No-Lock Advertisement?
- Thread starter Ky Bob
- Start date
Many people dislike the aesthetics of the lock hole in the side of the revolver.
Many people dislike the idea of a lock (or any other unnecessary components) added to an already functional design.
There have been a very few documented instances of locks causing functional problems.
Many people dislike the idea of a lock (or any other unnecessary components) added to an already functional design.
There have been a very few documented instances of locks causing functional problems.
Kreyzhorse
New member
All excellent points.
Just want to add that many people have swore off S&W because of the lock and shifted to other brands. Advertising "no locks" is a direct appeal to those that are leary of them for whatever reason.
Nakanokalronin
New member
Some think its for people that don't want to put a trigger lock on their gun if their local or state laws tell them the pistol must be locked, some might need a lock for transportation, lots of people think its just another mechanisim that could fail or engage at the wrong time or that if the keys are lost your gun is worthless and finally there is the point that its just a lawyer lock. I'm hoping Ruger never does this with their revolvers but I've heard they might.
kodiakbeer
Moderator
Aesthetics yes, but far worse is the thought of your gun being locked and then not being able to lay hands on the key when the front door gets kicked down.
Too late
They already do. As far as I know its not uniform across the board all models (yet), but some models already do have internal locks. The New Vaquero is one that does.
However, Ruger did it smart. The lock is in the grip frame, and is concealed from casual view. In fact, if you want to use the lock, you must drill a small hole in the grip panel (pre marked from Ruger).
No ugly, in your face hole in the side of the revolver, with an altered profile cylinder latch that just screams "Look at MEEEEEE!!!!!"
That's what I have against the S&W lock. For me, it ruins the look of a classic gun.
My personal feelings about locks on guns are that they are a feel good solution to a non-existent problem, put in place by and for people who do not understand proper gun safety or storage.
One should not lock the gun. Period. Putting a lock on an unloaded gun serves no purpose at all, and locking a loaded gun is just plain stupid, and an invitation for disaster. Especially with a trigger lock!
If you need to prevent unauthorised use (gun unloaded), you lock up the gun in secure storage. Secure the ammunition also, and do so separately. Problem (potential) solved. Or, alternately, you can disassemble the gun and secure critical parts. Again, no problem. And no need for a lock on (or in) the gun itself.
Need to lock up a loaded gun? What on earth for? Guns should only be loaded prior to use. If not ready for immediate use, they should be unloaded. And they should only be kept loaded and ready (unsecured) when you are physically present, or while being worn.
The classic scenario of the nightstand gun, being found by a child and tragedy resulting is the club used by the pro lock crowd to beat us into submission. However, it ignores a couple of basic facts (which have to also be ignored by the gun owners as well, in order for it to happen).
If you are not home, there is no need for the gun to be loaded. If you are not in the room, there's no need for the gun to be loaded. If it is stored so that anyone can get to it, it should not be loaded. Period.
Their answer is "lock the gun". Not "don't leave loaded guns lying around". Lock the gun! Not gunproof your children, not teach them what guns are and what they do in real life (as opposed to tv), but "lock the gun!"
The amount of time to get the gun lock key, and unlock the gun can be more than the time needed to load the gun. All the modern handguns commonly used for home and self defense today can be loaded very rapidly, perhaps faster than the time it will take you to find the gun key on your keyring, or get it from its storage place.
Add in the infinitesimal (but real) chance of a lock failure rendering the gun inoperable at a critical moment, or the risk of using a trigger lock on a loaded gun, and to me, it becomes something very, very undesirable.
If the gun owner behaves stupidly and irresponsibly, and sadly, many still do, bad things can happen. Forcing gun makers to put a lock inthe gun does not change this. Having a law that says guns must be locked will not change this. Only the actions of the individual owner can change this. And no rule, built in device or law can bring this about.
I don't buy S&Ws with locks. I don't like the looks. I have forgiven S&W for the political decision that made them put them in (it was the fault of the British owners of S&W at the time, not the company people themselves), but I cannot forgive the physical location of the lock, or the damage it does to the gun's esthetic appeal to me. There are enough "pre lock" S&Ws out there to satisfy my needs. Sadly, this does mean I won't be getting a .500 or .460 until/unless they market one without a lock. Oh well.
