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

I have a Ruger 44 special that has the internal lock. I don't care for it and don't like the reasoning behind it since it is largely political. But as long as it doesn't affect the function and looks of the gun, I will put up with it and also on any other guns that I may buy in the future. The anti-gun crowd would like nothing better than to permanently attach a horrible looking device to all guns so that we gunners would simple not buy them. I don't like that fact that many semi autos these days will not fire without the magazine inserted. This is political and nothing else. I know the left will claim it is to protect the "children" but we all know better. I heard a report on the radio a few days ago about the new smart gun that was built. I don't remember who manufactured it but it got rave reviews since it cannot be fired by anyone other than the owner. The rave reviews obviously came from the anti-gun crowd. The report went on to say however that it wasn't popular with gun owners and wasn't expected to sell very well. I guess not since it will be much more expensive and of no use to a family member in an emergency. The bottom line is that all of these features are due to politics and I for one would like for them all to disappear. When we give an inch the antis take a mile.
 
I very much would like to disable said locks on my revolvers, and may open up the side panel to see if it can be done.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can do it easily. There are threads and YouTube vids showing how to do it.
The principal (sic) rests on the mechanical failure of Internal Locks.
Click to expand...
This ^^.
My engineering background tells me that any device that intentionally disables a potentially life-saving device is incredibly misguided. When that device is also unnecessary, it borders on the criminal.
And knowing someone who had his S&W auto-lock itself (during dry-firing, no less) was all the real-world evidence I needed to support the above position.
"didnt (sic) the whole gunindustry admit the issues from the sw locks only happen in very specific lightweight revolvers shooting onoy (sic) the most hyper powered light weight bullets and massive speed?"
First off, the basic premise (only lightweight revolvers with hot loads) is incorrect. Back when the S&W forum still had some credibility, there was a long thread detailing actual "auto-lock" incidents. (It disappeared when the site came new ownership.) While most were on lightweight guns, there were also steel J and K-frames involved. And note the dry-firing example above.
Second, I did not know that the "whole gunindustry" was a monolithic entity...and I don't know who speaks for that imaginary entity, but given the above statement, I'll be sure to disregard any further proclamations from said entity. And maybe from that poster as well...

ETA: I can only speak to the ILS fitted to S&W revolvers, as that is the only one I have any experience with.
 
Last edited:
But as long as it doesn't affect the function and looks of the gun, I will put up with it and also on any other guns that I may buy in the future.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, but it does (hidden or not). That is the whole point. The above poster says it better than I :
"...any device that intentionally disables a potentially life-saving device is incredibly misguided."
Click to expand...

Now, add an "External" padlock (or a trigger lock) into the acquired firearm package and I don't mind a bit. Why? Because I can use it ... or not. Doesn't affect the function of the gun when not in use as it is "External". The one Ruger supplies go right into the round file (or used elsewhere) after I bring it home, but others may want to make their gun a paperweight for various reasons. Their (and my) choice! Perfectly fine with that. Adding 'parts' inside a weapon just adds more potential for failure.
 
The internal lock is not nearly as bad as the S&W with the Magna Trigger. I know some Model 66's came with the Magna Trigger. What a pain.
 
some people would buy a piece if poop if it had rolls Royce written on it, that's just the way some people are.

when people have a choice of features, the built in lock is rarely asked for, it just comes along with the package. brand loyal folks have no other choice.

I haven't bought a new S&W revolver in a long time because I cannot find one without the built in lock. I have bought some older models.

that said, I do have two guns with built in locks. they are .22lrs for training and plinking, not for defensive use. had I my druthers they wouldn't have locks on them either.
 
This ^^.
My engineering background tells me that any device that intentionally disables a potentially life-saving device is incredibly misguided. When that device is also unnecessary, it borders on the criminal.
Click to expand...

As a Registered Professional Mechanical Engineer for over 30 years I do not agree with this. The individual may indeed have an engineering background, but I do not see where that supports his obviously very strong personal opinions.
 
