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

When I was growing up there were locks on several little boxes and even one drawer. It's one of the things I remember from being a young boy. I opened all of them. Kids are not stupid.
Who would let a kid play with a loaded locked gun? Who would think that a young boy can't unlock such a simple lock?

Idealism is fun as a mental thing but it's not meant for reality. Locks increase intrest and focus in young minds. It's like writing PG13 or "R" on a video disc....That's the one that gets played as soon as you leave the room.
 
Idealism is fun as a mental thing but it's not meant for reality. Locks increase intrest and focus in young minds. It's like writing PG13 or "R" on a video disc....That's the one that gets played as soon as you leave the room.
Click to expand...

That is probably a big part of the philosophic objection. Something being added as just a feel good measure that is unnecessary, and probably doesn't even fulfill it's intended purpose.
 
I might add, like sending my 1972 era Super Blackhawk to Ruger for the transfer bar modification. No, I didn't do it! Hammer down on an empty chamber is as good as I need.
 
How do even ...KIDS... shoot someone with an unloaded gun?

My point is, that people with kids, or anyone in their house that isn't completely trustworthy are getting a false sense of security from the lock. They think its ok to lock a loaded gun, and not secure it. They are being sold the idea that you can unlock the loaded gun and have it ready for instant use in a defense situation.

Modern handguns are very quick to load. HOW QUICK ARE THEY TO UNLOCK?

How many seconds is it going to take you to find that particular key, and get it in that little hole? Is it quicker than inserting a loaded magazine and chambering a round? Is it quicker than loading a DA revolver with a speed loader? You decide.

My opinion is that if a gun is loaded, it should be under your direct personal control. If, for any reason it's not, it should NOT BE LOADED. Follow this rule, and no lock is of any benefit.

We look at worst case situations a lot. Some people are concerned that the lock could fail (in the ON position) and keep the gun from firing, which in an emergency would be a very bad thing.

I notice no one is saying much, if anything about what might happen if the lock fails in the off postion (does not function)? Load that gun and lock it, and its safe for your granddaughter's playdate friends to find, right? I suppose you can console yourself with the thought that if the worst possible thing happens you can sue the gunmaker. But YOU DID LOAD THE GUN!

Personally, I'd much rather have my Granddaughter....live, whole, and emotionally unscarred from a "tragic accident".
 
Both. The lock is lawyer generated and no lock is necessary for a responsible owner and any child with a lick of curiousity will find a means of defeating it. Rod
 
S&W 340PD

I only own one gun with an internal lock because this particular gun didn't come without a lock. As you can see I fixed the problem, and oh yes these tiny airlites have in fact engaged the lock while firing heavy loads. It's rare, but it has happened.

DSCN1047.jpg
 
I might add, like sending my 1972 era Super Blackhawk to Ruger for the transfer bar modification. No, I didn't do it! Hammer down on an empty chamber is as good as I need.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that resisting technology advances is a different matter. I would never waste capacity and carry weight/bulk on an empty chamber. The gun's not one I would carry these days. It would be immaterial otherwise, say at the range. That's just me. I don't doubt it can work for someone else.
 
... that resisting technology advances is a different matter.
Click to expand...
Some of us don't quite see it as an advance in tech, but a step backward for the sole reason of keeping lawyers off their backs from un-educated users in a sue happy nation. Added parts affect reliability and also the feel when pulling the trigger. If you need more than 5 shots you are is big trouble.... Well, I guess I understand that if you shoot 9mm where 17 or so is needed ;) :p ... Keep it simple ...
 
... that resisting technology advances is a different matter.
Click to expand...

Some of us don't quite see it as an advance in tech, but a step backward for the sole reason of keeping lawyers off their backs from un-educated users in a sue happy nation. Added parts affect reliability and also the feel when pulling the trigger. If you need more than 5 shots you are is big trouble.... Well, I guess I understand that if you shoot 9mm where 17 or so is needed ... Keep it simple ...
Click to expand...

I was referring to a transfer bar as a significant advance, the same context as that to which I was responding. To what are you referring as a step backward or due to a legal concern? If it's trigger locks, you're off target.
 
This is my S&W M642-1 No-Lock .38 special snub nose revolver.

