Internal Locks

C

crow

New member
I know that Taurus has been putting these nonsense things on their guns for some time now, and S&W has started it too.

Does either design pose a threat to the "safety" of the gun's normal function. Such as engaging itself when being fired, rendering the gun useless in a self defense situation?

If you all are like me, you would rather not have these on your guns, but is one better than the other, or could they both malfunction at the wrong time?
 
Taurus Lock

I'm no expert on much of anything, but I've had a couple of Taurus revolvers (And 85 and a 66) that had the "safety" (for lack of a better term) on them. They don't bother me a bit. They're a spring loaded screw that pops up and keeps the hammer from moving. I suppose they COULD somehow or other become engaged accidently, but I have no idea how. If they broke, they'd most likely fall out of the gun, and you simply wouldn't have the "safety" anymore. My wife's Bersa 22 has one too, but I've never really looked at it to see how it works. We just unlocked it, and left it "off".

I can't speak to the Smith & Wesson one, I've never even seen one.
 
I own a s&w with the lock.....

and I'm friends with a certified S&W armorer, who runs a large local s&W
authorized repair center. He has yet to see and lock failures, and hasn't
heard if any. I wouldn't worry about it. :rolleyes:
 
Initially one of the reasons I bought the gun

I like having it, just in case I have to disable it for any number of reasons. ;)
 
non issue for me. I have a PT140 with the lock. never engaged it since testing its function on day one. 1000+ rounds and hav'nt touched it. -it never locked itself.


if that aspect of a gun is gonna lock itself, then why can we all say that a gun wont just shoot itself. they are both about as likely
 
I can live with them if I have to IF they will make them invisible. In other words, do something like the new Rugers. Put the damn things totally under the grips. Leave drilling a hole in the grips to the user who wants to use them. If there is a big old contrasting hole in the sideplate, I'm not going to buy it. Not yet anyway!

(I say contrasting because of the new 5" S&W M60 in .357 Magnum I just looked at last week. The lock was black or something. It just jumped out at you when you looked at that side of the gun. I wasn't able to really give it a chance as a gun after that. Let's admit it, revolver buyers are mostly "traditionalists." And there is nothing "traditional" about the S&W lock! Just keeping making them that way S&W and I'll just keep not buying them!)

Gregg
 
Check some of the other forums on the web and there are reports of locks failing on both the Taurus and the S&W handguns. Anything mechanical can fail.
 
As I see it, those "internal locks" do nothing. I despise them. If I am not responsible enough to handle a firearm without an internal lock, I may not responsible enough to handle one WITH said lock.

or as I also call them, the inFernal locks. . .

I really wanted one of the 50th Anniversary Ruger Blackhawks, until I saw it has the inFernal lock. :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
i also despise them, i have one gun with it and WILL not buy another one. they have enough controll on us already and i will not bow down to them anymore.
 
The locks are a dumb idea. Most of us agree on that.

Easy way to fix it: Boycott. Otherwise, don't gripe. The almighty dollar is what speaks. I admit to being a Ruger fan, but now that they are installing locks on certain guns, I won't be buying a new Ruger. Same goes for Smith and Wesson, and Taurus, and Glock. Doesn't mean I won't be buying one of those guns, just means I will be buying a previously owned one without the lock.
 
I do not like Smith’s “internal lock” and I know of no one who does. However, I have NEVER heard of a problem with it and -- personally -- I just leave my modern Smith revolvers in the unlocked position and keep the key in my safe (forever unused).
 
Massad Ayoob did an artical in the Jan-Feb '05 issue of American Handgunner about lock failures on certain S&W wheelguns. One was a M-642 Titanium Airlite loaded with +p+ .38's. The other was a M-340 Scandium Airlite loaded with .357's. The 3rd was a 329 Scandium with full house .44 mags. The 2 J frames locked up tight. After removing the side plate it was determined that parts in the locks shifted and locked up the guns. The .44's lock mechanism flew out of the gun. The gun still functioned.

The J frames were both being fired at the Manchester (Nh) Indoor Firing Line while the .44 belonged to a Rochester, In detective.

There was also a discussion about locks awhile back over at the S&W Forum.

As someone raised on S&W wheelguns the whole thing makes me sick. Kind of like finding out Colt 1911's were actually made by Lorcin.
 
I was whacking the frame of my 686 to get the side plate off, and the lock engaged. Has got to be because the hammer had moved out a bit, and would probably not happen if the cover was not loose, but still, it did not make me happy.

So when I went to bob the hammer on my Airframe snubbie, and had the hammer out, and discovered that the lock flag just sits there, held in place against the frame by the hammer, I, um, 'lost' the lock flag. I hope that's the proper way to disable the lock. Gun works fine without it.
 
I really wanted one of the 50th Anniversary Ruger Blackhawks, until I saw it has the inFernal lock.
Click to expand...

I bought one about a month ago. It is a really wonderful revolver. Just a great feel in the hand. Excellent sights. The action feels great. And the XR3 gripframe is the way to go. I would _prefer_ that it didn't have the lock. Heck, I would prefer that it had the old style action without the transfer bar. But the gun is too good to avoid because of something like a lock you wouldn't even know was there unless you removed the grips. I couldn't resist checking it out one time but I'll probably never touch it again. No holes in the sideplate or extra pieces in the lockwork. It just sits at the base of the mainspring. I can live with that if the alternative is no new guns at all.

Gregg
 
Ruger Lock

I've got a Ruger 50th anniversary, Single Six (22). Does it have a lock too? I've never noticed. I bought it used, and it didn't have a key with it if does. Oh well.
 
I have two Smiths, a Model 60 before the lock and a Model 25 after it and I clearly don't like the idea of the lock. To me there are honest and dishonest handguns. The lock makes them dishonest as does legalese on the barrel. Brownell even sells plain barrels to replace some models. In the dishonest category are Ruger, Taurus, Rossi, S&W, EAA, and probably others. Honest ones I know of are Springfield, Colt, and Charter 2000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top