They already do. As far as I know its not uniform across the board all models (yet), but some models already do have internal locks. The New Vaquero is one that does.
However, Ruger did it smart. The lock is in the grip frame, and is concealed from casual view. In fact, if you want to use the lock, you must drill a small hole in the grip panel (pre marked from Ruger).
No ugly, in your face hole in the side of the revolver, with an altered profile cylinder latch that just screams "Look at MEEEEEE!!!!!"
That's what I have against the S&W lock. For me, it ruins the look of a classic gun.
My personal feelings about locks on guns are that they are a feel good solution to a non-existent problem, put in place by and for people who do not understand proper gun safety or storage.
One should not lock the gun. Period. Putting a lock on an unloaded gun serves no purpose at all, and locking a loaded gun is just plain stupid, and an invitation for disaster. Especially with a trigger lock!
If you need to prevent unauthorised use (gun unloaded), you lock up the gun in secure storage. Secure the ammunition also, and do so separately. Problem (potential) solved. Or, alternately, you can disassemble the gun and secure critical parts. Again, no problem. And no need for a lock on (or in) the gun itself.
Need to lock up a loaded gun? What on earth for? Guns should only be loaded prior to use. If not ready for immediate use, they should be unloaded. And they should only be kept loaded and ready (unsecured) when you are physically present, or while being worn.
The classic scenario of the nightstand gun, being found by a child and tragedy resulting is the club used by the pro lock crowd to beat us into submission. However, it ignores a couple of basic facts (which have to also be ignored by the gun owners as well, in order for it to happen).
If you are not home, there is no need for the gun to be loaded. If you are not in the room, there's no need for the gun to be loaded. If it is stored so that anyone can get to it, it should not be loaded. Period.
Their answer is "lock the gun". Not "don't leave loaded guns lying around". Lock the gun! Not gunproof your children, not teach them what guns are and what they do in real life (as opposed to tv), but "lock the gun!"
The amount of time to get the gun lock key, and unlock the gun can be more than the time needed to load the gun. All the modern handguns commonly used for home and self defense today can be loaded very rapidly, perhaps faster than the time it will take you to find the gun key on your keyring, or get it from its storage place.
Add in the infinitesimal (but real) chance of a lock failure rendering the gun inoperable at a critical moment, or the risk of using a trigger lock on a loaded gun, and to me, it becomes something very, very undesirable.
If the gun owner behaves stupidly and irresponsibly, and sadly, many still do, bad things can happen. Forcing gun makers to put a lock inthe gun does not change this. Having a law that says guns must be locked will not change this. Only the actions of the individual owner can change this. And no rule, built in device or law can bring this about.
I don't buy S&Ws with locks. I don't like the looks. I have forgiven S&W for the political decision that made them put them in (it was the fault of the British owners of S&W at the time, not the company people themselves), but I cannot forgive the physical location of the lock, or the damage it does to the gun's esthetic appeal to me. There are enough "pre lock" S&Ws out there to satisfy my needs. Sadly, this does mean I won't be getting a .500 or .460 until/unless they market one without a lock. Oh well.
.The pre lock revolvers bring more money. Why? Because they are worth it. They look good and theres no unnecessary parts tied into the lockwork.
Locks have no business on handguns, fire extinguishers or parachutes.
If you want a second opinion, the lock guns are ugly. Regards 18DAI.
Locks have no business on handguns, fire extinguishers or parachutes.
If you want a second opinion, the lock guns are ugly. Regards 18DAI.
