why does everyone hate s&w lock

K

kumma

Inactive
Saw some posts in another thread and it got me wondering why every one hates the internal lock on the new guns. is it because you all hate having some one tell you what to do (i could buy that less govt'/outside interference in my life the better) or is there a valid concern of it malfunctioning or breaking.

before you flame me im just curious what reasons you have.

seems to me it would make life easier for those required to have a trigger lock on the gun when transporting it.

Craig
 
I hate it because it was not designed to be there when the gun was originally thought up and it has no business there...Just like the fugly frame bolsters on them now too.
Stuff stuck on guns to appease politicians is flat out wrong. Politicains are professional butt kissers. They are supposed to kiss your butt, not the other way around....
 
My opinion: Just one more incremental law designed to add to the cost of a weapon, and giving lawmakers one more excuse to ban a particular gun (oh, you can't buy xyz handgun because it doesn't come with an internal lock... sorry).

It can also lead to something else to charge you with if caught: "Oh, you were transporting your handgun in a case locked in the trunk, but you didn't have the internal lock engaged. Sorry, the law says that's a misdemeanor" which could very well be a felony (or banned) with some adminstrative rule change (like BATF has been known to do). :mad: :barf:
 
kumma...

If the internal lock was an OPTION, something you could get on your firearm if you wished, not because of some government mandate, then more people might consider it in a favorable light. I doubt if many TFL'ers would opt for it, but we would not be so upset about it.

But the fact that it was mandated for all the wrong reasons, in the name of safety, makes it an onerous burden.

If you wish to use a trigger lock to secure your firearms (and I do, for all firearms which I am not currently using) then that is your option. But for the government to tell you that you MUST orer your firearm with alock already built-in is an affront to all who already use their most important piece of safety equipment on a daily basis. Their brain.
 
Exactly! It should have been an option not a "feature". The folks in CA and MA are the only ones who have to have these things, so S&W says heck let's make'em standard for the other 48 too. :barf:

My question is what purpose do they serve that the supplied trigger locks could not?
 
Internal trigger locks (if enabled) are harder to disable and remove without the key than external locks. Given a little time, its not that hard to cut off of a gun/bore it out/whatever the trigger lock without damaging the firearm itself. It is less trivial to do so with an internal lock and requires a knowledge of at least basic gunsmithing.

That and people hope that if your gun always has a lock on it, people will use it more when they store their guns. Helps some people sleep a little better at night knowing that the turnaround times for stolen guns is a little longer.
 
Ya know.....

I have actually used my lock. Go figure? I agree we should not be legislated to have these things and that they should be optional and I usually never use them.

Well I happened to be over my parents house and my little cousin ended up staying there also and I had no way to secure the firearm at a point that it needed to be secured. I used the integral lock and thought to myself, ya know this ain't too bad. Sucks that I had no real choice in the matter but it did come in handy.
 
I simply will not buy any gun with this sort of "stupidity devise" installed.

There are enough quality guns out there (new and used) that I don't have to bend to the will of the "Chicken Hawks".

Gunner
 
Big Bad .45 Wolf...

"The folks in CA and MA are the only ones who have to have these things,..."

I don't believe that they are mandatory in Massachusetts as I just bought a new PC S&W and it did NOT have the internal lock on it. And that is one of the reasons I got that model and not the one next to it.
 
Basically the problem is that most people resent being forced to do something stupid. For me any type of trigger or integral lock is silly as I think they are inadequate for serious protection. Nothing to keep a criminal or child from taking it off and drilling it out at their own leisure.

Mine are either in my sight or locked away at all times. The integral lock or trigger lock that I will not trust is just another financial hit at best.

However, given that the integral locks are now standard and I don't have a choice on current production models, I just lock it open and put the keys away somewhere. If they ever get around to setting them up to lock as the default (omigod, don't let those idiots get ahold of that idea) I will probably come to find that the locks have a nasty habit of falling apart behind my back. :D
 
Ca and the lock

So far there is no requirement for the internal lock. Rugers are sold in CA every day without one. As for the external lock the one that comes with the S&W's and most others doesn't meet the state requirements so you need to buy an add on "approved" lock. The internal lock was an idea I guess S&W, Taurus and a few others had for other reasons.

Tom
 
Revolvers are meant to firewhen you pull the trigger. Am I the only person who sees this as horribly wrong to put some device on the gun, which could fail with wear and tear, that keeps it from doing what it was designed to do?
 
In case anyone in the state is not aware of it, come Jan 1, 2003, no gun made on/after that date can be sold in Maryland unless it has an internal lock. The regulations are currently being written, so no one knows if that will mean a common key for the maker, or an individual key for each and every individual gun. If the former, some makers already comply; if the latter, none do, so it would be a ban on the sale of new handguns.

All we can do for now is to try and keep Kathleen Kennedy Townsend from becoming governor; she claims she will not support any new gun laws, but once reportedly said she wanted a "gun and hunting free state".

Jim
 
I have two out of three S&W revolvers with key locks. I don't hate the locks, I don't use them , and rarely even notice them. I don't see anything good or bad about these locks, becouse I keep all my guns in a gun safe.
 
Locks can and will fail just as safties do. Besides that it is the principle of the thing. S&W has the politicians up the hind end and have made it a feature on every new model. It's not optional, it's mandatory. They give you no choice if you want a new one. Well, I won't but a gun with an internal lock, a Remington or S&W or any other. There is no reason to. There are good alternatives that get my $$$. Instead of a new s&w I got used ones and my next revo will be a ruger .357 instead of the s&w simply because I want a new on, and one without a lock built in. That's money Smith is losing. know there are a lot of people feeling the same way and it's reflected in the marketshare S&W is getting.
 
I am sitting here comiserating with all of you about the S&W lock when I have bought 2 Taurus Tracker which came with the internal lock on the hammer. I have never used the lock on my trackers but I don't think it has the obtrusiveness of the S&W lock.
It is inside of the hammer and does not change the basic function of the gun.
I think I hate the S&W lock is that it was part of the "AGREEMENT". I wish that HUD would fully recind the thing and not "not enforce it"

Hate S&W locks, tolerate the Taurus

anybody want a S&W 66 - no dash no lock
 
Ok, explain to me......

Now I totally understand the moral / legal / political argument against the locks and I completely agree.

Now as for the mechanics of it, I have a question.

Now I realize that adding an integral lock is adding another mechanism that can fail at some point, but what is the real likelyhood of this. I mean there are a whole series of things that "COULD" fail at any time on any gun even a single action revo.

My question is, has there been any documented cases where an integral lock has failed and made the gun un-usable? Especially if the lock isn't used. I would assume Taurus has the longest history with these locks. Does anybody know of a failure?

I am not trying to stir the pot or play devil's advocate here I am truely just curious since I have at rare times used the integral lock and part of me likes the idea of a nice compact integral piece of equipment that I can use to secure the weapon from un authorized users when I cannot keep it in my immediate control or have my normal means of securing a firearm, ala safe, gunvault whatever.

Again politics aside, as we all know the politics of the whole situation sucks.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top