Is the complaint about built in locks on principle, or mechanical?

C

Cheapshooter

New member
Not wanting to hijack the thread about big bore snubbies I will ask this question in a new thread.

Taurus makes a good gun in my book based on the ones I owned before they started using the built in lock.

if Taurus offered a free state gun id probably take the plunge on their 44 snubby. for now the only current production non-locked guns in .44spl snubby are the charter arms bulldog.
Click to expand...
As this was posted as a reply to my question about Taurus VS Charter Arms 44 Spcl snubbies it brings up a question in my mind.
What is the beef with the built in locks. Is it just on principle because you don't want them added for legal or political reasons? Or do you feel they may cause some mechanical problems down the road?
Again, as I mentioned in my post on that thread please, "Just the facts sir." No personal opinions on the brands!
 
for me its a little of both.

its another thing that can go wrong, as in its sole purpose is to prevent the gun from firing, not enhance its ability.

next, they don't offer a free state version like other makers.

I want things on my gun that make it or help me shoot better, not disable it.
 
As this was posted as a reply to my question about Taurus VS Charter Arms 44 Spcl snubbies it brings up a question in my mind.
What is the beef with the built in locks. Is it just on principle because you don't want them added for legal or political reasons? Or do you feel they may cause some mechanical problems down the road?
Click to expand...

Both legal/political and mechanical.

"Free state gun" -- we don't like stuff like this being mandated. It's a safety bandaid that we resent being imposed upon us.

Mechanical failure is possible. There are plenty of anecdotal reports of S&W locks failing. Light gun, heavy recoiling round, tiny mechanical parts get a big impluse. Stuff happens.

And, I think the Internet gunforum subset of the gun buying public generalized from that to all guns with an ILS.

I have direct experience with two guns with an internal lock: Bersa's Ultra Carry .45 and a Taurus 605. In both cases, the lock is held from moving by a very stiff spring loaded detent. It is very unlikely to be actuated by accident.
 
Last edited:
In my experience on this and other sites, it is mainly a matter of principle. There might have been some problems with S&W locks at first (they did change the design) but the real insanity came from ideology, not from concern about mechanics. At one point, I said I had had no problem with those locks and a looney-tunes type threatened to kill me. Not exactly the reaction of one concerned about my safety!

Another poster said he planned to blow up the S&W factory, a "reasonable" approach to a possible mechanical problem! Were there problems, or were they lies invented to justify such weirdness? I don't know for sure, but once the ranting died down, there have been no further reports of problems.

Jim
 
I don't have a use for them, so I'd rather them not be on my gun. I am ever so slightly worried about a mechanical failure, but for the most part, I just don't like the thought that extra safeties make something safer that wasn't all that unsafe to begin with.
 
I haven't even held one yet. I am of the opinion that there is no need for a addition of a safety.

Any gun owner should know that the safety for any weapon is between your ears.

So for me it is at this point ideological.

Mel
 
Read the S&W manual on removing the side plate, carefully remove about three items to get to the lock, take it out then re-assemble the gun---back to a reliable S&W that can not possibly recoil itself into a locked condition---

Helps if you are a little mechanically inclined or have had a Smith apart before--
 
I don't like locks, but if they're going to do it I think Ruger did it best.

First, it's not visible unless you want it to be (drill a hole in one grip panel using the provided dimple in the inside face of one panel).

Second, there are zero reports of it accidentally engaging.

Third, they tested it first on single action revolvers that are usually not pressed into defensive use except by a few loonies like myself :). Only after years of success under the kind of crazy round counts that SASS competitors subject them to did they put it on "pure business" revolvers like the LCR38 and LCR357 (and probably more to come).

I first bought my New Vaquero with lock in mid-2005 - it is now heavily modified and my daily carry piece, but it still has the lock in there and that doesn't worry me any.
 
Why I tend to avoid guns with built-in locks.

1. I don't need a built-in lock for my purposes.

2. A gun without a built-in lock:
  • Will cost less (even if it's only a very little less).
  • Will be simpler (even if it's only a very little bit simpler).
  • Will NEVER break or malfunction due to a problem with the built-in lock.
 
Jim March kind of nailed it. In addition to the philosophical and mechanical reasons, there are also aesthetics. So there are 3 possible reasons.