Nakanokalronin
New member
I agree to lock it up in a safe but not to unload any gun not in your immediate area. Lock it in a safe but keep it loaded. Unloading a firearm, especially the one in the chamber over and over is not good since bullet set-back can occur. My loaded firearms that are not in my immediate presence have loaded mags but empty chambers. If you don't have time to chamber a round its to late anyhow. Any gun loaded in my immediate presence that gets used on a daily basis weather I'm in the vicinity or not, like a "night stand" or CCW gun has a loaded mag and loaded chamber. "Nightstand" gun with rail mounted light goes back in the safe in the morning, fully loaded and comes out the same way. CCW gun stays loaded 24/7 until used at the range.
ursavus.elemensis
New member
My night stand gun gets locked in a locker before I leave the house in the AM and comes out again before bed. I don't have kids except for my three boys (German Shepherds), but even if I did have kids, the routine would be the same. Loaded gun gets locked up during the day, and comes out at bedtime. I keep the key on my keyring, and unless I am in bed or the shower, the keys are in my pocket.
I do not think that you need to convince gun enthusiasts that locks are silly and never actually used. However, I do know that when I was a kid, we got into absolutely EVERYTHING, every drawer, every cabinet, etc, except if it was locked. If there had been a firearm in that house, we'd have found it and shot it. So, I understand why some liberals think locks might be a good idea, but I know (and you all know) that if you give it more than a moment or two of thought, it is more realistic to lock the gun in some type of locker, cabinet, etc with a lock, rather than putting the lock directly on the gun.
As for you folks who will not buy a S&W revolver because of the lock, I think you're downright nuts, but God bless you. If not for folks like you, there'd be more demand for S&W modern production revolvers, and the prices would be higher. So, do whatever you want, but if you honestly are going to let a little tiny lock hole scare you off, go for it. Be scared. Buy something else. Works for me. Earlier today I was looking at buying a brand new Model 27, and they have locks which is no problem for me. Could you guys do me a favor, though? I don't think S&W has heard you loudly enough. Can about 40 of you give a call to S&W corporate HQ on Monday and tell them you are never going to buy a S&W revolver? Could you kind of specifically mention that you will not buy a modern production Model 27? I'd be real appreciative if you could do that for me. Thanks !
I do not think that you need to convince gun enthusiasts that locks are silly and never actually used. However, I do know that when I was a kid, we got into absolutely EVERYTHING, every drawer, every cabinet, etc, except if it was locked. If there had been a firearm in that house, we'd have found it and shot it. So, I understand why some liberals think locks might be a good idea, but I know (and you all know) that if you give it more than a moment or two of thought, it is more realistic to lock the gun in some type of locker, cabinet, etc with a lock, rather than putting the lock directly on the gun.
As for you folks who will not buy a S&W revolver because of the lock, I think you're downright nuts, but God bless you. If not for folks like you, there'd be more demand for S&W modern production revolvers, and the prices would be higher. So, do whatever you want, but if you honestly are going to let a little tiny lock hole scare you off, go for it. Be scared. Buy something else. Works for me. Earlier today I was looking at buying a brand new Model 27, and they have locks which is no problem for me. Could you guys do me a favor, though? I don't think S&W has heard you loudly enough. Can about 40 of you give a call to S&W corporate HQ on Monday and tell them you are never going to buy a S&W revolver? Could you kind of specifically mention that you will not buy a modern production Model 27? I'd be real appreciative if you could do that for me. Thanks !
My advice about unloading when you are not in the room was intended for those in situations who might have other (untrustworthy) individuals being able to access the loaded gun.
As far as bullet setback is concerned, properly crafted ammunition does not have this occur. Unfortunately, not all lots of factory ammo are properly crafted. Ammo loaded with correct neck tension, and a proper crimp simply does not suffer from bullet setback.
I had a round of Federal .45ACP 185gr JHP (bought in 1980) that had been chambered so many times it actually wore off the nickel plating on the case in streaks, without so much as .001 bullet setback before it was finally fired more than 20 years later! If it concerns you, use a revolver! And note what ever brand and lot# of ammo you do get bullet setback with, and notify the maker. It should not happen. Period.
S&W-Keeper
New member
I am going to sit back and watch, this should be fun.
You don't get setback with revolvers but you can get crimp-jump if the bullet crimp is insufficient, particularly in very lightweight revolvers with heavy loads. It doesn't push pressures up like setback does but it can tie up the revolver if it gets bad enough.
