WTK: Why Doesn't Someone make a "Lock Filler"?

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by G-Mac:
If some little kid got a hold of a gun and accidentally killed himself or a friend, YOU CAN BET YOUR ASS there would be a HUGE lawsuit.

You don't need to be a lawyer to figure that out.

There. Fixed it for you to reflect reality.

THE LOCK DOESN'T EFFING MATTER IF YOU STORE YOUR GUNS PROPERLY.

 

[deputydog]

Thanks for posting the pics, about 1 hr of work.

 

[AKtinman]

As for the original post, good question.

Several years ago a "pin" was available to replace the sliding bolt lock (crossbolt safety?) for some of the Marlin lever guns. I think it was made and sold by a gunsmith.

Certainly it could be done for the S&W. Don't know about the legal stuff.

 

[batmann]

OK, deputydog, great job. Are you going to sell the part or tell us how you did it.
I like your grips and I have the same on my 629.

 

[RonJ]

Originally posted by batmann:
OK, deputydog, great job. Are you going to sell the part or tell us how you did it.
I like your grips and I have the same on my 629.

+1!!

 

[sipowicz]

Seems to me anyone can do it themselves, but if someone wanted to start a business with a "lock Filler" then that person would have huge liablility issues as a business that intentionally disables safety devices...

 

[cmort666]

Why not something decorative? Gold or silver plated stars or badges or the S&W logo. For Algore, maybe the UN logo or for Sean Penn a peace sign.

Make it a two piece rivet that snaps together from the inside and outside.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by sipowicz:
If someone wanted to start a business with a "lock Filler" then that person would have huge liablility issues as a business that intentionally disables safety devices...

What liability? For eliminating a storage lock?

It's about as much liability as throwing away the cheesy padlock that comes with most guns these days.

 

[bmcgilvray]

In reference to the dithering over a child accessing a handgun, I'm certainly not offloading a lifetime collection of no-lock firearms in order to avoid the lawsuits that could arise due to accidents. Not buying the first "lock" firearm either with it's dubious safety feature. Stow 'em properly and use your head about gun safety. A genuine concern about the safety of others should be paramount rather than fretting over potential lawsuits in the event of an accident. Same goes for righteous self defense and the agonizing over gun, ammunition type, and so forth. Some appear almost paralyzed by fears of the aftermath of a self defense shooting.

Theres way too much dithering over potential lawsuits on today's firearms forums in my view. A generation of gun owners has gone absolutely flinch-y over it. We've apparently lost the high ground in our own minds if we spend so much time worrying over liability. Might as well bury the guns in wet concrete so we can cease agonizing.

 

[sar4937]

So you start a business making something that looks like it could fill the hole, but you build it for some other sort of job. You can't help it if we misuse it for a different purpose.

 

[G-Mac]

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp: What liability? For eliminating a storage lock?

It's about as much liability as throwing away the cheesy padlock that comes with most guns these days.

The obvious difference is that one is built in and one isn't.

Disabling a SAFETY DEVICE that is BUILT IN to any product is a huge liability. I'd bet most gunsmiths would refuse the job, if asked to do it.

Or...let's put it this way...if their insurance carrier found out that they were doing it, they'd probably regret it.

 

[dsf]

Originally posted by G-Mac:

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp: What liability? For eliminating a storage lock?

It's about as much liability as throwing away the cheesy padlock that comes with most guns these days.

The obvious difference is that one is built in and one isn't.

Disabling a SAFETY DEVICE that is BUILT IN to any product is a huge liability. I'd bet most gunsmiths would refuse the job, if asked to do it.

Or...let's put it this way...if their insurance carrier found out that they were doing it, they'd probably regret it.

I tend to agree.

It would be interesting to have an attorney post their opinion in detail. The best I can do is relate that I spent this afternoon alone with an attorney (contract law specifically, but she still reaches for her sneakers whenever an ambulance flies by) and her answer is that were she the defendant's attorney (in a shooting) she'd greatly prefer the lock be untouched; were she representing an injured plaintiff she would be quite pleased to learn the (storage) lock was disabled. As she ineloquently put it "Why would I want the additional duty of explaining why the idiot removed a factory installed locking device?"

 

[SUTHERBRO3]

Originally posted by BlackAgnes:
Oversize cylinder release latch would cover it...

wHERE CAN A OVERSIZED RELEASE LATCH BE FOUND?
SUTHERBRO3

 

[pinkymingeo]

The dithering over potential lawsuits is nothing compared to the whimpering in reloading discussions, where the mere mention of lead or mercury spawns countless recommendations for biohazard suits, regular blood testing and other ridiculous methods for dealing with imaginary risks. If a kid gives himself a well-deserved lobotomy with your gun there'll be a world of trouble, locks notwithstanding. My recommendation is keep strangers away from your guns, keep shooting, and quit worrying.

 

[G-Mac]

Originally posted by pinkymingeo: My recommendation is keep strangers away from your guns, keep shooting, and quit worrying.

...and don't buy S&W revolvers with stupid, built-in locks....the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[mikey1966]

"well deserved labotamy" ? thats kinda cold and sociopathic. anyway , guns have been made with no locks for years. only ignorant , greedy companies that manufacture locks choose to destroy an american icon handgun. but yes , the long padlocks have been included for years and thats certainly good enough. you guys have to stop buying them. also , i am not qualified to diagnose anyone... it just sounds really bad. anyone agree about a "well deserved labotamy"?

 

[Porthos]

You could always thread a zerk fitting in there.

Seriously, couldn't someone machine it for a countersunk screw? I haven't really ever looked at the new Smiths so I wouldn't know.

Steve

 

[Bullseye Smith]

Wasn't the ruling of the high court touch on the lock saying they don't need to have them? If that is true it is OK to remove them. Later John

 

[seb5]

If S&W heard from all of us through the dollars instead of the internet maybe they would revisit the issue. It's simple economics. I will never own a S&W with a lock. I really like some of the newer models but won't go there. It's just my personal issue with the overly liability conscious attorneys that seem to dictate too much of our lives nowadays.

 

[2x6]

I've solved the lock problem for myself - I have never, nor will I ever, purchase a S&W with the IL. There are probably at least a half dozen guns in the current S&W catalog that I would like to buy and could live with despite not being P&R, missing the firing pin on the hammer, containing MIM parts, and lacking that old radiant finish. However, I draw the line with IL - to me it's a just butt ugly distraction and not necessary. I'll continue to look for the older models to satisfy my addiction.