Honestly, Is the modern safety that big of a deal?

[Wheelgunner840]

Smithnut,

Thank you for that great explaination of the recent history of the company. My only question is this. Do you think that Safe-T-Hammer, who decided to ,IMO, ruin a icon such as the S&W revolver by incorporating this lock, is more profitable because they make the locks or would you think that they would be more profitable if they removed them?

They have to know that they would sell twice as many guns if they got rid of it don't you think? If they don't have to have it there, it becomes a choice for them. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the stockholders to sell more guns? They cannot be making money on their lock division if they are putting them on their own products.

It just seems to me that they are losing a hell of a lot of sales because of it.

WG840

 

[SmithNut]

WG,
Given the nature of the question "Do you think that Safe-T-lock, who decided to ,IMO, ruin a icon such as the S&W revolver by incorporating this lock", I really don't think my opinion or anyone elses is going to satisfy your curiousity.
I'll give this a try, however. The history above spans a few years, and after Saf-T-hammer's owners bought S&W, there was an administration change and some speculation whether or not the "agreement" was going to be enforced, acknowledged, etc. Most agree that it just drifted off the page during the Bush administration, some believe it could still surface. At the same time, the lock was already incorporated and from a manufacturing standpoint I don't know many companies change designs "just because". It's been reported here over the years that S&W could make and deliver all that they had capacity for, so I'm not sure at all that they'd believe they had the opportunity for greater sales volume after such an expensive endeavor.
You also need to remember that we - the enthusiasts - or put it this way, the folks that even pay attention to this lock issue are a very small minority of S&W buyers. Believe that or not, it's my opinion that after all the bluster we on this forum, and all the other online forums combined, can't account for more than 1-2% of sales volume. What do they make - maybe a million guns per year? If we accounted for 10,000-20,000 new gun purchased per year I'd be completely surprised. So, given that we, the vocal minority, can't really hurt them with our disdain for the lock, and they are still making loads of guns, and of course meeting their revenue projections, I'd be surprised if they were remotely inclined to believe that 1) they ruined the brand, nor 2) that changing anything would amount for any significant increase in sales volume. I don't have any numbers to back my opinions, but if someone out there can dispute and dispell my assertions I'd be interested in hearing from them.
We, afterall, are enthusiasts, so looks, MIM, locks, RB vrs SB, and all that stuff is important to us, I'd guess that the other 98% of the folks that buy S&W's are probably just buying a tool to protect themselves or their families and could give a hoot over the above issues.

 

[Bullseye Smith]

Thank you SmithNut, Great job - well done. Can we get that in a sticky under History?

 

[NVBob]

It just seems to me that they are losing a hell of a lot of sales because of it.
WG840

There has been a lot of politically motivated gun buying in recent months, which I am guessing has made the loss of business to which you are referring less apparent.
Also there are probably a lot of buyers like me... I have purchased three new Smiths in the last year. I am naive and did not know that I was supposed to be freaked out by the lock until I started reading these posts--I just ignored the damn thing (and still do). I love these Smiths...they make me smile.

 

[Dale53]

SmithNut;
BRAVO!!

Dale53

 

[akr]

Vistula---

The IL is an extra that you get free of charge on an S&W revolver. I am proud to have mine.

 

[blairgarber]

The lock and I don't mean "safety" sucks. It sucks philosophically, materially, essentially, and aesthetically. That said I own 3, but I wouldn't bet my life on any of them if I had a choice, and happily I do.

/b

 

[bountyhunter]

Originally posted by bk43:

Originally posted by bountyhunter:
The real problem is this: the lock establishes as "standard" that any "responsible" owner would keep it locked (and separate from the key)... so picture this: it's 3AM, you hear the sliding glass door break and the loud sound of feet stomping down the hallway.

I'm sure you'll be happy to provide legal precedent for that stand(any juristiction will do, not being picky). But I doubt it.

Bob

I don't have to: if the gun is provided with a device rendering it nonoperational specifically for use when it is not in service and somebody dies as a result of discharge from the gun where the safety device was not used, the lawyers will eat you for lunch. Clearly, you have never met a lawyer based on your ludicrous posting.

 

[Duke426]

Is it just me or has there been an inordinate number of posts from new members in recent days/weeks asking about the lock and/or saying, "What's the big deal about the lock?"

I know some of you will say, "There goes Duke again, talking about Trolls!" But really, it seems to me like people are registering or re-registering just in order to stir the pot on this issue. If they have decided to join this forum, I would think they have to have lurked here long enough to already know the answers to the questions they pose or at least what the general sentiment about the lock is. Some of them are bringing up the lock in their first post or very shortly thereafter. Something about it just doesn't add up for me.