I don't disagree, however I don't believe that makers will guarantee no setback with an unlimited number of chamberings. Seems I recall at least one manufacturer guaranteeing no setback through 4 or 5 chamberings but not after that.
"As for you folks who will not buy a S&W revolver because of the lock, I think you're downright nuts, but God bless you. If not for folks like you, there'd be more demand for S&W modern production revolvers, and the prices would be higher. So, do whatever you want, but if you honestly are going to let a little tiny lock hole scare you off, go for it. Be scared. Buy something else. Works for me. Earlier today I was looking at buying a brand new Model 27, and they have locks which is no problem for me. Could you guys do me a favor, though? I don't think S&W has heard you loudly enough."
Bless you too, brother. I hope you get a real deal on your 27.
Me, I picked up a pre-model 27 off gunbroker. Love the 5-screw revolvers. Wouldn't have a new lockSmith. Obviously your mileage varies, and I have no argument, but I wonder whether you'd go for a lock or no lock if you had the choice? Just curious.
Also I think I read a rumor that Smith was considering dropping the lock because of folks like me. No substantiation at all on that one. It may be that the lockSmith guns will become a collector's rarity in future, leaving me looking pretty silly. But I still prefer the older style.
Bless you too, brother. I hope you get a real deal on your 27.
Me, I picked up a pre-model 27 off gunbroker. Love the 5-screw revolvers. Wouldn't have a new lockSmith. Obviously your mileage varies, and I have no argument, but I wonder whether you'd go for a lock or no lock if you had the choice? Just curious.
Also I think I read a rumor that Smith was considering dropping the lock because of folks like me. No substantiation at all on that one. It may be that the lockSmith guns will become a collector's rarity in future, leaving me looking pretty silly. But I still prefer the older style.
There are several issues with the S&W lock that make it unattractive.
1. Poorly designed. It's movement of operation is parallel to recoil forces. Other designs, like Ruger and Taurus, require movement perpendicular to recoil forces. You can try and dismiss it but there HAVE been confirmed cases of the S&W lock failing. That is not up for debate. What is debated is how often it happens. people may have problems with Taurus guns but at least their lock is well designed and can be deactivated with some loc-tite
2. Difficult to deactivate/remove. The Taurus and Ruger locks are easy to disable and/or remove. The S&W lock is much more difficult to do, requiring the side-plate be removed. Even after this, the ugly hole remains.
3. Aesthetics. It's not called "the zit" for nothing. It's placement on the gun is obvious and ugly, especially in stainless models. It is also on the frame, making filling the hole problematic. Locks on Taurus guns are on the hammer thus removing them and covering the hole is easy. Locks on Rugers are under the grips and Ruger has the decency to leave the grips un-drilled so there is not a hole unless you want one.
1. Poorly designed. It's movement of operation is parallel to recoil forces. Other designs, like Ruger and Taurus, require movement perpendicular to recoil forces. You can try and dismiss it but there HAVE been confirmed cases of the S&W lock failing. That is not up for debate. What is debated is how often it happens. people may have problems with Taurus guns but at least their lock is well designed and can be deactivated with some loc-tite
2. Difficult to deactivate/remove. The Taurus and Ruger locks are easy to disable and/or remove. The S&W lock is much more difficult to do, requiring the side-plate be removed. Even after this, the ugly hole remains.
3. Aesthetics. It's not called "the zit" for nothing. It's placement on the gun is obvious and ugly, especially in stainless models. It is also on the frame, making filling the hole problematic. Locks on Taurus guns are on the hammer thus removing them and covering the hole is easy. Locks on Rugers are under the grips and Ruger has the decency to leave the grips un-drilled so there is not a hole unless you want one.
Originally posted by Crosshair
Actually, the ILS is a relatively simple mechanism if you take the time to disassemble a revolver and examine it (I have). The lock works by engaging a cutout in the hammer thusly preventing it from moving and therefore disabling the action of the gun. The little "flag" of the lock must be rotated up and back in order to engage the cutout in the hammer (the same direction as the recoil arc of the revolver). Because it works in the same direction, the recoil arc of the revolver would force the "flag" down and forward, out of engagement due to inertia. Also, the lock cannot engage when the revolver is at full lockup because it is not aligned with the cutout in the hammer.
