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

[CharlieP]

Originally posted by akr:
I bet these guys that make such a big deal out of the IL just can't afford a new gun. I bet that they buy one as soon as they get the money or a credit card.

LOL.

I won't take that bet, but I will bet you that none of them have a sense of humor.

 

[ladder13]

I'm going to start taking Lee's advice.

 

[marvin knox]

Originally posted by hitecrednek:
Money is not the issue.

I wouldn't take a new gun if they were giving them away for FREE.

I'll take all of your rejects.

I'll pay the postage.

E-mail me for an address.

 

[akr]

I noticed that, Charlie P.
He he he.....How does it go?...the smeller's the feller? He he he.

 

[akr]

hitecrednek---

Oh yes you would. He he he.

 

[akr]

Originally posted by ArchAngelCD:

Originally posted by akr:
Well, hopefully, S&W has made some changes to correct that problem.

The IL malfunction is easily fixed. REMOVE THE DARN THING FROM ALL FUTURE S&W REVOLVERS. That would work, no?

Do you stick gum in the hole?

 

[Richard Simmons]

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp:

Originally posted by ArchAngelCD:
I'm happy for those who are satisfied with their new revolvers equipped with the ILS. It's my personal preference not to own a S&W revolver so equipped. I have NEVER tried to bully anyone if only for the reason I don't really care what anyone else does with their money.

BTW, I did own a revolver with the lock, a Model 638. For those who think it's not possible a poorly designed storage device can't malfunction, you're wrong. I was clumsy one day and dropped it off the table just before I was going to clean it. The "flag" came half way up and the gun was locked. That was enough for me because dropping a gun when under stress is a possibility and I decided not to take a chance so I sold it.

I disagree with those who ridicule people who don't feel there's anything wrong with a ILS gun but I also disagree with those who tell me I'm foolish for thinking the lock is dangerous.

Enjoy your new revolver...

Didn't you post pics today or last night of your 619 on the Ahrends grips thread???

It shows the lock very clearly.

Since it wasn't made until 2005 I don't believe you can own a Model 619 without an IL.

 

[Bullseye Smith]

Originally posted by hitecrednek:
Money is not the issue.

I wouldn't take a new gun if they were giving them away for FREE.

In the past year I bought a NIB 642, Model 18, Model 18, Model 64, Model 64, Model 10 and a stone mint, 1954 Colt OP. If I had to choose between an ILS S&W or a Glock...easy choice.

SO why aren't you there on the tupperware forum ?

 

[northslope]

I've got many more pre-lock guns than not; however, I have several recent S&Ws and I love 'em; especially my new 627 (see below). Shoots like a dream.

All I can say is that you might be missing out...S&W is still making world-class revolvers.

--Neill

 

[Bullseye Smith]

Very nice gun.

 

[akr]

May God Bless You, Neill, for having IL guns. One of the two new ones I have is the 627 Standard 8 shot like you've got (you replaced the rubber Hogues, didn't you?) What grips are they? They are nice. The other is a 5" 686 with full underlug and unfluted cylinder. I'm not about to take the lock out of either one and leave a hole, either.

 

[northslope]

Originally posted by akr:
What grips are they?

They are Nill combats (the finger-groove grips) and a pair of Eagle Heritage "cokes".

I have almost bought the unfluted 686 several times...I'm a big fan of the unfluted cylinders. (My unfluted 3" 629 Trail Boss, with lock, is my backpacking gun. I trust my life to it).

--Neill

 

[akr]

Those are beautiful guns that you have!! I really like my 686 5" 7 shot. They have them at Bud's if they aren't out of stock now.

 

[ENH]

Good for you Red. I own several myself.

 

[Mule88]

Well.....Good luck with that!

 

[Dueeast]

My name is Rob, and I have two Smiths with the IL. A 642 and a 686+. While I dislike the lock feature (I'm a purist) It did not stop me from purchasing ( I bought both new) I did however have the lock professionally removed from the 642 as this is a carry weapon. Maybe I was over zealous but I feel better with it removed.

 

[marvin knox]

Neillcallis:

Awsome group of wood grips for that 627. Have you ever tried to carry that thing.

I've been thinking of getting a 627 myself. But I'm thinking of carry under a sport jacket. May not be feasible though. I need some feedback on that idea.

 

[Careby]

I've got four S&W revolvers with internal locks(21, 617, 637, & 686). I have not removed or disabled or hidden the locks. There is a good chance each of them will work when I pull the trigger. Is it a 100.0000% chance? No. Is there a small chance an IL will fail? Yes. Is there a small chance a main spring or firing pin or hand or whatever will fail on a pre-lock or IL revolver? Yes. Is there a small chance a primer will fail in any gun? Yes. Is there a chance I'll have forgotten to bring the gun with me, or shoot myself trying to draw under stress? Yes. I hope I never need to fire a gun in a life-or-death defensive situation. Is there a small chance I will? Yes. Are there a hundred things that could go wrong for me in such a situation? Yes. Are my odds of coming out alive with an IL gun significantly different than with any other kind of gun? I very seriously doubt it.

Are new Harleys better than old ones? They have computers and fuel injection that could fail and leave you stranded. Still I enjoyed mine before trading it for a BMW R1200GS Adventure. Many complained about the anti-theft feature that could disable that BMW in the middle of an "adventure". Still I enjoyed it.

It's easy to complain about choices made by manufacturers. New Coke was a disaster. Look at the '55 Thunderbird and see what monstrosities carried that name in later years. These choices are the result of marketing ideas, technological progress, regulation, economics, and sometimes for no apparent logical reason whatsoever. And don't forget that an old name like Smith & Wesson or Harley Davidson or Lynrd Skynrd is just a famous old trademark that doesn't even belong to the original people who made it famous. We buy replicas of antiques because we like them for some emotional reason, or because we think they are as good or better in some ways than the originals. We know that along with the march of progress much is lost along the way. I admire the hand crafting and painstaking machine work that went into a fine old watch or camera or revolver. The days of that type of manufacturing being profitable for a mass-market item are long gone. Some manufacturers have chosen to to produce similar items using newer, more economical, and in some ways even better methods, but they will never be "the same". So what? We choose between buying a vintage Dodge Hemi Challenger or a new retro version. It isn't the same thing, of course, but it does remind us of the one down the block when we were kids, and in many ways is a much better car.

Probably S&W revolvers are TOO much like they used to be, which inevitably leads to complaints that they aren't EXACTLY the same. Hey this Model 29 "Classic" has a lock - what's classic about that? And yet the manufacturer could produce the same gun without the lock, if they chose to, but for whatever reasons they deem pertinent they don't. Leaving us with a choice to buy new, or buy old, or to not buy at all.

As long as I'm admitting ownership of IL S&W's, I may as well get something else off my chest. I own two Glocks, a 17 and a 26. They aren't for sale. I think they're butt ugly, so I don't spend much time looking at them.

 

[Revolver King]

There is a good side to the folks that won't buy IL guns, I don't have to worry about them out bidding me. It cuts down the number of bidders. LOL

 

[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.