New gun safeties: reliability/dislike?

RampantAndroid

New member
OK, so...I see a lot of hate being directed at all these new gun safeties: the ones on Kimber IIs, new S&W revolvers and such.

But every single time I ask people to tell me why they hate them I get no reply. Nothing.

So take this as a challenge: Actually say why you hate the new saftey systems, give examples...and whether such a system has ever malfunctioned and prevented the gun from firing when you want (or need) it to...or caused it to go off when you don't want it to.

RA
 
I'm taking a guess here, but I think it is a resentment of the new gun world. A world where gunmakers cave in to the demands of politicians and lawyers. They add internal locks, warnings engraved on the gun, and etc.. I think purists and enthusiasts see this gaining ground for the anti-gun crowd.
 
Aside from my purist ideas of how I think they should be manufactured and the days gone by of how they were manufactured- I see the new safeties as a $5.00 cure for a $2.00 problem, so to speak. I don't see the liklihood of such things being used or used properly by the majority of the consumers. Have horrific accidents been prevented in great masses by these new advents? I don't know. However, I stand firm in the belief that more benefit is gained from the safeties while the firearms are still within the manufacturing facility in the guise of making the weapons lawyer proof as opposed to preventing accidents with end-users. Safety begins between the ears and travels forthwith to the hands. I opine that firearms safety should be taught at least once in elementary, once in Jr. High, and again in High School. You can't legislate safety, and you can't make a guy with 30yrs firearms experience turn a key in order to operate his firearm.

I bought 2 new Springfields- a GI and a RO, both new. Neither one of the the little MSH safeties would turn no matter how I read the instructions. Yes, they were both replaced with tradtional MSH's. Even sitting in a bench vise, the little rotating cams were pressed in so tight that the keys stripped. Is this indicative of all of them? I do wonder, but either way- the safeties served their purpose as well as any of them by making the firearms lawyer proof while at their birthplace. I had a S&W 21-4 New Classic .44SPL. That safety worked as intended, but not for the life of me could I concoct a scenario where I would have the need to employ it. I'm guessing this was because it was never my everyday CC for more than 2 weeks, and becasue I practice common sense safety.
 
I don't have problems with gun safeties

if I did then I would make sure ahead of time I was 'in the clear' before purchasing the weapon. I can see how it could conflict with some people's preferences in more unique situations, but I feel like one needs to "pick his battles".
 
i replaced the ILS MSH on my SA 1911's only because i wanted a different serration pattern, not out of fear of any probs with the lock.

my s&w 620 357mag revolver also has a lock, and i don't care.

if it worries you, replace it, or simply don't buy one. if there were consistent issues with these it'd be splashed all over internet gun forums.
 
For the most part I don't have a problem with additional safeties. I don't care for the locks that are being added like Taurus S&W or Springfield. I have a safe to keep guns in and can add trigger locks if I feel the need.

I have read of S&W locks failing but not experienced it, may just be internet talk. I don't hate the locks or safeties (that are unnecessary) But any gun that I carry has to be point and shoot. Safe handling is my responsibility and I get the training and practice so that the gun is not going to fire unexpectedly.

The accidental discharges happen more frequently with people who buy a gun, put in the night stand and think they are protected. There are a lot of guns that have never even been shot by their owners.

The locks and additional safeties can not fix lack of training or prevent stupid actions,and in a worse case scenario get you killed because you can't find that key to unlock the gun that you need NOW
 
I agree with your post Sheepman

There are a lot of guns that have never even been shot by their owners.

many people will admit it too. It is nothing against them + it is their weapon & their choice. I strongly disagree with the idea of owning a firearm for SD or HD that one has never fired though. Even my wife who just isn't into shooting has shot our HD revolver multiple times(double action and with the revolver's hammer cocked).
 
the lock on your handgun probably adds 20 dollars into manufacturing it. itll run you 12 dollars to have the manufacturer send you a replacement key with the company logo on it.

but your kids 12 year old methhead friend from next door only needs to steel a 9 dollar allen wrench kit from walmart and theyll be using your gun to hold up drugstores in mere minutes.


the locks arent gaurunteed to work. they still want it to be an unloaded gun when you turn the lock on. and in some cases it can still fire. in some cases light weight alloy guns and high end magnum ammunition can jam them up.

and smart people assume they arent needed because when you need to use the implement, you wont have the time to deactivate the lock or even remember to unlock the gun.
havent you heard the common "i just kept aiming and pulling the trigger and working the bolt/lever/pump but the dang deer just ran off. my buddies told me aftewords that i never took the safety off."
 
I just bought a slightly used S&W Model 22 Classic despite the goofy lock on the side. I'll never use the lock and would prefer it was not there, however, it did not keep me from buying the revolver.
 
I have a S&W 637 and a Springfield TRP with "new safeties." Do I like them? No. Have I had a problem with either of them? No.

My dislike is really that the gun companies caved to the political pressure and starting making guns with them. While I dislike them, I don't have any fear that they'll seize up at the wrong moment.
 
Lets define some terms here, ok? (help out the old fart understand what we are talking about).