As an engineer, you think it's OK to re-design a platform the customers used to love, into something they now buy only because the other is no longer available? There's now a hole drilled in the side plate that everyone agrees is ugly. There's a bracket inside the lock works of the gun that no customers want, and have arguably failed causing the gun to not be able to function as a gun. Extra parts, extra labor, and an unsightly cosmetic hole that the customers don't want ...none of this seems like wise engineering changes if you ask me. They've engineered a new phrase now too..."Pre-Lock". Everyone wants the "pre lock" pistols. Nobody is going to be selling their locking pistols for double what they paid. Have you seen what "pre locks" are selling for these days? You'll be forever stuck with a "too bad it has the lock" revolver that given a choice, nobody would own if given the option or a non-locking gun. That's S&W these days. To hell with what the overwhelming majority of the customer base wants...you're getting the locks! Ridiculous. I suppose we should all embrace the locks finally....it is after all, for the children.
 
Everyone wants the "pre lock" pistols. Nobody is going to be selling their locking pistols for double what they paid.
Click to expand...

While I agree that pre-lock pistols will always command a higher price than the same pistol with the lock, I disagree that guns with locks on them can't become collectible in their own right. All it takes is one unforeseen event to make a gun collectible, eg: S&W selling out to Taurus; Colt goes out of business; Ruger stops making metal guns. Everyone wants what is no longer made. If S&W originally made all of their guns with little micro locks on them, but stopped, you would have folks clamoring to buy the ones with locks on them. Just look at grip safeties - another ridiculous unneeded safety feature, but try to sell a 1911 guy any 1911 without a grip safety! Even my STI 2011 has the stupid grip safety on it - yes they can be eliminated with a replacement insert.......but that's not the way they were originally designed.

Heck, I have a Demro Tac Carbine made in the 1970's. It has a bicycle-lock-style combination lock built into it. Not just some tiny little hole! However, it is quite collectible, despite the lock, because it is an open-bolt .45 carbine. In fact the Fox Carbines (no lock) sell for the same price as the Demro (combination lock) - no one cares, because its "cool" to have a gun that is one step away from being a full-auto machine gun that BATFE despises.:D
 
Last edited:
Adding additional parts to an already working design adds potential failure modes. An FMEA would show this to be true. One tried and true method of removing or fool proofing a potential failure mode is to remove the parts in question from the design.

IOW, simple is better.
 
As an engineer, you think it's OK to re-design a platform the customers used to love, into something they now buy only because the other is no longer available?
Click to expand...

Safety features are designed into products every day. Some consumers hate them, some refuse to use them, but they are still designed into the product. One example is seat belts. Here forty years later there are some people who still hate them, refuse to wear them and insist that they actually do more harm than good. Such is life, but all the emotional opinion has nothing to do with the engineering design added to the product.
 
SKANS - in part - While I agree that pre-lock pistols will always command a higher price than the same pistol with the lock, I disagree that guns with locks on them can't become collectible in their own right. All it takes is one unforeseen event to make a gun collectible, eg: S&W selling out to Taurus; Colt goes out of business; Ruger stops making metal guns. Everyone wants what is no longer made. If S&W originally made all of their guns with little micro locks on them, but stopped, you would have folks clamoring to buy the ones with locks on them. Just look at grip safeties - another ridiculous unneeded safety feature, but try to sell a 1911 guy any 1911 without a grip safety! Even my STI 2011 has the stupid grip safety on it - yes they can be eliminated with a replacement insert.......but that's not the way they were originally designed.
Click to expand...

How about if the evil leftist States, in which important handgun companies produce firearms, eventually outlaw firearms (or handgun) production for private consumption?
 
Whyyy-by-golly-gee, day don't make-em like day use to!

LOL!!!

Let's quit wasting bandwidth beotching about S&W.
 
