Revolvers without the lock
- Thread starter ladder13
- Start date
Maximumbob54
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 7,202
- Reaction score
- 1,928
I was enjoying this thread until the "it's for the children" and "just ignore it" comments. If you don't teach your children about safety with firearms and if you don't lock your guns up when the children are too young to learn then that is your problem. If you don't know about the reported issues with them locking up under recoil then that is also your problem. I will never understand how some people's problems always have to become everyone's problems.
Seriously, "if it saves one child" is about as bad an excuse as saying if we banned automobiles and it saved one child... It's as if no one is willing to accept personal responsibility for ANYTHING anymore...
Rant over.
At least move the stupid thin under the stock like Ruger does in the few they bother to add a internal lock or figure a nearly hidden spot like how Taurus adds it into the hammer. Putting it right smack in the middle of the frame was just stupid. Maybe they still sell the most guns, maybe they only lose a minimal amount of sales, but I would still think they would be concerned over the potential of even losing a small number of sales at all. I will freely admit that I was going to suck up the extra cost of the 686 but the dang ILS just pushed me over and over to checking out the GP100. Now I own two GP100's and still no new 686's. After one definite self locking incident in my 637 and one possible incident in my 629, I just won't buy another ILS gun that I have to pull the sideplate, yank tiny parts, save them, buy another of Bullseye Smith's plugs again, and then worry if maybe I will get the one guy in the service dept that won't do a repair since I have altered the gun. The headache just isn't worth it. With just a hours worth of touch up my SP101 has become just as smooth as the hours worth of touch up my 640 needed. The Taurus 605 I bought still has one of the nicest trigger pulls I have on a revolver and after an good internal clean and lube it is even better. The days of only S&W having a decent quality revolver are just plain old long gone. If they don't figure out that out they will still slowly see sales drift to other companies. I would think that would be a slight concern.
IF you ask me to my face I will really tell you how I feel...
Seriously, "if it saves one child" is about as bad an excuse as saying if we banned automobiles and it saved one child... It's as if no one is willing to accept personal responsibility for ANYTHING anymore...
Rant over.
At least move the stupid thin under the stock like Ruger does in the few they bother to add a internal lock or figure a nearly hidden spot like how Taurus adds it into the hammer. Putting it right smack in the middle of the frame was just stupid. Maybe they still sell the most guns, maybe they only lose a minimal amount of sales, but I would still think they would be concerned over the potential of even losing a small number of sales at all. I will freely admit that I was going to suck up the extra cost of the 686 but the dang ILS just pushed me over and over to checking out the GP100. Now I own two GP100's and still no new 686's. After one definite self locking incident in my 637 and one possible incident in my 629, I just won't buy another ILS gun that I have to pull the sideplate, yank tiny parts, save them, buy another of Bullseye Smith's plugs again, and then worry if maybe I will get the one guy in the service dept that won't do a repair since I have altered the gun. The headache just isn't worth it. With just a hours worth of touch up my SP101 has become just as smooth as the hours worth of touch up my 640 needed. The Taurus 605 I bought still has one of the nicest trigger pulls I have on a revolver and after an good internal clean and lube it is even better. The days of only S&W having a decent quality revolver are just plain old long gone. If they don't figure out that out they will still slowly see sales drift to other companies. I would think that would be a slight concern.
IF you ask me to my face I will really tell you how I feel...
John Eilertson
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2011
- Messages
- 412
- Reaction score
- 35
I rather doubt it'll ever happen, but wouldn't it be nice if they didn't put any locks on any of their firearms? But, wish in one hand, and.....
That always sounds good but it's specious logic. There is plenty of evidence of the locks failing. If a failed lock causes one or more deaths in a self defense situation isn't that just as bad or worse?
If you think thru your logic, we certainly couldn't have automobiles, medicine, electricity, escalaters, knives, ride horses, etc., etc., etc., etc.
I know you will not give up any of those so your logic is a contradiction.
It's not a perfect world and no matter what man does, it never can be.
You can't ignore the pregnant look it gave to some of the frames when they were enlarged and uglified to fit the lock in. Plus anyone that would use the internal lock would use an external lock. Safety minded people don't need locks to be safe, just common sense. You can't build that into a gun or any other product and if you don't have common sense that lock won't save you anyway.
It's the principle!
When will some people realize locks aren't for safety, they are for liability, period!
Last edited:
While this has been discussed ad nauseum, I'll address this...it's not just a matter of ignoring it, or not liking the appearance. There have been instances of the ILS engaging spontaneously under recoil, or when dropped, or otherwise unintended...which can render the firearm unusable when you might most need it. You can ignore the ILS on Rugers and Tauri because they are not obvious (cosmetic) and do not have the potential to engage spontaneously (not a potentially fatal flaw.) If S&W had just put the ILS where Ruger or Taurus did, there would probably be little debate on this...it wouldn't even be much of an aesthetics issue.
M1911-66
Member
I've got two gun safes. The guns go in there. I don't need guns with internal locks and I won't buy a new S&W revolver until I can get one without a lock.
Furthermore, there are plenty of good alternatives to internal locks -- like the trigger locks that come with every new handgun. The internal locks just are not necessary for safety.
M1911-66
Member
Unfortunately, there have been failures to fire due to malfunctioning locks.
Shadow1006
Member
Since S&W started production with locks, I haven't purchased any...Period!
M3Stuart
Member
It strikes me as curious that;
While the new S&W revolvers have this hideous hole in the side, their competitors like Ruger, Rossi and Taurus put a similar functioning device into all of their new revolvers without making them wider or affecting the asthetics (they've also, apparently, made their ILSs more reliable).