Personally, I would prefer the S&W revolvers didn't have the lock but it hasn't stopped me from owning and enjoying several new models that are so equipped.

 

[5Wire]

Is it just me or has there been an inordinate number of posts from new members in recent days/weeks asking about the lock and/or saying, "What's the big deal about the lock?"

I think the topic is seen as a sure way to get attention and to inspire contentious posts, so the troll idea may not be far off.

 

[walnutred]

Face it. If S&W was so determined to have a lock on their revolvers they wold have been better off to just have paid Taurus a royalty fee for using their system. It's a better design and probably would have been cheaper in the long run.

 

[Wheelgunner840]

Ouote: Smithnut.

I'd be surprised if they were remotely inclined to believe that 1) they ruined the brand, nor 2) that changing anything would amount for any significant increase in sales volume.

Thanks again for the indepth explanation Smithnut. When I said that they had "ruined an icon" I meant that they ruined it in my eyes, ie ruined in for me on a mechanical and aesthetic level. Strictly my opinion. I do not pretend to speak for the gun owning world.IT is obvious that they do not think they have ruined anything (or they just don't care is more likely).

Because I made this statement does not in any way mean that I cannot understand your points and more importantly accept the points you are making.

You are correct in the fact that my own personal feelings on the subject are twofold. I could never fully trust the IL even if the failure rate is one in a million (one is too many IMO), and I truly think that they have in fact destroyed the fine graceful lines of the traditional S&W revolver, espescially along side the hammer.

I can see from your post(s) that from a business standpoint, they are selling enough guns to not really care about the two points I have made. As a consumer, knowing that they are willingly ignoring what 10-20 thousand customers would like to see in their product, also puts a bad taste in ones mouth. I can understand the, "It's all about profit" mentality of companies, but I also think that some companies do very well by actually listening to their customers and trying to please them as well as make a profit.

All the millions of guns that are now being scooped up by new gun buyers who do not have a clue about what the lock is, would not miss it if it were not there. No one is buying a S&W revolver BECAUSE it has the lock.

Whatever the companies reasoning for keeping it in production, and it seems to be profit based only, it is not likely to change because the voices of those of us who love non-IL smiths remain unheard. That, to me, is a clear example of ignoring a supportive customer base.

I wonder what the numbers are on the new hammerless S&Ws that are being produced without the IL. I bet they are selling like hotcakes!

Again thanks for sharing your insight. You may not change how I feel about buying/owning an IL smith, but i have learned a lot about the company and why they are doing what they are doing.

WG840

 

[SmithNut]

WG - I appreciate your calm comments as well. I'd like to add some additional follow up thoughts:

and I truly think that they have in fact destroyed the fine graceful lines

In my opinion, the lock is but one issue when it comes to the overall aesthetics. The first step away from the traditional lines happened when they went to the integral frame lug, followed by the change to the area above the hammer when the internal firing pin was added, those two changes were the first big step in the wrong direction, IMO. The change to the "one size fits all" hammer finished the issue for me. Look at a M460/500, the mouse hammer looks totally out of place on such a robust revolver, same for the N frame BTW - not attractive in the least. So, the lock, by itself, is but one piece in the picture, why it's singled out as the ultimate culprit is beyond me.

I can understand the, "It's all about profit" mentality of companies

Good/Bad or otherwise, it always is about profit if you are running a for-profit company. Unfortunately we've seen too many companies that run their risk management by actuarial analysis, so it's a fact of life and it isn't just a S&W thing. I defend their right to run a company in the best, most efficient manner that they can, whether we like it or not. I also hope everyone feels comfortable in their right to not buy a product that they dont' like.

You may not change how I feel about buying/owning an IL smith

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to change your mind, but trying to add some context and balance to the issue. You see, I am not a "Lock Lover" as someone recently ascerted, but by the same token I'm not a S&W hater either. This company does not need to be run out of business, either by Government pressure, or by our own Gun community. It is making the very products we are striving to keep in our lives, so I don't get the narrow minded hate mongering on the subject. As I've said earlier, the lock issue is nothing more than a consumer product issue, nothing more. The answer is simply don't buy them if you don't like them, nobody is mandating that you buy them. Those of us that are really not interested are putting our efforts and energy into turning over rocks, looking for earlier models instead of taking a stand and complaining about current offerings.

