I hate to beat a dead horse, but... - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-19-2017, 02:51 PM
FNHipowerluv FNHipowerluv is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 358
I hate to beat a dead horse, but...

Has S&W ever made a formal announcement, about why they still have the internal lock safety, on the exposed hammer revolvers? Everyone has their theories, but I would like to hear what the big whigs have to say. I am not trying to start a flame war. Please don't turn it into one. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-19-2017, 03:44 PM
drail drail is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,888
Simple - they have a legal dept. to keep from being sued out of existence because of the situation we have with our courts today. And lawyers are masters at playing the "what if" game. And also I think they just couldn't care less what their customers think about the lock. They refuse to believe it is a liability. They believe it is a desirable feature.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-19-2017, 03:48 PM
RickB's Avatar
RickB RickB is offline
1911 Aficionado
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Not Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 19,980
Even adding a safety device can be trouble, as an attorney will try to paint it as an admission that it was unsafe, before.
__________________
If you're not shooting you should be moving. If you're not moving you should be reloading. If you're not shooting, moving, or reloading, you should be taping or picking brass. - Z.C.
Reply With Quote
 
  #4  
Old 05-19-2017, 04:27 PM
havanajim havanajim is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,348
Thankfully, there are enough older models out there in circulation to keep me content. Frankly, hole or no hole, the new stuff is just 'meh' as far as I'm concerned. I have no need of a .460, .500, .650, or .900, on the rhino end, nor a lightweight, scandium/aluminum/tin foil/paper-mache carry piece on the featherweight end, so there's little in the new line-up to catch my fancy, revolver-wise. They lost me on the 'Classic' series withe the damn hole, so that's that. Now, if they resurrect the 1875 Schofield again, I'd be all over that like a Democrat on a graft. But, alas, it's not in the cards. Thank Heaven for Uberti!!!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-19-2017, 04:47 PM
CajunBass CajunBass is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 114
Because in spite of what you read here and on other internet forums, the guns with the locks sell. If they didn't they'd be gone. Simple as that. I've bought my share of them. I've only got two now, but I've probably had at least a half dozen others.

I've never heard that from the company bigwigs, but it's based on something I learned in Econ 101 back in high school.
__________________
For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 (NKJV)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-19-2017, 04:47 PM
1911crazy 1911crazy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 3,109
Gun Locks are needed for the gun owners who don't practice gun safety. When my grandson is here visiting everything is locked up in the safe anyway.

My grandson was taught when he sees a gun to report it. I had a bb pistol out and he went off on me. He's only seven years old. I was showing the gun to my son with no co2/bb were near by. I figure to teach good gun safety starts with the grandson at any age. He shoots bb rifles under watch from me and my son.

The IL in my opinion should of been installed on the blackstrap on the main spring. No where near the guns inner workings. If that IL saves one child's life it's ok with me.

My LGS had new s&w n frames with the IL on clearance, for $699 in nickel, blue or stainless in all calibers. You going to pass them up?
__________________
Ask yourself is what i'm about to do SAFE???? (From the national timber fellers association)

Gun Safety never sleeps or takes a day off, besafe do it right......

Last edited by 1911crazy; 05-19-2017 at 04:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-19-2017, 05:23 PM
drail drail is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,888
Yes I would. I would pay more than that for a nice vintage S&W. I wouldn't buy a new S&W at any price.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-19-2017, 07:22 PM
BradE BradE is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by drail View Post
Yes I would. I would pay more than that for a nice vintage S&W. I wouldn't buy a new S&W at any price.
Same.

I hate the lock, but that aside, the quality of many of the new S&W revolvers isn't anything special. Have seen more than a few with mis-aligned barrels and a host of other issues. Don't see that on the older guns. Bluing on the new models sucks to, IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-19-2017, 07:41 PM
invssgt invssgt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MO
Posts: 1,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by FNHipowerluv View Post
Has S&W ever made a formal announcement, about why they still have the internal lock safety, on the exposed hammer revolvers? Everyone has their theories, but I would like to hear what the big whigs have to say. I am not trying to start a flame war. Please don't turn it into one. Thanks.
There's no motivation for S&W to rehash the lock issue. They are selling all the revolvers they can make. Those of us who detest the thing can simply buy pre-lock S&W's or other brands.
__________________
Sarge