Because of this, I find it unbelievable that an "auto lock" is the result of the design of the ILS. Instead, I find it much more likely that such malfunctions are a result of defective or improperly installed parts. Basically, on the rare occasion that an "auto lock" does occur, I believe that it's a quality control issue rather than a design issue.
Also, I have to wonder how many revolver lockups have been blamed on the ILS when in fact some other component is at fault. Lockups are nothing new to revolvers and can be caused by any number of factors (backed out ejector rods, frozen locking bolts, improper timing, etc.), I would venture to guess that many people whose ILS-equipped revolver fails automatically blame it on "that infernal lock" without further investigation. Given the rather vauge list of repairs on S&W's invoices, it would be nearly impossible to determine what caused a problem without physically examining the revolver prior to repair. Without disassembly of the revolver, the only way one could definately blame the lock for a malfunction is if the "flag" is in the up position. Even this would not be externally visible on a revolver with a shrouded or fully-enclosed hammer.
Also, reports of "auto locks" are too often unreliable. The only reports I've ever seen that I can believe without question are those of Michael Bane and those reported by Massad Ayoob. Almost all the rest are either a) anyonymous internet posts or b) reports from people who I do not know and whose integrity cannot be verified. Even if every report of an "auto lock" is 100% truthful (and I doubt that they all are), you still have to take into account the reporters' knowlege or lack therof (was it really due to the ILS or something else) and the effect of the internet echo chamber.
The echo chamber is a phenomenon that deserves further explanation. Basically, it is the ability of one incident to seem like multiple incidents through the anonymity of internet posters. This is how it works: Bob, Bill, and John are at the range when Bob's S&W revolver has an "auto lock". Bob goes home and posts a report about it on TFL, THR, Glock Talk, and the S&W forum. Bob is registered under different names on each forum, so now one "auto lock" appears to be four. Likewise, Bill and John each go home and post reports of witnessing an auto lock on Gunboards, Gun and Game, APS, and the Ruger Forum and they are also registered under different handles on each. Now, one "auto lock" seems like twelve to a casual observer.
Also, due to the unreliability of most "auto lock" reports, we don't really have enough information to draw many conclusions. Production dates of affected revolvers would be very interesting. Given that the lock was the first of its kind and implemented amid a change in ownership, I wouldn't be suprised to find that the majority of problems came from the early ILS-equipped revolvers. Also, we would need production rather than purchase dates as NIB revolvers can often sit in a manufacturer or distributor's warehouse or a dealer's display case for years before they are actually purchased by the end-user.
Basically, malfunctions due to the internal lock are, based on verifiable reports, rare enough to be statistically insignificant. The very few that do occur are much more likely due to QC issues than design issues. In most reports of IL-induced malfunctions that I've read, they seem to happen relatively early on and don't seem to reoccur once S&W fixes them. This tells me that you should spend a little time on the range with an IL-equipped revolver before relying on it, but you should really do that with any firearm.
Now, as far as asthetics, principle, and politics go, those are matters of personal preference that I will not argue. If you choose not to own an ILS-equipped revolver due to the extremely minute chance that it will fail (and even smaller chance that it will fail while you are trying to defend yourself), that's your choice too and really doesn't effect me in the least. However, I've seen no evidence that the ILS is any more likely to tie up a revolver than a backed out ejector rod, improper timing, crud under the extractor star, overly tight barrel-to-cylinder gap, or any other number of factors. Any revolver, whether it has an internal lock or not, is a mechanical, man-made object and can thusly fail. Overall, I see no evidence that the ILS significantly increases the risk of a revolver malfuctioning as opposed to a model that is not so-equipped.
