S&W adopting a Taurus style safty lock

J

JohnK

New member
According to the news page at S&W they will soon have a locking mechanism very similar to what Taurus has had on their guns for the last couple years.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/misc/ilock.html

After all the complaining some people have done about this feature on the Taurus revolvers I expect we'll see another round about S&W now.

Personally I don't have a problem with this as long as it's been tested and introduces no extra chance of causing the revolver to fail ie breaks and locks the gun up at the worst possible time. I'm sure some people say that any added complexity introduces an additional chance of failure and in a black and white world I will conceede it does. Many semi autos have internal safties that don't compromise reliability, if S&W and Taurus have done their design correctly this shouldn't either...time will tell.
 
Only have one problem with this, don't like the location and that it is not reversible. Taurus offered to let them have the hammer location for free (they have the patent). Smith & Wesson said no. And since I'm a large consumer of Smith & Wessons products, they will not be selling me anymore. No boycotts or animosity, just plain an simple capitalism. I desire a plain and simple product and Smith & Wesson no longer make it. I'll take my dollars elsewhere. If they ever make something "Hot" that I have to have, then, maybe.

Robert

My family has been using Smith&Wesson revolvers for 140 years, but I am afraid the tradition ends here. Hard Ball

I think that the California legislature is making that decision for you! :D
 
I'm sorry but I don't understand why having the safety is a big deal. Take the Taurus safety; when I got one of their revolvers, I tried the lock once to see how it functioned. Then I threw the key in a drawer somewhere--doubt if I'll ever use it. It's the same situation with the locking mechanism that the Rem 870 shotguns have: you have the option of using it if you want/need it. Neither changes the way that I handle the firearm, how I store it, how quickly I can load/unload it, etc.

I understand the whole slippery slope mentality about the Brady Bill limiting mag capacity to 10 and all that, so please don't flame me for stating that the safeties don't hinder my use of the firearms in any way. Just my opinions.
 
Same here, I don't mind a lock as long as it doesn't get in my way, dosen't raise the price of the gun, and doesn't change the appearence of the gun.

If it meets the above criteria, than I am fine, as no one is making me use the lock....
 
Bacchus, the problem with the 870 lock is that it CAN WORK ITS WAY ON w/o purposful intent on your part.:eek: This is way-bad on a gun you intend to use for defense. I've read, via John Farnam's site IIRC, that there is a documented instance of this occurring with a Taurus. I don't know if this is confirmed, or not.:confused:

I would be a whole lot less chapped about the move if they HAD used the Taurus system. At least IT doesn't mar the exterior appearance of the gun.

Really, I don't expect this to matter too much. I suspect it will be quite a while before I stumble across a USED one with the safety-key.:D
 
I agree that my families tradition of using Smith And Wesson revolvers has ended and unless something major happens, I will never buy another one. Your don't give traitors your hard earned money for their products with one hand and they stab you in the back with the other. Their semiautos are a total POS and they are not loss to the shooting public, but their revolvers were first rate and I will just have to get by on the 30 or so that I already own.

7th
 
I have 2 Taurus weapons and have shot well over 10,000 rounds thru them and have never had the lock engage at any time on its own. The internal locks are nice to have rather than having to fumble with a trigger lock or other methods of safing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top