5Wire
Member
Yup, or any combination.
Honestly, Is the modern safety that big of a deal?
- Thread starter Vistula
- Start date
Wheelgunner840
Member
Therein lies the rub. There have been numerous cases of spouses, and even children, getting the family gun and either scaring off or shooting home invaders. While the California law exists, it is not consistant with rationality IMHO.
In the free world, outside of places like DC, Chicago, Maryland, California, Massachusetts, etc.,
,
is indeed a reasonable assessment. Again, IMHO.
WG840
Doug M.
Member
*
Putting aside my default position on California, then the answer is to wear one in the house, and lock up the others. Note that the IL is NOT needed to comply with that law. I know why those are enacted, but they have no basis in actual threat to children, not to mention that a collection of other failures by adults have to occur before that would be an issue. Hell, when we were issued our 4566s in 1999, they came with trigger locks. Every single one was thrown out, because they were hard to use and constituted a staggering Rule 3 violation. If I want my guns out of service, they go in the safe.
As noted by WG840, the position of California law is not consistent with sound firearms training generally. I will acknowledge that keeping it from unacceptable users is a valid goal and should be accomplished. However, for example, the idea that my wife should have to locate and unlock a gun to be able to use it because I was the purchaser is beyond obscene. (It is also not legal sound in a community property state anyway, I suspect.) My MIL will be here for a few days next month when my wife has surgery - try telling my wife that her mom can't have access to a defensive gun while she is alone in our house.
If we had kids in the house, my protocols would be different, but the net outcome would be similar.
Wyatt Earp
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 996
- Reaction score
- 16
I have been told by several friends from Massachussetts that are very well versed in that state's firearm laws that internal locks DO NOT meet the requirements for legal storage and transport in that Commonwealth.
If S&W's internal lock is not accepted as a valid device for securing a firearm for storage or transport in S&W's own home state, it's going to be pretty hard to argue that not using it rises to the level of recklessness or indiference to human life.
There are so many ways to secure a handgun that the internal lock cannot assume priority over any of them, even more so when one of the most anti-gun states in the nation does not accept them as a locking device all on its own.
If S&W's internal lock is not accepted as a valid device for securing a firearm for storage or transport in S&W's own home state, it's going to be pretty hard to argue that not using it rises to the level of recklessness or indiference to human life.
There are so many ways to secure a handgun that the internal lock cannot assume priority over any of them, even more so when one of the most anti-gun states in the nation does not accept them as a locking device all on its own.
While any sane person could agree with your presumption, apparently a lot of state legislatures, notably California, have become foremost authorities in the matter of gun safety, not to mention design and manufacture!
California aside, afterall they act like their own country....
I mean no disrespect to anyone who lives in California, just those who govern.
I watched the video about removing the lock. SIMPLE! Now there is no reason to be put off buying a new Smith. And a friend of mine is working on making a SS disk, or replacement to fill the hole.
And if you live in California, consider a move to Alaska.
Give up warm weather for FREEDOM. Much lower taxes, and a state government that has actually read the "Bill of Rights". After a while, sun and warmth may not be worth the trade to slavery.
I mean no disrespect to anyone who lives in California, just those who govern.
I watched the video about removing the lock. SIMPLE! Now there is no reason to be put off buying a new Smith. And a friend of mine is working on making a SS disk, or replacement to fill the hole.
And if you live in California, consider a move to Alaska.
It's interesting that S&W makes the M&P pistol series available with or without a magazine disconnect. I presume that is so someone can buy whichever version thay choose. I don't know exactly how Smith revolver frames are machined, but one would think that leaving out the lock would actually reduce manufacturing costs. So offering lock and no-lock models would mainly be a matter of inventory management. I wonder if that idea has ever been floated?
Buck
Buck
wheelgun1958
Member
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
Originally posted by wheelgun1958:
Better get another box-I'm a gettin' ready to start up another incendiary thread-tryin' to decide between Pit Bulls or shaved scrotums.
Tell him to make one in blue, I MIGHT be buying a 21-4.
Wyatt Earp
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 996
- Reaction score
- 16
I have wondered the same exact thing.
I haven't seen their setup, but I am willing to bet the entire action cavity of the frame is machined in one setup in a four axis machining center. As such, making a no-lock frame is as easy blocking a few lines of code, or copying the program and deleting the code that machines the lock's recesses in the frame.
You are absolutely correct in that making lock and no-lock revolvers for stock is not a manufacturing or an engineering problem. It is just a production control problem, and one pretty easy to handle, I think.
If S&W offered the option I think the ratio locks to no-locks would be so skewed in favor of no-locks that locks would a) disappear, b) made to special order only, or c) made only for the one or two states that might require them (MD is the only one I think does).
But I don't run the place.
bk43
Member
The frames are stamped in a forge into a rough shape from bar stock and then normalized in the heat-treating area. After that they go to the CNC machining center where machines grouped into "cells" finish them. The final machining is done on Tsugami CNC machines which I understand are state of the art. However, not knowing anything about manufacturing, someone could have been blowing smoke up my whatever when I learned this. I would imagine that the final CNC machines could be programed to do lock or no lock frames but that is a guess on my part.
It is not a manufacturing issue but a distribution issue. S&W ships to distributors who can be anywhere. The distributors then ship to dealers all over the country so there is no way for S&W to control what state certain production goes to in the end.
Bob
Wheelgunner840
Member
Finally, we get to the bottom of it! Now all we have to do is get the nanny states that require these type "controls" to stop requiring it! Simple!
WG840
Similar threads
