My name is Red, and I Own an IL Revolver...

[ladder13]

Then explain how some companies DON'T avail themselves of this "state of the industrial art in firearms safety equipment"? See anything about "pennies per unit" in the def of design defect?
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/design-defect.html

http://www.yourdictionary.com/defect

So a car company who has drum brakes in the rear is negligent? Juries award damages all the time for senseless lawsuits, so that argument is void.Willfull or negligent are exactly the reasons FOR juries.
I'll glady pay Smith 10 times their ".50" to omit the lock from my guns.

 

[RedBerens]

Originally posted by yes:
The locks is not going away. Reason being, they are currently the state of the industrial art in firearms safety equipment. Any major manufacturer capable of producing some sort of lockout on a handgun, who does not, is asking to be penalized by juries everywhere. It is called a design defect when you could have used current technology at pennies per unit, to increase the "safety" of any product but willfully or negligently failed to do so. Arguments about aesthetic properties of something as deadly as a handgun will sound silly in a court case where some 5-yr-old blew his head of with daddy's S&W that S&W could have put a lockout device on for $.50. Punitive damages would be awarded precisely to warn other manufacturers NOT to do the same. I know at least one very wealthy lawyer who made his fortune suing gun companies for poor designs that were woefully behind the technology curve. Nice guy and he did us all a huge favor in my opinion. In one case, Browning's auto 5 shotgun (I think that is the one)was in issue. You know, it cocks by pushing in the barrel. Problem is, that can cause it to fire too if it is already loaded. Well, in this case, some poor guy was leaning on the muzzle of a loaded copy and BAM! So Browning's engineering chief in a deposition is asked, isn't that a dangerous design. Guy gets smart, and says only fool would lean on the shotgun like that. My guy found a photo of JOHN M. Browning leaning on that exact model the same way! Faxed it over to Browning Atty. Settled the next day for a HUGe sum. Folks, that kind of foolish stupidity and lack of giving a damn about safety on the part of manufacturers is why we have that lock today. Technology made it feasible and in the cost benefit balancing act, society demands it be employed. Simple. End of story. There will be no going back. One day some sort of electronic chip device will be state of the art and then the hole will go away.

This is one of the best posts in this entire thread.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

yes, please explain how so many firearm manufacturers do not see things your way?

S&W has already made runs of no-lock revolvers and does not install their STORAGE lock as standard on ANY semi auto pistol except those destined to be sold in CA and MD.

You're a real legal genius.

 

[ladder13]

Originally posted by yes: I know at least one very wealthy lawyer who made his fortune suing gun companies for poor designs that were woefully behind the technology curve. Nice guy and he did us all a huge favor in my opinion.

Yes, post his phone number so we could all thank him.

 

[stevieboy]

Great post, Yes. For those who claim that there are other manufacturers who are bucking the trend, I'd like to know who they are. Smith and Taurus now both install locks as a matter of routine. So that accounts for -- what -- 3/4 of the revolver market? Then, there's Ruger. Haven't they started to install internal locks in the grip frames of at least some of their models? So, what's left, Charter Arms? How many of you are about to go buy a Charter Arms revolver for your next purchase?

On another issue, one which I raised eariler, I haven't seen a lot of takers for my offer to explain why the lock allegedly fails all by itself. None, as a matter of fact, who've accepted my request to explain how it fails while a gun is dry fired.

And, finally. Doesn't Smith advertise a lot of its lock equipped guns for law enforcement purposes? Last year I read a number of gun magazine articles about how Smith had designed variations of its 327 line as ideal SWAT team guns. These are all lock equipped so far as I know. Does anyone out there rationally believe that a law enforcement agency is about to buy such a gun if there's a meaningful chance that a lock will fail during an encounter?

 

[akr]

Any of you remember when people raised all kinds of hell about wearing seat belts?

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by stevieboy:
Great post, Yes. For those who claim that there are other manufacturers who are bucking the trend, I'd like to know who they are.

I'm going to ask again that you explain why S&W does not include internal locks on their biggest sellers (the semi auto M&Ps and Sigmas).

Originally posted by stevieboy:
Does anyone out there rationally believe that a law enforcement agency is about to buy such a gun if there's a meaningful chance that a lock will fail during an encounter?

Name one law enforcement agency that issues lock-equipped guns.

 

[marvin knox]

The only answer to those questions is the one we already know. Smith and Wesson is playing politics NOT looking out for the safety of little children.

They've chosen our beloved revolvers to make a political statement with. The results are a hole in the side of our guns and a carry hazard (as we all know).

We'll just have to live with it or buy pre locks or other brands.

I'm probably going to continue to use the IL guns. But it tick me off that they make me make that choice.

I figure they chose our revolvers rather than other kinds of guns specifically because the hole in the side IS very visible to the "libs" and because most people now days (both LE and civilians) carry autos.