Safety features are designed into products every day. Some consumers hate them, some refuse to use them, but they are still designed into the product. One example is seat belts. Here forty years later there are some people who still hate them, refuse to wear them and insist that they actually do more harm than good. Such is life, but all the emotional opinion has nothing to do with the engineering design added to the product.
Click to expand...

Close, but: seat belts do not prevent the car from being a car. They are not bidirectional in function to the overall design of the car.
 
There are locks on three of my S&W revolvers. It doesn't bother me too much.

I rarely use them. The only time I do is when, for whatever reason, I have no choice but to leave the gun unattended and have no really good way to secure it. An example is when I have to go somewhere that does not allow guns and I have to leave it in my luggage in a hotel room. It won't prevent theft by a maid or someone else breaking into my room/luggage, but it may reduce my liability if that person uses the gun illegally or injures themselves with it.
 
Close, but: seat belts do not prevent the car from being a car. They are not bidirectional in function to the overall design of the car.
Click to expand...
Beat me to it. This has nothing to do with safety and all all about 'function'. A better car analogy is adding a key lock to the gas line to prevent a thief from driving away with your car. Now, if it shakes loose while driving and closes the gas line, the car stops working and you are stuck in the middle of the highway..... Useless. Just something more to go wrong when you need it the most. With a gun it is even worst as you might be a split second away from living or dieing. With an object you depend your life on.... The simpler the better.

and have no really good way to secure it.
Click to expand...
Carry one of those trigger locks with you in your luggage (don't weigh very much). 'Click' and you are secured externally.
 
Last edited:
Didn't they make a particular car (briefly) that wouldn't start unless the driver seat belt was fastened?

Can't say if its true, or urban legend, but I have heard a story about them making a car like that, and a lady being attacked in the parking lot, getting away, getting to her car, getting the key in the ignition, but because of the seat belt interlock, couldn't drive away. Attacker caught her and did serious harm. Any other car in the world, she would have escaped. The safety feature nearly got her killed...or so the story goes.

All I know is that they don't make cars like that now...got any idea why not?

As to using a built in lock to "secure" a gun, from what? Not from theft, to do that you have to secure the gun in (or to) something. Worried about someone shooting someone with your gun? I'm kind of old school on this. If its not loaded, they aren't going to shoot anyone, including themselves, either accidently or intentionally.

IF they have to load the gun to use it, doesn't that kind of clearly put the responsibility on them? As if stealing it in the first place wasn't enough?

I'll say it again, lock up an empty gun all you want, for your own piece of mind. I think its foolish, but do what makes you happy, to an unloaded gun.

If you lock a loaded gun, I think you are an idiot (internal lock) and if you put a trigger lock on a loaded gun I think you are a dangerous idiot.
 
Didn't they make a particular car (briefly) that wouldn't start unless the driver seat belt was fastened?
Click to expand...

Actually they did. My Mom got one as a rental car in Texas once when I was about 10 years old 1972

Gary
 
Speaking of cars: When systems are tied together the design failure modes multiply and given todays methods of approving designs before they can go into production it's not the way designers think. But it seems like gun designers didn't get the memo.
 
As to using a built in lock to "secure" a gun, from what? Not from theft, to do that you have to secure the gun in (or to) something. Worried about someone shooting someone with your gun? I'm kind of old school on this. If its not loaded, they aren't going to shoot anyone, including themselves, either accidently or intentionally.
Click to expand...

One word.......Kids!

That's not saying I agree with the concept. I think some of the thinking, wrong or right, is that you can keep the gun loaded but locked. When needed, or when you are in possession of it you only have to unlock it.
The locks are supposed to be an answer to children getting a hold of loaded guns in the house. The flaw in the theory is how many people who are already acting irresponsible by not maintaining proper possession of a loaded firearm are going to bother to use the lock anyway.
Like I said earlier, I don't particularly like the locks, but if a gun I want has one it's not a deal breaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top