On an aside, three years ago I dropped my longstanding attitude of not buying a product from Chevrolet, buying an HHR for my wife. Grudgingly, I have come to admit it is a pretty nifty car. I had, previously, commited to never buy another car from Chevrolet due to my hatred and hurt feelings over then discontinuance of the Corvair, see where that got me??

It's all about balance.

 

[s&wchad]

Originally posted by SmithNut:
I had, previously, commited to never buy another car from Chevrolet due to my hatred and hurt feelings over then discontinuance of the Corvair, see where that got me??

I still won't eat at KFC after they hosed me on some Snackers.

Church's is better anyway!

 

[n4zov]

t's easy for folks to be armchair quarterbacks and issue ultimatums, boycotts, hate campaigns, etc. If we, the gun community, would put the same amount of effort into working towards solving the bigger issue we'd be farther ahead. Disparaging S&W over a comsumer product issue is silly to me, the company didn't cause our problems, our government did, and we helped them.

+1 Thanks SmithNut for having the guts to post this! It has needed to be said for a long time.

 

[DrewW]

Originally posted by Duke426:
Is it just me or has there been an inordinate number of posts from new members in recent days/weeks asking about the lock and/or saying, "What's the big deal about the lock?"

I think that some of this may be blamed on trolls but alot of it is probably just people who are buying their first handgun getting on the forum and really wanting to know. There are lots of people out there right now buying handguns that don't know a whole lot about the differences in different guns, some of them are likely doing some research on this forum and like many new members find the search function not to their satisfaction so they are asking the exact question on their mind. Most of the time you can pick the trolls out pretty easily as they will display some sort of hostility in their original post to get everyone's blood boiling and get their response before the brain has a chance to filter it. I think most of these posts from new members are actually people looking for the information rather than trolling, I could be wrong though.

 

[bk43]

Originally posted by bountyhunter:

Originally posted by bk43:

Originally posted by bountyhunter:
The real problem is this: the lock establishes as "standard" that any "responsible" owner would keep it locked (and separate from the key)... so picture this: it's 3AM, you hear the sliding glass door break and the loud sound of feet stomping down the hallway.

I'm sure you'll be happy to provide legal precedent for that stand(any juristiction will do, not being picky). But I doubt it.

Bob

I don't have to: if the gun is provided with a device rendering it nonoperational specifically for use when it is not in service and somebody dies as a result of discharge from the gun where the safety device was not used, the lawyers will eat you for lunch. Clearly, you have never met a lawyer based on your ludicrous posting.

You missed the point. I am asking if you have any basis in fact for your statement. What you think based on watching law shows on TV is not relevant.

Bob

 

[Doug M.]

The standard of care appropriate to a defensive firearm is to have it ready to use. The lock is not consistent with that, at best.

There are 5 handguns and 3 long guns loaded and ready to use in the house almost all the time except for maintenance or when I take several of them (duty pistol, BUG, AR, shotgun) to work. When I have guns not ready to use, they are in fact unloaded and locked away. The lock is thus not needed.

I would have no trouble litigating this, and when I was a police legal advisor, we had some idiots from one agency raise a silly question about being issues safes and the like. It got shot down quickly, for reasons pertaining to tort liability (non-issue in the fact pattern raised) and defensive training doctrine.

DISCLAIMER: I don't have kids or allow them in the house, as a rule. The last time that happened was years ago, and just like the other hazardous crap that kids should not touch, we changed the firearm situation accordingly.

 

[bountyhunter]

Originally posted by 5Wire:

Is it just me or has there been an inordinate number of posts from new members in recent days/weeks asking about the lock and/or saying, "What's the big deal about the lock?"

I think the topic is seen as a sure way to get attention and to inspire contentious posts, so the troll idea may not be far off.

I wonder if sometimes people just won't let an argument end until they think they have convinced the world they are right. In the recent debates over the stimulus bill, it was noted some people are arguing against the same kind of actions taken back in 1930 for the last great depression... in effect, reopening a 78 year old argument claiming it was wrong then too. I think some arguments live forever and this thread is proof.

 

[bountyhunter]

Originally posted by Doug M.:
The standard of care appropriate to a defensive firearm is to have it ready to use. The lock is not consistent with that, at best.

That statement is completely wrong in California: the legal standard is a stored weapon must be kept in a condition that only the owner may use it, whether in a locked container or disabled by a trigger lock or other locking device. And if it is not properly secured and another person uses it and causes damage, the legal owner is laible. Further, if a child gains access and control of the weapon and causes harm, the legal owner WILL BE CHARGED UNDER LAW. Anybody who leaves a gun in a fuctional condition and unattended takes a huge risk.