate it, but the other centennial models ? Like I said, the more the better but unless it's a camel's nose under the tent sort of thing I don't really follow the reasoning.
Last edited:
I'm afraid Smith' painted themselves into a corner, and took us along with them. Still, there are a couple being produced without the lock and I'm puzzled as to why they haven't included a few more. Both of mine have the lock and I simply try to ignore it. I won't disable the lock for the same stupid liability reasons as S&W. If it's there, then I feel I have to keep it there in the unlikely event of a lawful shooting. It just stands to reason (in my mind) that attorney's would leverage the removal as 'depraved indifference'.
Last edited:
ray45
Member
Perhaps we should start a thread on ...The reason I lock my revolver is...
I think I will.
........................I did!
Last edited:
pinkymingeo
Member
There apparently have been a couple of actual cases of the lock self-engaging, and countless unrelated operational problems blamed on the lock by those who don't know how revolvers work, and can't strip their guns or diagnose malfunctions. Guys who refuse to buy a lock gun because it might malfunction are, I think, being a little disingenuous. The lock is easily disabled, so that really shouldn't be an issue. Fearing liability concerns is silly. All of my revolvers have a mix of aftermarket springs, firing pins, sights, grips and action jobs. Those modifications don't worry me or most anybody else. Why should deactivating a storage lock be a factor? I don't like the lock on aesthetic grounds, period. I currently have three revolvers with the lock, alloy Airlites that aren't produced without it. I wouldn't consider buying a steel gun with the lock, but not because I'm afraid it might self-engage. I just don't like the things.
ray45
Member
Now thats humorous!Just a dumb idea. Better to lock your guns in a safe for storage.
Does this mean that someone can steal it even if it is locked?
Similar threads
- Locked
