I have a new Remington 870 Magnum Express. It has the lock safety, dimples, and all. It works fine. I like my Winchester 1300 better because I think the 1300 action is smoother and faster. However, since I'll be using the 870 to hunt with, I don't really care about the dimples in the mag tube. I thought about removing them, but why bother? I'm using my 1300 as a home defense gun and the 870 as a hunting arm and for all-around target shooting. By the way, I also have a new S&W revolver. It's one of my most accurate handguns and it works fine.
Now, when we're talking about the "bottom line"-----you got that right. Businesses are in business to make money. Not to lose money. Now, when we're talking about safety locks, we must ask ourselves one question: "Why are they in place?" It's easy for us as non-shareholders or corporate officers in those companies to question their motives. We don't have a financial interest in those companies, though some like to back-seat drive their decisions. Now, back to the question. Why are companies doing more in the line of "safety"? Because we have a species of predator in this country called "lawyers." How many times have companies been sued because of something they really had no control over? You really think circular saw blades have a warning not to try and stop them with your fingers because they thought you might? They did it because someone actually did it and sued and won because there was no warning NOT to do that. How about air bags in cars? Who said, "Hey, wait a minute!" about those? No one. Automakers had to bow to increasing consumer "rights" groups and government officials to start making autos with airbags to stop the "preventable carnage" on our highways due to Detoit's "negligence" in not installing airbags. Yeah, no one complained then until a few infants got decapitated by airbags. Then the blame fell on the automakers again. They couldn't win for losing. And who here raised hell when lawyers and the gvernment went after the tobacco manufacturers and set the precedent for suing the gunmakers later? The gunmakers want to reduce the most risks they can that are associated with their products to try and avoid lawsuits. It's that simple. If they have locks on the guns, they can avoid the liberal media endline after stories about kids who find dad's gun and shoot themselves: "...and the gun didn't have a trigger lock..." The gunmakers want to stay in business and make money. They're not there to lose money. They lose more through one big lawsuit than from the customers they might lose through trigger locks.
The answer is not to blame Remington or S&W. You want someone to blame? How about the voters who vote in these whiny POS that take "safety" as a crusade? How about people that want the government to be the parent and tell us not to do such-and-such because we might put our eyes out? And then go on to mandate that through law? People need to pull the government's teat out of their mouths and start acting (and start demanding to be treated) like adults who take responsibility for their own actions. Don't blame companies who have to tread water to stay in business thanks to the overprotective quasi-parents we've been electing to public office since 1970. It's not their fault that the mantra of "...it's for the children..." has excused every tyrannical act from exhorbitant sales taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and soda pop to bans on "bad" guns to mandatory trigger locks. "It's for the children..." Yeah, like treating all adults like children. And if Americans feel they need to actually be TOLD by the government that they can't eat "junk food" or smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol or own weapons, then maybe those thralls don't deserve to be free until they pull their collective heads out of their posteriors and start acting like adults. Free men take responsibility for themselves.