A new twist on the lock question.

[mini14jac]

I don't really care about the looks, but the idea of accidental activation scares me away.
We now own 2 beautiful pre-lock guns.

 

[Erich]

Cosmetics are not really the line in the sand for me, the lack of trustworthiness is.

 

[cmort666]

1. It's very unattractive, and needlessly so. I'm not unalterably opposed to ANY lock, which I'd never use anyway. I AM opposed to one that's as ugly as the current S&W product. There's simply no reason for it to be in the form and location in which it currently exists.

2. The current S&W lock is totally unacceptable because it's a REALLY bad design. Even if it were totally invisible, it'd be a deal breaker because it's dangerously unreliable.

If S&W TOTALLY replaced the current lock design, making it both reliable and esthetically inoffensive, I would not object to S&W revolvers with locks. Until then, I'm not interested.

 

[cmort666]

Originally posted by shawn mccarver:
Don't assume the Taurus lock is problem free. I "heard" they tested it extensively and found that it had a very high failure rate. If it has to have a lock, I prefer one that works better than the Taurus junk.

In what ways does the Taurus lock fail? I'm not saying you're wrong, just looking for more information.

 

[bmcgilvray]

I can use an ugly gun if I have confidence in it's dependability. The present lock design is flawed and I'll have nothing to do with it.

It does "uglify" the revolver as well.

 

[H Richard]

Over a year ago, I had emailed S&W (when their stock was going up towards $20+)and as a part of my email I commented that they could improve revolver sales if they changed their lock to one similar to what Taurus used. Get rid of the hole in the side and make it less noticeable and more reliable. I did not receive an answer to my email.

 

[eddieb]

Originally posted by stevieboy:
Well, after having been a member of this Forum for a few months I've discovered that there are two kinds of revolver afficianados in this world: those who care passionately about the lock (and, to a lesser extent, MIM parts); and, those who don't.

Count me in the latter faction. I bought my first revolver about 2 years ago. At the time I knew nothing about locks vs. pre-locks and, so, the presence of the little hole above the cylinder release bothered me not one iota. In fact, it didn't occur to me that the gun HAD a lock 'til I read the instruction manual. I promptly put the key in a desk drawer, where it resides today, and forgot about the entire issue. Since then, I've purchased a number of revolvers, both pre- and post-lock. Again, without thinking about the lock at all.

I guess I'm amazed at the passion that all of this stirs. I simply can't relate to it and I wonder: of all of the revolver owners out there, how many really care about the lock, or is this just inside baseball that's being discussed (endlessly) on this Forum?

I could care less about the lock. I have both, with and without, and honestly, they both work the same. I have removed locks on some of them and left locks alone on others, and they all work the same. I have never had a failure. I agree that it would be better not to have the lock, but that is not going to happen too soon. I look at it like you would a semi auto. The lock, like a semi auto magazine, is the weakest part of the link. It may malfunction, but then again, it may not. Removing it will only leave one less mechanism to fail. I don't know about you, but I am not leaving my semi-auto mags at home because they may malfunction. For God's sake, if it's made by man, it will at some point fail, with or without the lock.

 

[David Kachel]

There are optimists and then there are irrational optimists:

The irrational optimist falls off the top of a tall office building and is heard by co-workers as he passes each floor on the way down to exclaim, "well, so far, so good".

Owners of S&W revolvers with the lock may well be heard to exclaim after each shot, "well, so far, so good".

One thing is guaranteed, and you all know this from life experience: IF the lock should happen to fail you it will NOT happen at the range. It will happen when you need that revolver to save your life or that of someone you love. Just a little twisted divine humor I guess. But I'll bet when it happens you won't be saying, "well, so far, so good".

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by stevieboy:
Well, after having been a member of this Forum for a few months I've discovered that there are two kinds of revolver afficianados in this world: those who care passionately about the lock (and, to a lesser extent, MIM parts); and, those who don't.

Count me in the latter faction. I bought my first revolver about 2 years ago. At the time I knew nothing about locks vs. pre-locks and, so, the presence of the little hole above the cylinder release bothered me not one iota. In fact, it didn't occur to me that the gun HAD a lock 'til I read the instruction manual. I promptly put the key in a desk drawer, where it resides today, and forgot about the entire issue. Since then, I've purchased a number of revolvers, both pre- and post-lock. Again, without thinking about the lock at all.

I guess I'm amazed at the passion that all of this stirs. I simply can't relate to it and I wonder: of all of the revolver owners out there, how many really care about the lock, or is this just inside baseball that's being discussed (endlessly) on this Forum?

+1

Non-issue

 

[David Kachel]

It puzzles me that anyone can claim the lock is a non-issue.

The proof that they do in fact fail is to be found right here on this forum.

Now, you may decide to go ahead and take the risk that one day when you need it most that firearm won't fail you, but how can you leap from that to claiming the lock is not an issue. Of course it is an issue. It is already proven that it DOES indeed fail and therefore IS an issue.

Or have I misunderstood what you mean when you say "non-issue"?

 

[Erich]

Well (though I am certainly a lock-hater, having had one of those "issues" with my 60-15), David, I think that those saying that it's not an issue for them would point to the fact that not every lock fails. Not even close.

So, they're saying that they don't think it's an issue because it's not likely enough to be a problem.

Everyone has to arrive at his/her own level of security with his/her equipment - nothing wrong with that.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Originally posted by NFrameFred:
Engineered correctly, so that the failure of the mechanism did not disable the firearm, and hidden to where it didn't affect the aesthetics of the gun . . . I'd buy one.