Companies make good and bad decisions all the time. Companies respond to social pressure all the time. They also respond to customer desires for product features - or the lack thereof - if they want to stay in business. It would appear that S&W responded to social pressure, with a substandard design choice to the detriment of their customers' wishes and has chosen to stick with their choice.
That's fine by me. I've bought a handful of S&W's older, used, pre-lock products along with some number of brand new Rossi, Taurus, NAA and other revolver products. Truth be told; overall, I'm happy with the other manufacturers offerings of new revolver products. S&W gave me the opportunity to explore the offerings of other companies which I would not have otherwise done.
For safety purposes, I lock my guns in a safe. When I need to keep them locked outside of the safe - I put trigger locks (no matter the brand - both pistol and rifle) on them because I can't tell if the ILS is "on" without pulling back on the hammer. So the ILS on any gun is of ZERO use to me - I don't ever use them. In fact, it's kind of a pain to keep the "keys" around so that I can "unlock" them if/when the ILS system fails.
But really, what the heck does S&W care? I'm sure they don't give a rat's behind what we think about their ILS because, if you could see their income statement by product line, you would realize that they make all their profit from their 'plastic brass-shucking space pistols' like everybody else. Injection molding costs only a small fraction of what it costs to makes stuff out of quality metal. Ruger probably makes more profit off an LCP than S&W makes on a brand new top-of-the-line Comp or Pro Series revolver.
All of this is, of course, IMHO and FWIW...
While the new S&W revolvers have this hideous hole in the side, their competitors like Ruger, Rossi and Taurus put a similar functioning device into all of their new revolvers without making them wider or affecting the asthetics (they've also, apparently, made their ILSs more reliable).
Companies make good and bad decisions all the time. Companies respond to social pressure all the time. They also respond to customer desires for product features - or the lack thereof - if they want to stay in business. It would appear that S&W responded to social pressure, with a substandard design choice to the detriment of their customers' wishes and has chosen to stick with their choice.
That's fine by me. I've bought a handful of S&W's older, used, pre-lock products along with some number of brand new Rossi, Taurus, NAA and other revolver products. Truth be told; overall, I'm happy with the other manufacturers offerings of new revolver products. S&W gave me the opportunity to explore the offerings of other companies which I would not have otherwise done.
For safety purposes, I lock my guns in a safe. When I need to keep them locked outside of the safe - I put trigger locks (no matter the brand - both pistol and rifle) on them because I can't tell if the ILS is "on" without pulling back on the hammer. So the ILS on any gun is of ZERO use to me - I don't ever use them. In fact, it's kind of a pain to keep the "keys" around so that I can "unlock" them if/when the ILS system fails.
But really, what the heck does S&W care? I'm sure they don't give a rat's behind what we think about their ILS because, if you could see their income statement by product line, you would realize that they make all their profit from their 'plastic brass-shucking space pistols' like everybody else. Injection molding costs only a small fraction of what it costs to makes stuff out of quality metal. Ruger probably makes more profit off an LCP than S&W makes on a brand new top-of-the-line Comp or Pro Series revolver.
All of this is, of course, IMHO and FWIW...
LOBO
Member
I have not bought a new S&W since they started putting locks on them. Do they have new models that I would like to own? You bet! Do these models have IL on them? Yes they do. Will I be purchasing any of them? No I will not, that is until the locks are removed.
I know this has been an on going discussion and many folks will never change their opinion on the subject but I just went back and reread Ayoob's blog about the internal locks which he posted in September of 2009 (two years ago). It reads, "Internal lock failure has occured, but rarely. Normally involves very powerful guns with very violent recoil and also very light guns (scandium, titanium) firing these extremely hot rounds." Sounds to me like this is a non problem for someone with a standard weapon firing typical ammunition, let's say a S&W J frame firing .38 special or .357. Has anyone had actual evidence of lock failure in this type gun in the two years since? Also, has S&W made any changes to the lock system since the original guns that had the failures?
armsmaster270
US Veteran
That's my problem I have many pre-lock Smiths and 1 lock Smith but I am going to remove it as I can't trust a Scanandium 357 j frame with a lock.
My favorite is my pre-lock 586 4" & 6" both combat tuned by Bill Davis Co.
My favorite is my pre-lock 586 4" & 6" both combat tuned by Bill Davis Co.
Last edited:
big_gus
Member
I am with you here. The worst thing was when I first saw the classics line with the lock and said you've got to be kidding me. If any one has a gun in the house, all children should be taught handgun safety and rules like I was even though they are locked up in a safe. My dad would chew me out if I ever picked up a gun and not check it immediately to see if loaded. Then even unloaded, I would get my bottom tore up if I ever pointed it in the direction of anyone. I don't understand how things have changed so much... Its just like if someone bought a new toyota camry and ran it through the state fair 100 miles per hour and killed a dozen people, toyota wouldn't get blamed, the idiot piece of trash would and SHOULD! Why do gun companies get blamed, its the same thing. Plus If a kid gets a hold of a gun, it isn't the gun makers fault, its the parents responsability/bad parenting.
man I could right a book on this, lol.......
The internal lock is not necessary. An adult that allows a child to come into contact with a firearm in an unauthorized manner cannot be trusted to engage any lock. The shame of it all is that S&W introduced their classic line revolvers with holes in the side. It would have been better to not have reintroduced these classics at all. I also wish they would stay historically accurate, at least as much as possible. Such as round butt and square butt models consistent with earlier models.
I know I would have purchased several at least had they not had the hole in the side and were a bit more historically accurate.
I know I would have purchased several at least had they not had the hole in the side and were a bit more historically accurate.
Last edited:
Similar threads
