Just out of curiosity, I visited the Taurus Forum and searched "security system." No posts there where someone refuses to buy a Taurus because it has an IL. People buy Springfield 1911's with an IL. HK has a lock. Why is it that only S&W forum members whine about the IL? I don't get it.

Outside of the politics of whether or not it was needed in the first place (a discussion of which could get us in hot water if we're not careful), a lock could have been devised which would have fit under the grips, thus not spoiling the lines of the pistol. Also, there was a slight alteration in the frame.
I haven't examined all pistols with internal locks, but those I have seen are rather unobtrusive. Some, in fact, so hard to reach that they were obviously placed there only to meet somebody's agenda that concerned something other than safety (avoid the horrible p******s discussion).

__________________
and what his trumpet saith

because when you close your eyes and picture a smith & wesson in your mind.It has the classic lines a pinned barrel and no lock.

__________________
God save the SOUTH

Plus, I've never heard of any other IL activating itself, thus disabling the revolver, like the S&W IL has been known to do.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

If you do a search here, you'll find numerous incidents of a S&W locking up at the wrong time - loaded cylinder and hammer back.

This to my mind shows a poor design.

They don't all fail and perhaps it's only a small percentage, but fail they do.

Coinciding with the lock is the redesign and the MIM parts. Again, not bad in and of themselves, but changes some are not delighted with.

Then you have the higher cost of a new IL revolver vs. the lower prices of the older design revolvers and you end up with people like myself that only buy the old ones.

I think it has a lot to do with whether the IL is unobtrusive, esthetic and works 100% as intended.

Taurus revolvers have a simple unobtrusive nub on the hammer that when twisted with a key, makes the gun impossible to cock. It's pretty foolproof.

Ruger's single actions have a restrictive lock on the hammer spring that can be reached only by removing the grips. It does work, and if you don't want to engage it, it can be ignored and it doesn't show.

Some 1911 locks are a key-lock device integrated into the mainspring housing that prevents cocking the piece. Unobtrusive, and you can substitute the MSH from a non-lock gun if you wish.

Smith chose to make their ILs obtrusive, disfiguring, and unreliable. That's a big difference.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Personally, I own a few IL guns, so the following summary does not necessarily reflect the author's opinion :

Gun owners got by just fine with S & Ws for over 140 years without locks. The memory of the exact same gun being produced without the IL annoys many.
It came about at least in part due to a political decision by the factory to play nice with the then anti-gun Federal Administration.
They have been known to engage under recoil, a bad thing if your target is shooting back (not that I've seen this situation documented).
Unlike other gun makers' ILs, it is located in a prominent place on the frame and is difficult to ignore.
Certain states mandate them to make the gun legal to sell there, and given all the above it annoys citizens of other states that they often no longer have a choice to buy a no-lock gun.

Please note again, I'm not saying all of these are rational reasons, just some you'll often hear on the topic. Hope this is helpful.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

Higher standards I guess.

__________________
Jon

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT, IN A NUTSHELL............

__________________
'Nam 1968-69.DAV,VFW,NRA Inst.

The annual meeting of the Taurus Collectors Society is in a phone booth again this year.
When you have been the best, as S&W was/is for so many years unnecessary change bothers many of us.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

I've read the S&W design is more likely to accidentally engage from recoil...something about the design being in line with the recoil while most other designs are perpendicular to the recoil. I don't know if that is true.

I have two S&Ws with the IL, and both have performed fine. If I get ambitious one of these days, I'll remove the parts. It would really suck to have one lock up.

You also need to remember that both Remington and Winchester quietly dropped the IL from their line years ago. They knew better.

Other reasons for problems:

Taurus revolvers, you can purchase a new hammer and remove the lock. Easy to remove on the 1911. No one will notice change.

Ruger New Vaquero and Blackhawk, parts are available to remove the lock. No one will notice change. Interesting they have never put them on double action guns.


Springfield 1911 quick cheap replacement and no one will notice.

S&W you cannot remove the IL without notice.

You want to see how hated the lock has become, a local police department last year ordered a batch of new Glock 22s for a new academy class. A few weeks later they ordered 6 more for emergencies. Last month during an inventory they noticed that those 6 had the ILS as required in MA. The department quickly sold them because of the screw up. The range master purchased 2 I got the other 4 at $250.00 each plus tax.

The S&W lock is not a design that I would trust. I don't like any IL, but the complicated mess they designed is worse then anything else that I have seen.

Until very recently, I owned a stainless Taurus PT1911. Its lock was so well-hidden that I forgot it even had a lock until I sold it and was packing it up for shipment. I wondered what those key-like things in a clear plastic pouch were and it took a monent or two for it to come to me!

I'm pretty conservative and some would say "old-fashioned." I like my S&W six-shooters to not have locks or hold seven shells. To that end, I bought ten cherry 66s and 686s in 2010 and so far in 2011.

Ed

The same reason some people whine about "what's the big deal about the IL, why do S&W owners whine about it ?"

Some people just like to whine . . . .

Robert B., I can't speak for anybody else, but I'll tell you why I "whine", as you put it, about the S&W internal lock (IL).

With no preconceptions for or against the IL, I recently purchased a new S&W 649 for a serious purpose. I intended to carry it, and bet my life that it would function reliably, if and when it has to. So I had to shoot it a bit, to establish confidence.

On my first trip to the range, within the first ten rounds of normal pressure .38 Spl. ammo which I tried to fire, the gun jammed at least THREE TIMES! I could not pull the trigger or cock the hammer manually. I determined that the internal lock was activating on its own. The gun was properly lubricated and in otherwise perfect, brand new condition.