 

[ladder13]

Originally posted by stevieboy:


On another issue, one which I raised eariler, I haven't seen a lot of takers for my offer to explain why the lock allegedly fails all by itself. None, as a matter of fact, who've accepted my request to explain how it fails while a gun is dry fired.

And who cares what ANY gun does when dry fired?
As Wyatt has asked you, why don't the M&P's and Sigma's have the lock?

 

[ladder13]

Originally posted by stevieboy: Smith and Taurus now both install locks as a matter of routine. So that accounts for -- what -- 3/4 of the revolver market?

Could you post a link to back that up?

 

[stevieboy]

Obviously, the M & P and Sigma don't have a lock because Smith has made a marketing decision not to install it in their semis (1911s don't have locks either). Even as Smith has made a marketing decision to install locks in their revolvers. But, the fact that some lines of products don't have locks is not an explanation for the "lock failure" urban legend.

 

[Wheelgunner840]

Exactly how many of you with IL guns actually activate the silly thing. Please tell me that whenever that gun is not on your person, that you find that little key and make sure all the children in the world are safer.

There is and never will be a mechanical device that replaces the safety between your ears. The whole reason it is there is to cow-tow to the libs, pure and simple. For those of you that have bought guns with the lock and don't mind it being there, fantastic. Trying to sell it as an important or even marginally necessary safety device is laughable. Puuuuulleeeeeeeeze!

Do any of you actually activate the lock on a regular basis, or know someone who uses it? I would be willing to bet a whole bunch that 100% of the people who own IL guns tried the lock out of curiosity when they first got it, then unlocked it and never touched the key again.

Seriously, all the best to those who have bought these IL guns. I sincerely wish you all many, many years of enjoyable shooting with them, but don't try to push the liberal idea that we are all safer because of it. As the saying goes, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining".

WG840

 

[marvin knox]

Originally posted by stevieboy:
..............But, the fact that some lines of products don't have locks is not an explanation for the "lock failure" urban legend.

Are you saying that the reported lock failures are only "urban legend"?

 

[ladder13]

According to YES, and his buddies, the lock is state of the art in safety equipment. LOL

 

[Landric]

Originally posted by stevieboy:
Obviously, the M & P and Sigma don't have a lock because Smith has made a marketing decision not to install it in their semis (1911s don't have locks either). Even as Smith has made a marketing decision to install locks in their revolvers. But, the fact that some lines of products don't have locks is not an explanation for the "lock failure" urban legend.

That isn't quite true, the lock is optional on the M&P in 9, 40, and 357. Its not available on the .45ACP versions. I saw one M&P40 in a gun store in NC that had the IL, all the others I have seen have a plug in place of the IL. Clearly they are willing to make the lock available but optional on at least some semi-autos.

In addition, they have produced runs of J-frames without the lock since it became standard across the board, and the current model 40 and upcoming 42 classics don't have the IL.

Given the number of people on this board who have personally experienced an IL failure (myself included), you are fooling yourself calling it an urban legend.

I won't buy or carry an IL gun for personal defense. I am currently working on buying a 21-4, which has the lock, but it will be solely for fun shooting at the range and perhaps IDPA. I'll probably remove the lock anyway though.

 

[Landric]

Oops, double tap...

 

[marvin knox]

Originally posted by akr:
Any of you remember when people raised all kinds of hell about wearing seat belts?

A fair analogy!

But I'll bet that if there were varified reports of seatbelts not allowing people to unloose them quickly to get out of their car on a railroad track or in case of fire - you'd be among the many who would gripe until the defect was corrected and not wear the belt until it was.

 

[ladder13]

As DWFan says in his sig line "It is impossible to argue with an ignorant man".
Props to DW

 

[Wheelgunner840]

:
Originally posted by akr:
Any of you remember when people raised all kinds of hell about wearing seat belts?

Not even close to a fair analogy. Seatbelts have proven time and time again 1000s of times a day to prevent serious injury and death. Show me ONE example of someone activating that stupid lock, and because of it, a life was saved or injury was avoided.

I refer you to my earlier reply to this thread on this page.

WG840

 

[wproct]

I don't have a problem with MIM parts at all, and I have owned IL Smiths that were as smooth as any of the non-locks that I've owned in the past. I'm just disappointed in Smith & Wesson that they did not develop a lock that could be completely removed without opening the sideplate up and removing action parts to do so. I know that a large percentage of owners did not purchase their revolvers for carry or self protection, myself included. However, if I were going to use the revolver for those purposes, there is NO WAY that I would carry a Smith & Wesson revolver with the IL in place. That is in no way intended to offend anyone, but with the number of lockups and failures that have been experienced by owners, I would not want to take the chance.