I object to the S&W safety for mechanical reasons (the anecdotal body of failures is too big to ignore) and also for aesthetics (the hole in the sideplate destroyed the classic looks of the revolver). Alternately, as Mr. March said, the ruger can be tolerated because there are no reports of failure and it is hidden and can be used or ignored.

I find the internal locking system (ILS) on the remington 700 to be objectionable solely on the basis of aesthetics. That bulging hump and peg ruins the classic contour and lines of the bolt shroud.

The system I like the best is the lock on the trigger mainspring on the springfield armory 1911's. I like it because it is so easy to disable. Just swap out the mainspring housing and one other small part.
 
I guess I misled you. I bought my wife an LCR38 and we love it. I didn't know there was a lock and so far no issues and we have 200 plus rounds through it.

I really can't tell it has a lock. Not sure what the idea is behind it either since this revolver works just like any other revolver I've handled over the years and I handled hundreds of them.

Mel
 
Both.

I think I may have 1 Taurus with a built in lock, and I have no clue where the key went. I would NEVER lock a gun.

Thinking of the probably 50 keys for various things I have in my house, it can become quite a chore to simply keep track of them as it is...
 
This is why smart people avoid Smith & Wesson and their locks. When their product stops selling, they'll change to no locks or go out of business...It's simple, and it's Capitalistic. Now we just need people to stop buying the crap with locks and ugly holes drilled in the side plates of new guns. We're the consumer, and we demand what is on the market for sale to us. If they dig in their heels and go out of business, another manufacturer would step in and fill the gap with new revolvers just as we want to buy. Personally I think it's time for S&W to just go away...I've watched their slow decline since the late 80's and it hasn't been pretty. I find myself looking for the "Made in China" sticker whenever I encounter one of their new pieces of garbage.
 
I've never met anyone who likes or uses the built in lock on a gun. There may be a small number of people with little kids or something that use them, but I never met one. You don't hear too many complaints about locks on anything other than Smith's, it's all about Smith's. This goes back to the Clinton days and the hatred will never go away.

A while back, Ruger quietly slipped in a hidden lock on certain models that required taking the grip off to engage or disengage. Value added brilliance! LOL!

So I'll answer both. But it's principle and politics that many just can't let go. I have a lock on my Taurus 85 and never give it a thought, it isn't going to fail, it adds nothing to the gun and I don't need it at all. But by-golly-gee, if I buy a new Smith, it's an issue. LOL!
 
I don't know if I can reply to this or not, because I don't object to locks. <shrugs> Some got 'em. Some don't. I've owned several with locks, Smith & Wesson's, Rugers, Taurus, and Bersa. I never thought much of them. They were just there. Most of them I never even had keys for.

Now I also admit that I like older guns without locks but that's because I like old guns. Not because they don't have locks.
 
They add cost. i dont like added cost.

as to how useful they are, well if basic gunhandling is beyond your basic grasp....
 
Now we just need people to stop buying the crap with locks and ugly holes drilled in the side plates of new guns. We're the consumer, and we demand what is on the market for sale to us. If they dig in their heels and go out of business
Click to expand...
This may well be true if we weren't in a time of record gun sales. A large number of those sales being to people who have never owned a gun. Not newbies in the sport of shooting, but people thinking things are getting so bad they may need a gun for protection. They also are afraid the political climate may someday make it impossible to buy a gun in the future. I not only don't think they are even aware of the objection to the ILS by gun enthusiasts, but most likely look at them as a desirable safety feature.
I've never met anyone who likes or uses the built in lock on a gun. There may be a small number of people with little kids or something that use them, but I never met one. You don't hear too many complaints about locks on anything other than Smith's, it's all about Smith's.
Click to expand...
To the same point, are the people you are talking to about the ILS long time shooters, or the recent buyers looking for a defensive handgun? Also, many of those new buyers tend to buy something less expensive than a "classic" Smith & Wesson.

My thought, I really don't care, other than the increased cost, weather or not a gun has the ILS. If something I want has most,or all of the other features I am looking for, having the ILS wouldn't be a deal breaker. The "lawyer" safety I dislike more is the manual safety on the Rough Rider. It has no reason to be there on a S/A revolver, and is generally annoying. But again, not a deal breaker.
 
I agree that too many people are new shooters and that basically puts zero strain on S&W sales from those of us that won't buy IL guns.

For myself, it is entirely principle. I don't like companies that just don't care about consumers, and that boycott in the 90's should have been motivation enough. I have the same problem with Glock, they only seem to care about their government contracts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top