I don't know why. I don't know how. It should not be possible.

But it self-locked. Honest.

Only facts shape my decisions, not manufacturers' claims, or the opinions of self styled experts. I removed the main locking piece and installed my hand made filler button. The gun is now fine; like a real S&W, which it became with the removal of one counterproductive piece. I love it.

Any more questions?

I almost bought a Springfield then I noticed the lock. Bought a Rock Island instead. Yea I know I could have just changed the mainspring housing but that would have added to the cost and hassle factor.

Lots of ammo through my Taurus 605 to include some magnums. Never had a burp yet. At all. 637 flag went half up and jammed the hammer. Never trusted it again until I figured out how to remove the ILS. That left a gaping hole in the side. It wasn't until recently that I learned of the "Plug" and was going to order one for it. My 629 had the ILS and while I can't swear it locked up on me once, the hammer went from not wanting to cock at one shot and then it was fine again. I don't load my .44 magnum ammo into Hammer of Thor level, but it felt and awful lot like my 637 did. So one the "Plug" later and some Mothers polish and unless I look right at it, it has become just an ugly memory. Meanwhile, the 605 just soldiers on at the range trying to get my girl to forget the .22 as a house gun option...

It's a personal thing and some of us just chose not to buy them with the IL.

After reading all these responses, especially from PhilOhio, I just ordered a no lock 442 from Bud's Gun Shop. You guys actually changed my mind.

Thanks.

I should mention that so gun ranges will not let you shoot if you have removed any safeties.

It's not a "safety". It is a storage device. One can debate semantics all day but in the sense of handgun design and the use and application of the tool it was designed to be there is no way you could classify something that disables the gun and requires an external tool to re-activate it as a "safety".

You can call a dog a bird all you want to . . . . doesn't mean your beagle will ever fly.

We on the forum understand this but sadly the general public does not understand.

I'm not getting into a IL like/dislike, but most of the reports on the IL "locking" up are in the Sc frame series. If the it "locks" up, it is not always the IL. If the hammer is back in the cocked position, it is most likely NOT the lock causing the problem. The IL is designed to keep the hammer from that far.
Again, I'm not defending IL, but many of the lock ups are from different causes such as dirt under the exractor etc and the IL is a convient whipping boy.

IMO it's simply a matter of the age of the audience. Your average S&W revolver shooter is in his mid 50's and that is an age where we know enough that we resent being treated like teenagers. Fact is that every one of us survived without our Government looking over our shoulder and trying to keep us from making mistakes and we get real CRANKY when we are told we aren't wise enough to make our own choices.

Well don't blame the company. Blame those who don't know how to secure a firearm. No matter how much you think you've got your child in control, they always have an ability to surprise you. I know somebody whose daughter committed suicide because she knew where her dad's loaded revolver was kept. Something to think about.

Robert B.,

Thanks for your response to my comment. It made me feel good, because I wasn't trying to change anybody's mind, or arguing a subjective opinion, but just truthfully passing along my experience with something which I think could be a sadly fatal trap for somebody buying a S&W revolver to protect his life, and having it do the opposite.

Nobody at S&W is intentionally trying to sabotage their own fine product, but we are living in a time when politics and posturing often get in the way of real life problem solving and common sense. The S&W internal lock is a classical example of that. Eventually, it will appropriately find its way into the dustbin of history, and will be remembered the same way that the Edsel is remembered...or possibly much less favorably, if it causes loss of life in a highly publicized case, such as one which results in a multi-million dollar damage judgement against S&W. And at this point, their internal lock is a known danger to the user. Just on this forum, we have people who have experienced it besides myself.

Meantime, those of us who understand the risk will choose to avoid taking it, by removing the lock or buying defensive weapons without it.

Potential buyers should ask themselves......is the IL really that big a deal? S&W already folded and got rid of the IL's in the Airweight .357's......they gave customers what they wanted, there were reliability issues, S&W listened to customers and responded with no lock models....... You can't win a war in one day. Will we again see all the models made with no IL's? Probably not, but would you rather have no new S&W revolvers? Those that say "just buy the old ones" well, S&W is starting to phase out service of the older revolvers. Those of us who put 1,000's of rounds through our guns, like to be able to get parts and have S&W service them. If you want to buy an old K38 and stick it in the safe, perfect..........if you want it for the "gun games" and run 40,000 rounds a year through it.......you need a new production gun.

There are a few gun makers who use IL's, Springfield Armory 1911's have a small lock below the grip safety and they sell those 1911 GI's hand over fist. I have a SA, Inc. 1911A1 clone with the little lock, have had it for years and it's not a big deal. Some of the Ruger single actions and also the LCR have locks, and again, Ruger has sold many thousands of the LCR. Some models of the Vaquero have a lock, it's under the grip and you wouldn't even see it if you didn't remove the panel.

The lock thing with the S&W's is more about "principle" to most of the people who don't like it, rather than a functional issue. As I said, S&W corrected the problem with the .357 snubs. Other than that, it takes 10 minutes and a basic skill with a properly fitted screwdriver to remove the sideplate, mainspring and hammer and pop the darn thing out. About 5 minutes more to install one of Bulleye Smith's "plugs".

I agree with you here Stan. I for one don't plan to (won't say "never") purchase a gun with an IL. I'm a member of the "hate the hole" club. But...I don't think those who do buy the new IL revolvers are being foolish. Some nice looking products out there.

__________________
Jon