It would be nice.....
...if the locks were optional.
...if the locks were optional.
What is keeping S&W from deleting the lock?
- Thread starter daveyc
- Start date
- Status
Pre-lock guns are an Elegant weapon of a more civilized age....
and no, locks aren't safety devices, any more than the lock to your car is. If I recall correctly that has been successfully argued in court. Mas, IIRC....he has done a lot of expert witness work.
and no, locks aren't safety devices, any more than the lock to your car is. If I recall correctly that has been successfully argued in court. Mas, IIRC....he has done a lot of expert witness work.
Pistol producers have to supply a means of securing (AKA childproofing) a firearm.
It would cost S&W to eliminate the lock. Their solution is vastly cheaper than including a separate lock for the gun and meets the requirements of the law. It is just that simple, whether you like it or not.
AND while I'm on the topic of like it or not, it doesn't matter whether you like the lock or hate it, it is what it is and complaining about it will earn you a ding and possibly a vacation from the forum. I have already taken the time to clean up this thread and do not wish to do so again.
Legitimate conversation about the lock and it's reason for being is acceptable. Bellyaching about it is not.
It would cost S&W to eliminate the lock. Their solution is vastly cheaper than including a separate lock for the gun and meets the requirements of the law. It is just that simple, whether you like it or not.
AND while I'm on the topic of like it or not, it doesn't matter whether you like the lock or hate it, it is what it is and complaining about it will earn you a ding and possibly a vacation from the forum. I have already taken the time to clean up this thread and do not wish to do so again.
Legitimate conversation about the lock and it's reason for being is acceptable. Bellyaching about it is not.
They’d be smart to delete the locks on Performance Center models where they charge more money and those guns are more geared towards people looking to shoot a lot versus strictly home defense / self defense guns.
Seat belts ARE safety devices. The first car I owned with them was a 1960 Tbird. The real complaints came when their use became mandated.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,005
- Reaction score
- 7,073
Sir, I must point out that S&W includes a padlock with all of its guns anyway, so eliminating the internal lock would save on intricate machining, the tiny extra parts, the keys, etc. The IL is not a substitute for a padlock, just an additional method to secure the weapon. So, their solution actually costs more money than just throwing in a cable lock since the cable lock is in there anyway.
Ackley1952
Member
if we continue to chirp on this subject the foreign company that buys Smith&Wesson will probably delete the lock. Then the ones with locks will probably be worth much more . Second guessing a company's motives are easy, running a company and turning a profit is a difficult thing.
While you could end up in court any attorney worth their fee could produce a lot of evidence that the locks are ineffective due to the fact that almost no one ever engaged them. Hard to blame something on a device that is never usedDisabling a "safety devise" can get you in a lot of legal trouble if someone gets hurt. And the liberal press would have a field day every time someone accidentally gets shot with a "post safety lock removal" S&W firearm. IMHO, the present company is having to live with a "sin"committed by previous ownership.
abigails&w
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2021
- Messages
- 99
- Reaction score
- 262
Tom, for what is worth, all new S&W revolvers that I purchased over the last decade or so, J, K, L and N, each came in their S&W box with a separate lock, a cable lock like most other new handguns, so two locks and two sets of keys for each. I do not think that having a childproof lock is necessarily the reason for keeping the frame lock. Maybe S&W have a large stock of parts for the frame lock and it may be of no economic sense for them to change. Many new models appeared after the lock and may have parts designed for the lock. The J, K and L frame shapes are changed to accommodate the lock, hammers are changed, etc. May cost more to remove than to keep, that's my guess. For one I am glad S&W continued making revolvers and having the lock is insignificant in comparison.
StrawHat
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,917
- Reaction score
- 10,991
I don't think anyone is trying to perpetuate a lie; maybe just using the wrong words. I'm one of them, but please, relax.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,618
- Reaction score
- 31,116
The same thing that continues to plague the Company. Poor incompetent leadership IMHO.
I think that's just a matter of a convenient term. I might use the term "safety" but not in the sense of a "safety" on a 1911 for example. More like the "safety locks" we used to use at work to lock valves, switches and such to stop unauthorized/unwanted operation or entry.
I'm used to the idea of a "safety" on a gun. A lock is usually thought of as an external device. A cable padlock for example. A device designed into the gun, to make the gun "safer" (however you define that) is a "safety."
A magazine/clip thing. I know the difference, but that doesn't mean I won't use the wrong word.
Last edited:
ColumbusJBR
Member
I don’t LIKE the lock, but it’s never deterred me from buying a nicely built revolver that I want. Never had any issues w/ any of my lock Smiths, and I’m sure S&W knows that and has planned accordingly
Mehutch
Member
It is not a "safety devise", it is a lock. And a lock only, like on your front door lock. Lock it and store it. Lock your car and go. A safety is different. A 1911 has two 'Safety' labeled as 'Safety'. S&W revolvers has a lock and separate key for storage, I guess.
I have two S&W revolvers with locks and have installed 'The Plug' and removed the 'lock'. The safety on a revolver is 'keep your finger clear of the trigger.'
The lock ruins the classic look of the gun. So, I removed it.
Now isn't that better.
Last edited:
StrawHat
Member
Look in the Accesories for Sale section. At least one forum member markets the plug.
Kevin
Kevin
Ruger also kept the useless cross bolt safety on the Marlins when they bought Marlin.............They make deletes for them too.
Waldo
Member
I do not want to get in trouble by commenting on the lock. I will say that since S&W has put the lock on their revolvers, I have bought a bunch of used pre lock S&Ws and new Colts and Rugers. I have also not bought a new Marlin since they introduced the cross bolt safety. But that just means there are more S&Ws for everyone else to buy.
- Status
Similar threads