Barami_angle_1.jpg


I recommend it. What about the version with the lock?

You take your own life into your hands, but since Smith currently makes this model without the lock, there is absolutely no reason for someone who is SERIOUS about personal defense to buy one with an internal lock.

JHMO.

YMMV.
 
Is the complaint about built in locks on principle, or mechanical?
Click to expand...

Part mechanical, part principle,and part PRICE.

1. I don't want extra do-dads on my guns that can fail and are unnecessary (mechanical.)
2. I don't want extra things on my guns that I simply don't want on my guns (principle.)
3. And third, I surely don't want to PAY FOR THINGS I DON'T WANT ON MY GUNS.

Clear enough kemosabe?

Deaf
 
I agree with most that it is a little bit of both.

1. I think it is crazy to rely to on a key to make my gun functional. If it is a safety issue, well there are plenty of rules of safe gun ownership that cover that concern.

2. Even if I never use it, there is always a chance (however small) that it will lock up in a malfunction. The pieces are there and they will do what they are designed to do, a bump at just the right angle has the chance to engage them.

That said, I do own one gun that has a lock (not a revolver though). My Taurus PT92 has a lock. I have never once used it other than to make sure it was disengaged upon purchase. The only reason I own the gun was that the price was just too good to pass up.
 
The following in order of importance

1. Any time a lawyer is involved in the design of a firearm, tool or anything else the worlds a worse place.:mad:
2.If I want or need a safety on a firearm I will get a trigger lock.
3.Looks, its just like the Ruger's Gettysburg address on their barrels.:(
4.Possibility of a reliability issue.:confused:
I would have no issue with a gun safety installed on a firearm if it was something that YOU had to add to a gun. Like a set screw in the hammer that would stop the gun from making contact with the primer. That when or if you didn’t need it could be removed completely from the gun and cause no possible issues.
 
If a transfer bar is a step backwards (and I don't believe it is), then where else do you draw the line?

Are those pesky cartridges a step backwards from good old percussion caps?:rolleyes:

Look at the guns used by the military and police (sadly, more and more the same guns these days). DO you see any internal locks in them? I don't.

some might consider the lock a step forward. I don't. Some might think its a step backwards. I don't, and don't see how they could. In fact, I don't think its a step, at all, its a "jump to the left, and then a step to the riiiiiight.....":rolleyes:
 
You take your own life into your hands, but since Smith currently makes this model without the lock, there is absolutely no reason for someone who is SERIOUS about personal defense to buy one with an internal lock.
Click to expand...


I consider myself pretty serious about personal defense, but just not paranoid about the S&W internal lock. All my S&W handguns (6) have them and have never caused me a problem. On the other hand once when my daughter and grand kids stopped by unexpectedly I had a revolver on my work bench to be cleaned after a range trip. It was unloaded, but there is ammunition in the cabinets by the workbench. I was happy the revolver was locked, not that the kids messed with anything. However I remember being a kid and messing a couple of times in my uncle's reloading room. I loaded the handguns, unloaded them, pointed them at things and pretended I was Roy Rogers. Did the same with his lever action carbines. It was cool. I was 10, or 12. As my dad says, 'Kids are no damn good.' I have no problem with another level of safety, have never had a problem with the S&W internal locks and think they are neither a deal maker, or deal breaker for me. Others can enjoy what ever they want, but all the rationalization does not make a theory real. Enjoy what you enjoy and stop trying to regulate the world for other people. The government does enough of that already.
 
If a transfer bar is a step backwards...
Click to expand...
It is in at least an SA IMO, as it is a part that is unnecessary for operation. Therefore for me it is a step backwards. Also I like the the feel of the older action better. I've had one break on me too. I conceed that the transfer bar probably has saved countless accidental discharges... So I understand why it is there because there is an element of our population that doesn't understand or want to understand how their new tool works. But I don't have to like it :) . For example, in another forum, a guy was removing the cylinder from his SA, to get the cases out, instead of ejecting them with the ejector rod.... Simply not understanding the operation.... So given the 'climit' I understand why.

The locks though.... keep 'em external and not part of the gun. Then it is your choice to use them or not.
 
Certainly Smith has got the hint by now, how many years has this been going on?

They made a conscience decision and it looks like they're sticking to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top