Why do you hate internal locks?
- Thread starter LH2
- Start date
RevolverLover
New member
The negatives to me is that there is a possiblity that the lock might engage when you need it most. And Ruger has started putting those locks on their new SA revolvers.
Lets think back to another protect us from ourselves innovation.
Automatic Seatbelts! Remember these things. They were big in the 80s and early 90s, now they are about gone I believe. It had the following problems.
1. One more complex system that could break and was either useless or a significant investment to repair (How many times do you remember having to buckle them up manually...)
2. They created a false sense of security. "Well my belt is on automatically so I am safe... If I needed that lap belt it would be automatic also...." The result was people almost loosing their heads and sufferring even worse injuries.
Take this over to handguns now.
1. One more thing to break. Either an expensive and or time consumeing repair under the best of conditions or at worst a failure when you really need it. On the other hand if an external trigger lock of box breaks it is a $5 - $20 replacement and the gun still functions.
2. They create a false sense of security. "Oh don't worry, that gun has an internal lock...BOOM!" If, God for bid, a small child were to be in your house and pick up one of your weapons would you feel more comfortable if you saw him holding a locked box/gun with trigger lock or your S&W revolver which may or may not have the lock engaged? Kind of hard to tell without trying it...
Automatic Seatbelts! Remember these things. They were big in the 80s and early 90s, now they are about gone I believe. It had the following problems.
1. One more complex system that could break and was either useless or a significant investment to repair (How many times do you remember having to buckle them up manually...)
2. They created a false sense of security. "Well my belt is on automatically so I am safe... If I needed that lap belt it would be automatic also...." The result was people almost loosing their heads and sufferring even worse injuries.
Take this over to handguns now.
1. One more thing to break. Either an expensive and or time consumeing repair under the best of conditions or at worst a failure when you really need it. On the other hand if an external trigger lock of box breaks it is a $5 - $20 replacement and the gun still functions.
2. They create a false sense of security. "Oh don't worry, that gun has an internal lock...BOOM!" If, God for bid, a small child were to be in your house and pick up one of your weapons would you feel more comfortable if you saw him holding a locked box/gun with trigger lock or your S&W revolver which may or may not have the lock engaged? Kind of hard to tell without trying it...
By the time I got into the joy of leverguns, the push-button safeties were there. I kinda accepted them without much thought, though I was aware that most aficionados that were either older or into older carbines absolutely hated them and found them ugly. I found them nearly a non-issue. Just didn't use them. I got into revolvers, on the other hand, when they were still "simple" and "pure" and I detest the locks on Smith and Wessons. Some of it is just what we learn to perceive as "right". KISS is better, however. Way better. So much of what we like and don't like is anything but rational.
I don't mind the Springfield 1911 mainspring-mounted or the Taurus hammer-mounted ones because they don't really interfere with the looks of the gun. I like the fact that the Springfield models can be replaced with a standard one if the owner wants it that way. I don't like the ones on S+W revos or Taurus autos key-hole in the side plates, more for what they look like rather than what they represent.
There were a total of two times I've actually used them. They were under similar circumstances. Traveling with my entire family. (Siblings, neices and nephews, etc.) Twenty-one of us in the same vacation retreat. There were a couple of times over the weekend when my gun was not under my immediate control. (While sleeping, while down the beach, pool, etc.) I felt more comfortable leaving it disabled while not on my person and without a portable safe or other secure location for it. (It was just stashed in my luggage during those times.) I'm not sure I would have traveled with a separate locking device but I gladly used the built-in one on those occasions.
There were a total of two times I've actually used them. They were under similar circumstances. Traveling with my entire family. (Siblings, neices and nephews, etc.) Twenty-one of us in the same vacation retreat. There were a couple of times over the weekend when my gun was not under my immediate control. (While sleeping, while down the beach, pool, etc.) I felt more comfortable leaving it disabled while not on my person and without a portable safe or other secure location for it. (It was just stashed in my luggage during those times.) I'm not sure I would have traveled with a separate locking device but I gladly used the built-in one on those occasions.
S&W took one of the most beautiful revolvers ever made, the "N" frame, and turned it into an ugly piece of crap. My eyes aren't too good, but I can spot that nasty hole in the side of the frame from 20 feet away. It would be like putting a wart the size of a golf ball on Erika Eleniak's forehead. WHY???
kingudaroad
New member
So if the "tit" is ground off , it won't matter if the key is goes in the keyhole?
Massad Ayoob wrote the following for the Jan-Feb '05 issue of American Handgunner:
I've recently run across three cases where these devices failed during firing. Two spontaneously locked themselves during firing at a commercial shooting range, and one lock managed to depart from the gun while its owner was shooting it.
All three were ultra-light Smith & Wesson revolvers firing very hard kicking ammunition. At the Manchester (NH) Indoor Firing Line, reports owner Jim McLoud, a Model 342 Titanium AirLite being fired with powerful .38 Special +P+, and a Model 340 Scandium AirLite being shot with full power .357 Magnum ammo both locked-up tight. McLoud determined the parts in their integral locks had shifted under the heavy recoil and locked up. In Rochester, Indiana, detective Dennis Reichard was firing his personally owned service revolver, a Model 329 Scandium with full power .44 Magnum, when the lock's flag mechanism flew out of its slot in the frame alongside the exposed hammer.
