why does everyone hate s&w lock
- Thread starter kumma
- Start date
seen some valid concerns about the locks. thanks
one funny thing in michigan they are required to (give - sell) you a trigger lock, even with the s&w ones which have locks already. gotta love the goverment. guess it means crime will never occur because the gun now has two locks.
c
one funny thing in michigan they are required to (give - sell) you a trigger lock, even with the s&w ones which have locks already. gotta love the goverment. guess it means crime will never occur because the gun now has two locks.
c
The lock is going to marry your daughter.
The lock is going to steal you car.
The lock is going to make you a communist.
The lock is going to make it rain.
The lock is going to give you herpes.
Mostly, it's a rallying point for the anti-Smith crowd. They like to bitch about just about everything pertaining to the new Smiths.
Except for cosmetics, it is a non issue as far as function goes. Just don't use it. It will not engage. By design, it cannot.
The lock is going to steal you car.
The lock is going to make you a communist.
The lock is going to make it rain.
The lock is going to give you herpes.
Mostly, it's a rallying point for the anti-Smith crowd. They like to bitch about just about everything pertaining to the new Smiths.
Except for cosmetics, it is a non issue as far as function goes. Just don't use it. It will not engage. By design, it cannot.
I remember seeing a couple of threads here about the Taurus revolvers locking up under heavy recoil (44, 454, etc).
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113126
It's aesthetically hideous and impossible to remove without completely boogering up the gun.
The really galling part is that back during the Tompkins, PLC era, Taurus offered to license their far less visually obtrusive, much easier to remove or ignore lock design to them for free. They turned Taurus down (we'll never license something from the Boys From Brazil!) and wound up installing this abomination instead. (A popup flag that says "Locked"? What's next? A popout flag that says "Bang!"? It's all for the chilluns...)
I can't wait to see one on a Schofield; I am gonna howl with laughter... Or cry, one...
The really galling part is that back during the Tompkins, PLC era, Taurus offered to license their far less visually obtrusive, much easier to remove or ignore lock design to them for free. They turned Taurus down (we'll never license something from the Boys From Brazil!) and wound up installing this abomination instead. (A popup flag that says "Locked"? What's next? A popout flag that says "Bang!"? It's all for the chilluns...)
I can't wait to see one on a Schofield; I am gonna howl with laughter... Or cry, one...
I have mixed feelings. I dislike the fact that internal locks mean more costs for me, and that they detract from looks. I like the fact that you have the OPTION to lock a gun up, and I don't buy the old argument that it makes the gun so less reliable. How many locks will actually break while trying to unlock it? Probably very few (my guess is LESS than the accidents they prevent).
Even with an internal lock though, you still have to take precautions with kids around and assume the worst (that the lock won't work). In other words, I keep guns safely secured in a locked safe unloaded, unless I have direct control over the gun (i.e. its on my person).
My final thoughts. Internal locks should be an option, not forced on us though. Those people that don't want them should not be forced to buy them. Likewise, those that want them (I wouldn't mind owning ONE gun with one on it) should have the option to buy one as well. Glock is doing it right. They give you the choice to buy Glocks with locks or without locks. If only the State Governments gave such a choice (I understand MD requires internal locks, and California is next to pass a similar law, I predict).
Even with an internal lock though, you still have to take precautions with kids around and assume the worst (that the lock won't work). In other words, I keep guns safely secured in a locked safe unloaded, unless I have direct control over the gun (i.e. its on my person).
My final thoughts. Internal locks should be an option, not forced on us though. Those people that don't want them should not be forced to buy them. Likewise, those that want them (I wouldn't mind owning ONE gun with one on it) should have the option to buy one as well. Glock is doing it right. They give you the choice to buy Glocks with locks or without locks. If only the State Governments gave such a choice (I understand MD requires internal locks, and California is next to pass a similar law, I predict).
Another reason is England. England proved that every registration requirement, safe storage law, and locking requirement was just leading up to the eventual confiscation of handguns. It is being done incrementally and the internal lock and safe storage requirements are a part of it, just like they were in England. England is now the most dangerous nation in the industrialized world due to their bans on firearms and on self defence, btw.
It's not just the S&W internal lock that annoys me... it's the whole concept of requiring internal locks. I prefer my precision machinery to be designed by mechanical engineers, not lawyers and idiot politicians. Anything designed to interfere with the correct functioning of a firearm (or any machine, for that matter) can fail and cause the firearm to malfunction when you need it. The more parts you add to any machine the lower its reliability. Why be forced to pay for something you don't want or need, that reduces the reliability of a product? Simple as that.
Used guns just got a whole lot more attractive to me.
Used guns just got a whole lot more attractive to me.
I've exchanged e-mail with the fellow who designed the lock (he no longer works for S&W). He's one of us -- a gun enthusiast, a nice guy too, and he appears to be a straight-forward engineer type.