ILS is Internal Lock System? yes?
What is MSH?

And lets be clear, a lock (any kind) is NOT a SAFETY! It matters not to me if the maker calls it a safety, its name doesn't change what it is.

Locks are not safeties! Only idiots lock loaded guns! Internal or external doesn't matter, locking a loaded gun is a stupid thing to do.

A safety is a mechanical switch, or component position (like half cock) intended to prevent unintentional discharge while the gun is in use.

A lock is a mechcanical device intended to prevent use of the gun. These are two completely different functions!

Generations of gun safety instruction has always taught that no mechanical safety is to be fully relied on. Safe gun handling is to be relied on instead, because mechanical devices can, and do fail.

And built in locks can fail as well. Using one for a safety strikes me as severe folly, and dangerous, to boot!
 
MSH is a mainspring housing. Springers have their ILS located there.

My LOCKING SYSTEMS are all disabled. I do not need another item left to chance to fail me. If I'm unlucky enough to need to use my pistol, I'm also potentially unlucky enough to have it accidentally lock up.

As far as safeties, I'm with 44AMP... locks are not safeties.
 
To me, it doesn't matter if it is a handgun, rifle or shotgun, I hate safeties (and automatic ones even more). Your safety is, like the old saying, between your ears - if that isn't good enough, you might want to rethink a few things
 
This is a good place to mention that Fairbairn said in his book that he was against the prolifiration of safety mechanism on pistols, or words to that effect, and the book was published in the 1940s. So you are all in good company. However, he had actually disabled the safeties on pistols issued in the department he had been when, so you are still in good company and you have a precident. Only what he did was to have the thumb safety on the department's Colts, both .45 auto and .380 autos, fixed in place so they were inoperable. That may not be exactly what you all had in mind.
 
Well, first of all the are not "safeties", they are built-in locks, relabelling them as safeties seems somewhat disingenuous.

And yes there are several documented reports of the S&W revolver internal locks failing rendering the guns inoperable.

The addition of moving parts which are not necessary for the operation of a firearm which furthermore are specifically designed to render the firearm inoperable without a separate piece of hardware to render it operable is ludicrous on it's face. If you want to secure a firearm then lock it in a safe.

Well, you asked..... :D
 
I'm not big on safeties

but it comes in handy on my derringer that is stored or carried half cocked. I also don't mind the easily manueverable saftey on my mossberg 500. Obviously the shotgun is "hot" when the lever is red.
 
I think you should distinguish between "safeties" and "locks." The OP's query seems steered more toward the latter.

The animus against locks is partly political, and would be minimal were it not for the potential (which apparently has a basis with the S&W revolver locks) of setting itself "on" when not intended, thus rendering the weapon useless for its intended purpose.

The situation regarding "safeties" is an entire different story. Some folks (I'm one) dislike the psychological effect safeties have on some people causing them to relax the care with which they handle the firearm. Some folks (I'm also one) distrust some safety designs, which have the potential for being an additional cause of an unintended discharge when flicked off.

In fact, the only safeties I'll ever use are (a) the thumb safety on a Gov't Model design, which is both necessary to Condition 1 carry and unlikely in the extreme to cause a discharge when released, and (b) the safety on an M1 or M14, which may be required by Match rules and the design of which also does not portend a "fire upon release" potential.
 
The only safety that I've ever despised and disabled on a pistol was the one that came on my Webley Mk. IV. This was not installed by Webley, but rather by Century when they imported the revolver. The ridiculous cross-bolt safety was in a very awkward place, difficult to operate, and had to be applied before the gun could be broken open to load. In addition, even when in the "off" position the firing pin was just barely able to protrude from the breechface and would have, I suspect, cause light strikes (I never fired the pistol before removing that idiotic addition). That is the only safety device I've ever removed, however, because it was the only one that actually had a detrimental effect on the functioning of the gun.

I've owned two S&W revolvers with the internal lock and, while I don't use them, neither has ever caused me a moment's trouble so I leave them as-is. I also own a Marlin M1895G with the new cross-bolt safey that so many seem to dislike. On that particular gun, I actually find the safety to be useful as I use it while loading and unloading the gun. When carrying the rifle in the field, I push the safety off and either keep the gun with an empty chamber or use the half-cock notch on the hammer per the traditional methods. The safety is useful, however, while lowering the hammer to the half-cock notch as it blocks the hammer from the firing pin but still leaves the trigger mechanism operable.

As far as other safeties go, both my 1911 and CZ-75 have factory firing-pin block safeties (nether gun was originally designed with that feature) and neither bothers me as they do not adversely affect the functioning of the gun.
 
While it doesn't bother me that my S&W revolver has one, I've never understood the real world use-case for an easily defeatable, integrated gun lock.
 
While it doesn't bother me that my S&W revolver has one, I've never understood the real world use-case for an easily defeatable, integrated gun lock.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the state of Maryland requires all new handguns sold there to be equipped with some sort of internal locking device. While the practical purpose is questionable, in this case at least it does have a valid legal purpose.
 
Back
Top