So I guess it's possible.
One more thing (actually several more parts) to break or malfunction.
There has been a wide variety of excellent and effective external locks available for many years, for those who feel the need to incapacitate their firearms. There's absolutely no need to incorporate the feature into the gun.
There has been a wide variety of excellent and effective external locks available for many years, for those who feel the need to incapacitate their firearms. There's absolutely no need to incorporate the feature into the gun.
The designers of some military rifles saw fit to not fit a safety to their rifles, though the MAS-36 and the later version are the only ones I know of. They have rather heavy trigger pulls. The Mosin-Nagant has a safety, sort of, but is extremely awkward to use. The Swiss K-31 has a safety that works exactly the same way but there is a convenient ring that makes it easier to use. I never found the Mauser type safety, also used on the '03 Springfield that easy to use, at least when it was stiff on any particular rifle.
Then there are pistols and revolvers. Until recently, revolvers have mostly been free of positive safety devices, though I am not referring to the rebounding hammer feature found on most, but not all, revolvers, and actually called the positive safety on Colts. However, some surplus revolvers were retrofitted with a safety to block the hammer or something. Or so I understand. I've never examined one so modified.
The problem is the intent of these latter day safeties, which is more of a security feature than a safety feature, if you follow me. I wonder how the folks at Glock are looking at this, assuming they are. After all, Glocks do not have any active safety feature, in a manner of speaking. They may be drop proof but nothing is present to prevent the gun from firing when the trigger is pulled, assuming there is a round chambered. Since one of the steps in disassembly is to pull the trigger, well, you can see why there might be a few accidental discharges now and then.
Grip safeties were common for some reason when automatics first became popular in the first ten or fifteen years of the last century. Even Lugers had them. Now I think only Colt 1911s and copies have them. For a while it was popular in certain circles to pin down the grip safety so you could shoot with a "thumb up" grip.
I don't think the Shanghai Police did that but they did pin the safety down on their issue Colts, both .45's and .380's. They, meaning mostly Fairbairn and company, I guess, went out of their way to make sure no mechanical safety would get in the way. Needless to say, cocked and locked was out of the question.
I have never been that comfortable with safeties, at least on rifles, especially the little sliding safety you find on shotguns and on the Ruger No 1 and 3. It just doesn't seem like there is enough there to work, as if I could just pull the trigger and break a piece of steel. Perhaps another way to look at the problem is that safeties don't always work because they aren't always applied, just like seat belts.
Did you know some horse drawn wagons have seat belts?
Then there are pistols and revolvers. Until recently, revolvers have mostly been free of positive safety devices, though I am not referring to the rebounding hammer feature found on most, but not all, revolvers, and actually called the positive safety on Colts. However, some surplus revolvers were retrofitted with a safety to block the hammer or something. Or so I understand. I've never examined one so modified.
The problem is the intent of these latter day safeties, which is more of a security feature than a safety feature, if you follow me. I wonder how the folks at Glock are looking at this, assuming they are. After all, Glocks do not have any active safety feature, in a manner of speaking. They may be drop proof but nothing is present to prevent the gun from firing when the trigger is pulled, assuming there is a round chambered. Since one of the steps in disassembly is to pull the trigger, well, you can see why there might be a few accidental discharges now and then.
Grip safeties were common for some reason when automatics first became popular in the first ten or fifteen years of the last century. Even Lugers had them. Now I think only Colt 1911s and copies have them. For a while it was popular in certain circles to pin down the grip safety so you could shoot with a "thumb up" grip.
I don't think the Shanghai Police did that but they did pin the safety down on their issue Colts, both .45's and .380's. They, meaning mostly Fairbairn and company, I guess, went out of their way to make sure no mechanical safety would get in the way. Needless to say, cocked and locked was out of the question.
I have never been that comfortable with safeties, at least on rifles, especially the little sliding safety you find on shotguns and on the Ruger No 1 and 3. It just doesn't seem like there is enough there to work, as if I could just pull the trigger and break a piece of steel. Perhaps another way to look at the problem is that safeties don't always work because they aren't always applied, just like seat belts.
Did you know some horse drawn wagons have seat belts?
locks on guns
they're insulting to me as a responsible adult.
they're a reminder of the whole "gotta protect you from yourself" mentality.
they're the product of a runaway legal system bloated with frivolous lawsuits.
they're the antithesis of personal responsibility and accountability.
they give a false sense of security, which will replace "I was sure it was unloaded" with "I was sure it was locked" after a preventable tragedy.
a mechanical device should never replace proper training.
how's that for starters?
they're insulting to me as a responsible adult.
they're a reminder of the whole "gotta protect you from yourself" mentality.
they're the product of a runaway legal system bloated with frivolous lawsuits.
they're the antithesis of personal responsibility and accountability.
they give a false sense of security, which will replace "I was sure it was unloaded" with "I was sure it was locked" after a preventable tragedy.
a mechanical device should never replace proper training.
how's that for starters?