Actually, the ILS is a relatively simple mechanism if you take the time to disassemble a revolver and examine it (I have). The lock works by engaging a cutout in the hammer thusly preventing it from moving and therefore disabling the action of the gun. The little "flag" of the lock must be rotated up and back in order to engage the cutout in the hammer (the same direction as the recoil arc of the revolver). Because it works in the same direction, the recoil arc of the revolver would force the "flag" down and forward, out of engagement due to inertia. Also, the lock cannot engage when the revolver is at full lockup because it is not aligned with the cutout in the hammer.
Because of this, I find it unbelievable that an "auto lock" is the result of the design of the ILS. Instead, I find it much more likely that such malfunctions are a result of defective or improperly installed parts. Basically, on the rare occasion that an "auto lock" does occur, I believe that it's a quality control issue rather than a design issue.
Also, I have to wonder how many revolver lockups have been blamed on the ILS when in fact some other component is at fault. Lockups are nothing new to revolvers and can be caused by any number of factors (backed out ejector rods, frozen locking bolts, improper timing, etc.), I would venture to guess that many people whose ILS-equipped revolver fails automatically blame it on "that infernal lock" without further investigation. Given the rather vauge list of repairs on S&W's invoices, it would be nearly impossible to determine what caused a problem without physically examining the revolver prior to repair. Without disassembly of the revolver, the only way one could definately blame the lock for a malfunction is if the "flag" is in the up position. Even this would not be externally visible on a revolver with a shrouded or fully-enclosed hammer.
Also, reports of "auto locks" are too often unreliable. The only reports I've ever seen that I can believe without question are those of Michael Bane and those reported by Massad Ayoob. Almost all the rest are either a) anyonymous internet posts or b) reports from people who I do not know and whose integrity cannot be verified. Even if every report of an "auto lock" is 100% truthful (and I doubt that they all are), you still have to take into account the reporters' knowlege or lack therof (was it really due to the ILS or something else) and the effect of the internet echo chamber.
The echo chamber is a phenomenon that deserves further explanation. Basically, it is the ability of one incident to seem like multiple incidents through the anonymity of internet posters. This is how it works: Bob, Bill, and John are at the range when Bob's S&W revolver has an "auto lock". Bob goes home and posts a report about it on TFL, THR, Glock Talk, and the S&W forum. Bob is registered under different names on each forum, so now one "auto lock" appears to be four. Likewise, Bill and John each go home and post reports of witnessing an auto lock on Gunboards, Gun and Game, APS, and the Ruger Forum and they are also registered under different handles on each. Now, one "auto lock" seems like twelve to a casual observer.
Also, due to the unreliability of most "auto lock" reports, we don't really have enough information to draw many conclusions. Production dates of affected revolvers would be very interesting. Given that the lock was the first of its kind and implemented amid a change in ownership, I wouldn't be suprised to find that the majority of problems came from the early ILS-equipped revolvers. Also, we would need production rather than purchase dates as NIB revolvers can often sit in a manufacturer or distributor's warehouse or a dealer's display case for years before they are actually purchased by the end-user.
Basically, malfunctions due to the internal lock are, based on verifiable reports, rare enough to be statistically insignificant. The very few that do occur are much more likely due to QC issues than design issues. In most reports of IL-induced malfunctions that I've read, they seem to happen relatively early on and don't seem to reoccur once S&W fixes them. This tells me that you should spend a little time on the range with an IL-equipped revolver before relying on it, but you should really do that with any firearm.
Now, as far as asthetics, principle, and politics go, those are matters of personal preference that I will not argue. If you choose not to own an ILS-equipped revolver due to the extremely minute chance that it will fail (and even smaller chance that it will fail while you are trying to defend yourself), that's your choice too and really doesn't effect me in the least. However, I've seen no evidence that the ILS is any more likely to tie up a revolver than a backed out ejector rod, improper timing, crud under the extractor star, overly tight barrel-to-cylinder gap, or any other number of factors. Any revolver, whether it has an internal lock or not, is a mechanical, man-made object and can thusly fail. Overall, I see no evidence that the ILS significantly increases the risk of a revolver malfuctioning as opposed to a model that is not so-equipped.