He said they tested the lock extensively at S&W and he has no concerns about it breaking and disabling the gun. When the lock is unlocked, no parts of the locking mechanism contact any part of the action. So I have a hard time understanding how the lock would undergo "wear and tear." When the lock is unlocked, none of the lock parts move. None of the lock parts contact any of the action parts, so there are no wear surfaces.
I understand people's distaste for such things, but I regard it the same way as the locks on my HK USPcs -- I unlocked them, tossed the "key" in the plastic case, put the plastic case on my storage shelf, and no longer think about the lock.
M1911
RogerC,
I suppose you then just weld up the resulting hole in the frame and cutout in the hammer channel?
Compared to Taurus's simple camming "grease nipple" or various other companies' mainspring blocks, it sure is.
The obverse of that is:
It's sad when blind fealty to something or someone makes one march in lockstep agreement with everything they do...
But I suppose it has all manner of hidden shades of meaning to you when I say "If they had to install a lock, then I wish they had executed the thing in a less obtrusive fashion".
I suppose you then just weld up the resulting hole in the frame and cutout in the hammer channel?
Compared to Taurus's simple camming "grease nipple" or various other companies' mainspring blocks, it sure is.
The obverse of that is:
It's sad when blind fealty to something or someone makes one march in lockstep agreement with everything they do...
But I suppose it has all manner of hidden shades of meaning to you when I say "If they had to install a lock, then I wish they had executed the thing in a less obtrusive fashion".
So how bout' those Titans...........
and the debate rages on.
So should trigger locks be mandatory when you are carrying a gun for defense?
Just kidding.
Like I said I have one with the lock and for the record I will be the first to let anybody know if it causes me any problems whatsoever, other than the ugly factor.
I think we can all agree that mandating these things is what we are all really torqued off about not that actual item itself. If it was a optional add on to the gun we would probably all be calling it a feature.
See damn lawyers and politicians screw everything up. To coin the phrase..."Old Willy was right, lets kill all the lawyers, kill em tonight."
DISCLAIMER: I am not a crazy gun nut setting out to kill, hurt or maim lawyers. I am just making a slightly off topic, politically incorrect, literary / musical joke. So if any non shooters are browsing this board, sit back relax and laugh at the JOKE.
Besides, pro gun or anti gun nobody really likes lawyers.
and the debate rages on.
So should trigger locks be mandatory when you are carrying a gun for defense?
Just kidding.
Like I said I have one with the lock and for the record I will be the first to let anybody know if it causes me any problems whatsoever, other than the ugly factor.
I think we can all agree that mandating these things is what we are all really torqued off about not that actual item itself. If it was a optional add on to the gun we would probably all be calling it a feature.
See damn lawyers and politicians screw everything up. To coin the phrase..."Old Willy was right, lets kill all the lawyers, kill em tonight."
DISCLAIMER: I am not a crazy gun nut setting out to kill, hurt or maim lawyers. I am just making a slightly off topic, politically incorrect, literary / musical joke. So if any non shooters are browsing this board, sit back relax and laugh at the JOKE.
Besides, pro gun or anti gun nobody really likes lawyers.
VictorLouis
New member
Actually, the hammer channel is only slightly noticeable. In any case, you could easily replace the hammer. As to the key-way zit, I bet an older style thumbpiece would cover it up nicely.
It ain't rocket science, Tamara. I can be removed if someone wants that.
The mechanics of the device is well designed, and does not interfere with operation if it is not engaged.
....and there are no wannabes or Johnny come lately types here jumping on a sagging bandwagon of discontent.....?
The mechanics of the device is well designed, and does not interfere with operation if it is not engaged.
....and there are no wannabes or Johnny come lately types here jumping on a sagging bandwagon of discontent.....?
VictorLouis,
I thought so too. Unfortunately, I was wrong.
RogerC,
If one doesn't mind a defective frame with a gaping hole in it, I guess you're right.
You know, even the most rabid football fans around here feel free to criticize the plays called by the UT coach. It must be rough feeling forced to cheerlead for everything your hero does, no matter how dumb...
As to the key-way zit, I bet an older style thumbpiece would cover it up nicely.
I thought so too. Unfortunately, I was wrong.
RogerC,
If one doesn't mind a defective frame with a gaping hole in it, I guess you're right.
You know, even the most rabid football fans around here feel free to criticize the plays called by the UT coach. It must be rough feeling forced to cheerlead for everything your hero does, no matter how dumb...
Not sure who you are referring to.......is it a reference to the Irwinites? The followers of the "saviour" of the people? Who will lead the huddled masses away from the dark, evil, Smith and Wesson?
---------------------------
I would bet that the "anti-lock" group consists mainly of people who have not owned a Smith with the lock, and who are only jumping on the bandwagon of paranoia and fear, generated by those with an axe to grind.