Well said and I agree. If the lock was designed in a way that if it failed the default state would leave the revolver operational, I would have no problem. The fact that if the lock fails the default state is disabled is a big problem, especially in a SD handgun. I do realize that if that was the case nobody would repair their revolver lock if it failed. (or would even know it was broken)

I'll say it over and over until it is no longer true. The lock is a storage device which is no better than a trigger lock. The difference with a trigger lock is when the lock is removed it's gone and has no chance of engaging itself.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I really don't see a problem with the lock for folks who are on this forum. It only endangers those who are stupid enough to carry a gun with an IL for defensive purposes. My concern is reserved for those who have NOT been informed of the issue. I generally post on this subject only when I see a newbie who has not had a chance to hear what is wrong with the lock. The rest are big boys and can take care of themselves. I also don't tell them whether to fasten their seatbelts or not, whether or not to wear helmets while riding crotch rockets, and whether or not to smear hydrogenated fats on their white-bread toast.

"De gustibus non disputandum est," which is Latin for "Arguments disgust me."

 

[David Kachel]

Originally posted by Model520Fan:
...whether or not to smear hydrogenated fats on their white-bread toast.

mmff, chew, swallow, huh?

I imagine the vast majority of lock-containing S&W owners are not members of this or any forum where the information would likely be available.

I was at the range the other day with a guy who had a 625 much like mine, but with a lock. The knowledge that they can fail and lock the gun up came as a complete surprise to him. I also got the impression it was his only defense gun. He was not pleased. I felt kinda bad about telling him.

I'm guessing that most internal lock S&Ws are purchased by people unaware there may be a problem. Most of those people never find out and of those few who do, most probably end up rationalizing to themselves that it is too rare to be of concern to them. People have no difficulty accepting a potential defect prior to a purchase, but man, after they have already bought, they will become mental contortionists to convince themselves they have not made a mistake and will argue, curse and condemn anyone who tries to tell them otherwise. They'll even go out and purposely repeat the same mistaken purchase just to prove they are right. Silly, especially when they never really made a 'mistake' the first time if they didn't know beforehand.

I bought a 629 with the lock a few years ago before learning about lock failures (and also before learning about the political motivations that had produced the lock in the first place). As soon as I found out I put it up for sale the same day. That was my first and last IL S&W.

I do wonder... the lock was brought to us by the same people who would like to bring us serial numbered ammunition. If that should come to pass, will we be discussing whether or not the ammunition in question is reliable instead of the fact that it is an affront to liberty? You know, like we're doing right now with regard to the locks.

How about when they finally force gun manufacturers to produce only guns that can be fired by their 'registered' owners (on the off chance you don't know, yes they are now trying to do this). Will we be discussing how safe and reliable those guns are instead of from which tree to hang those responsible for the law?

 

[eddieb]

Originally posted by Model520Fan:
I really don't see a problem with the lock for folks who are on this forum. It only endangers those who are stupid enough to carry a gun with an IL for defensive purposes. My concern is reserved for those who have NOT been informed of the issue. I generally post on this subject only when I see a newbie who has not had a chance to hear what is wrong with the lock. The rest are big boys and can take care of themselves. I also don't tell them whether to fasten their seatbelts or not, whether or not to wear helmets while riding crotch rockets, and whether or not to smear hydrogenated fats on their white-bread toast.

"De gustibus non disputandum est," which is Latin for "Arguments disgust me."

Calling people stupid because they don't buy into the paranoia spewed on gun boards is uncalled for. Granted, I do not care for the locks. But I have yet to hear or read about S&W being sued for wrongful death, or for any other IL related incident. These damn conspiracy theories about numbers cruncher sitting around trying to decide which is more cost effective, paying lawsuit settlements or recalling products, is ridiculous. A couple of wrongful death lawsuits, well reported by the liberal news media, would put S&W out of business faster than any expensive recall. There are members of this and other boards that won't even get a trigger job, because they are afraid of a prosecutor use it against them in a justifiable shooting. Let's be logical. If the IL wasn't there, something else would break and the conspiracies would continue. MIM part come to mind.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Originally posted by eddieb:
Let's be logical. If the IL wasn't there, something else would break and the conspiracies would continue. MIM part come to mind.

I don't know anything about your conspiracies, and they are really none of my business, but I thought I already made one thing clear with my first sentence:

"I really don't see a problem with the lock for folks who are on this forum."

You have heard the discussions and are aware of the issues and non-issues. Buy/carry/use what you like. You can even have bacon for breakfast every day, if that's what you like. You do not need my permission.

I did find David Kachel's post (see above) interesting. You might want to read it.

 

[cbsaf]

Locks are wrong. It is like having a breathalizer machine required in every new car to even start it. If the machine malfunctions you would be stranded. It is being guilty until proven innocent. It is the belief that you are too irresponsible to use a cable style lock. It is like a slap in the face of gun owners.

S&W Revolvers > Taurus Revolvers

Taurus Lock > S&W Lock

 

[Erich]

a breathalizer machine required in every new car to even start it

Some NM state senator introduces a bill to require just this very thing every year.

 

[David Kachel]

Originally posted by Erich:

a breathalizer machine required in every new car to even start it

Some NM state senator introduces a bill to require just this very thing every year.

This is why the Constitution was intended to be chains on the the people in government. Instead we have allowed them to teach our children that it is supposed to be chains for us.

These things accelerate. Wait till you see what they try next!