Originally posted by Doug M.:
The lock was a solution in search of a problem. Look around and you will find at least one stickied big post about the locks and failures; I think that there are also a few other posts.
1) It is NOT a safety. It is in fact dangerous. A firearm which does not go off when needed is a very serious problem. I have heard that that there are LE agencies which either prohibit S&Ws with the lock, or mandate disabling it. If I were still an LE legal advisor, I would go with option one. Not only is the risk unacceptable (it only matters when it REALLY matters), anyone who think that they will have enough time to disable the lock in an emergency so that they can use the revolver is a fool of the greatest sort.
2) Some people dislike them due to the cosmetic impact. I am not that sort of S&W person, so I am not in or out of that camp. (There are other things which some folks value which I think are flat ugly - but again, that is subjective.)
3) There are also some who are bent out of shape, and rightly so, that this was an act of political cowardice, bowing to hoplophobic freaks who had no idea of what they were advocating.
If you are a plinker, and do not carry a sidearm for serious purposes, do what you want. It's only a nuisance if you have a lock failure. If you ever foresee a critical need for a sidearm (remember basic doctrine, a pistol is what one carries when they do not expect a problem - if you expect a problem and cannot make arrangements to be somewhere else, you need a rifle), go pre-lock or learn how to disable it correctly.
Doug,
This is a fairly well thought and articulated position, but I have a differing opinion to your conclusion to #3 above.
S&W signed the now famous "Agreement", which, in-fact, led to the lock as we know it. Actually it was a long process, let me offer the following information...
1- S&W - and other gun manufacturers - were under seige - an all out war, with the Clinton Administration. One that had pressure coming from the Legislative side, the Judicial side, and the Executive side. Would we agree on that?
2- S&W - a company owned by Tomkins, Ltd, a British Company, had expended nearly $35 million over a two year period fighting frivolous lawsuits (City of Boston, others, brought on by - you know who - the Clinton Administration). Not a trivial amount for a company whose revenues were ~$100M/year and whose profits of ~5 to 6% couldn't cover the legal expenses.
3 - Tomkins, a conglomerate, was having a tough go of it, and was considering selling the S&W unit to rid themselves of the "problem" of the issue, and gain much needed funds for other ventures. When running this by the Administration, they were told - "go ahead, but you will not be let off the hook for the contingent liabilities" if the City/Community lawsuits were decided against S&W.
4- The Department of Housing and Urban Development (yes, HUD) came to S&W (
and Glock)with the offer to sign the now famous (infamous) agreement, agreeing to magazine limitations, gunstore requirements, etc. This was what Tomkins was looking for, an out to sell the company and get away from the legal problems. Notice that this was coming from HUD, the Clinton Administration couldn't make anything work from the Legislative or Judicial sides of our government, so they came at it from the Administrative side.
5- Forced to sign the agreement and salvage something of their investment in S&W, Ed Shultz (at Tomkins urging) signed the agreement, at the same time/day Glock, who was sitting at the same table, elected to not-sign. While this may seem brave and noble (on Glocks part), they were sitting at the same table and pulled out, leaving S&W to go it alone, weazeling as it sounds - it worked for them - no-one remembers them in the context of the agreement.
6- After S&W signed the agreement, which was - in their estimation, the only way to save the business, the Gun-Owning public decided to continue doing Clinton's work for them. The Boycott madness ensued and S&W was nearly put out of business. That's right, the Gun world did Clinton's work, nearly killing a grand old franchise, a company that makes guns for Americans.
7- After the company was nearly closed, Tomkins received an offer to buy it from the group led by the owners of what we know now as Saf-T-Hammer, and they virtually gave the company away, I believe the deal was for $5 million (deferred payment) and assumption of the debt. That company (Saf-T-Hammer) saved this company from going out of business, at the hands of the Gun Community, sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's true. A significant amount of the old time S&W employees were lost during this timeframe, a very bad side effect.
8- Now we have a lock company owning S&W, sorry to make folks swallow that, but they saved S&W, so what do you expect? They have designed and now sell revolvers with a lock. Is it a Second Amendment issue, no. Is this an issue with S&W selling out - I say no, I say they are trying to survive in a tough climate. Do I like the lock, hell no, but it's what they are making and I chose to not buy any. This grand old company is still making guns for Americans to buy, whether you like the lock or not, they are still making guns. If our Government had it's way, they would be dead.
9- I take special issue with the "bowing to hoplophobic freaks who had no idea of what they were advocating." When was saving a company from bankruptcy "bowing to"? When, and who, decided it was S&W responsibility to shoulder the work that we - the gun owning community needed to do. They are a business, I don't remember seeing anywhere that businesses were responsible for reforming an oppresive governmental program? Thought that was the people's responsibility. Business's are responsible for one thing, and one thing only, that is putting profits onto the bottom line, and enhancing share holder value.
Now, we have folks who's mission is to disparage S&W, ping them at every step. These folks are either ill informed, or just ignorant of the facts in this saga. Or, another possiblity, is that they are too narrow minded to look at the big picture. The victim in the above is S&W, the perpetrator was the Government, and it's agents were the Gun Community - working to kill one of our own. I don't get it, why don't we work to support our Gun Industry? I guess it's easier to pick on one of us than it is to rally against the real problem.
I'm really getting tired of S&W bashing here. This is a company that has survived against some pretty formidable odds. Do I like their current product - not really. Do I want to put them out of business - hell no. Do I think they are trying to impinge on my constitutional rights - get real. What we have is a consumer products issue, nothing more and nothing less. I say get over it, the lock is what they are putting on their products now, can they be better, probably, but remember that there are millions of Americans that own new S&W's and have the ability to protect their families with these products, so I say it's probably not a bad thing.
It'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.