Visit us at The Sixgun Journal or the archive, at http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-19-2017, 07:49 PM
Q Tip Q Tip is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 189
the lock doesnt bother me. i dont own a lock gun but my mother does own a j frame with the lock and she likes it. If my brother's grown autistic twin boys are visiting, she feels more comfortable with an extra layer of security. Even if they could access the gun, loading and firing it would be next to impossible. Not that they would, they are wonderful, polite and caring young men. But they dont have an adult understanding of firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-19-2017, 08:29 PM
FNHipowerluv FNHipowerluv is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 358
1911crazy, I hate to argue but couldn't S&W just ship their guns with cable locks, like Ruger or Charter?
Also, how come they can get away with making lockless J frames with internal hammers. Why no lockless larger frame revolvers with exposed hammers?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-19-2017, 09:01 PM
1911crazy 1911crazy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 3,109
I'm a ruger gun owner from 1975 on first. I just bought a 1948 s&w k22 masterpiece target for the new 5yo grandson. I purchased a s&w m58 & m57 because I always wanted a 14 mag revolver. I wanted ruger's but there no longer offered in 5.5" barrels. Recently I bit the bullet and picked up two RedHawks 5.5" in 357 & 41 mag to shoot.

I'm not s&w I can answer questions about what they do. I own pre locks and lock n frames.
__________________
Ask yourself is what i'm about to do SAFE???? (From the national timber fellers association)

Gun Safety never sleeps or takes a day off, besafe do it right......
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-20-2017, 04:48 AM
springer99 springer99 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by invssgt View Post
There's no motivation for S&W to rehash the lock issue. They are selling all the revolvers they can make. Those of us who detest the thing can simply buy pre-lock S&W's or other brands.
Yup +1.

Plus, I wonder what other product you could name, ever had a "safety" feature removed from their product, that didn't invite a lawsuit from some nut-job.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-20-2017, 07:17 AM
FNHipowerluv FNHipowerluv is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by springer99 View Post
Yup +1.

Plus, I wonder what other product you could name, ever had a "safety" feature removed from their product, that didn't invite a lawsuit from some nut-job.
Ruger had an internal lock safety for a VERY short time. The loaded chamber indicator has been deleted from some of their new MKIV pistols. Remington used to put an internal lock safety on 870s, not anymore. Colt brought back the series 70. Beretta has taken away the safety switch with the "G" model. The list could go on.
I dont see any lawsuits for those manufacturers.
You have to remember, liberals do not play with guns much. odds are they don't even know that the previous "safety" devices even existed. So therefore, they will never know that they are gone.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-20-2017, 02:12 PM
Rock185 Rock185 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Central Highlands of the Great Southwest
Posts: 2,585
I've never heard of S&W making any formal comment on the IL system in recent years. I was surprised they ever built whatever number of no lock 642s after going to the IL system on their guns.

I've only had one gun with the IL, a Pro Series .357. Studying the IL, it appeared that the only thing keeping the gun unlocked was a very fine hair spring. And, if the spring broke, kinked, became dislodged, etc, the gun would default to the locked position. This seemed exactly opposite to what I would have expected. I would have thought that a problem with the IL would cause the gun to default to an operable condition. Perhaps my evaluation of the way the IL works is incorrect, but that's the way it appeared to me when I had one to study. The corporate attorneys must love it, but seems sort of like if your car had a problem. Instead of the car's computer attempting to keep the engine running in the "limp home" mode, the computer shuts everything down and locks the brakes, stranding you where you sit.

Does anybody really think that gun owners who do not practice gun safety are going to practice gun safety by locking their S&Ws with that swell little IL? Anyone remember when Saf-T-Hammer in Scottsdale,Az. was promoting use of their locking systems by firearms manufacturers, with less than stellar results? Then they bought S&W at a bargain price. Voila!, now they owned a major manufacturer that would definitely be using the IL lock systems they'd been unsuccessfully pushing to other firearms manufacturers. Gotta love it when a plan comes together
__________________
NRA Life, COTEP 640
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-20-2017, 03:37 PM
Bullet Bob Bullet Bob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Piedmont NC
Posts: 173
Well FNlv, as you can see, this topic unfortunately cannot be brought up without the carcass of the deceased cayuse taking some more damage. And, the Whig party is long gone.

I've got too many S&W's old and new. I like them all. I think why the lock is still with us is a combination of the two things mentioned previously - they sell plenty, and decreasing perceived safety is a non-starter.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-20-2017, 03:44 PM
drail drail is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,888
Regarding the oft heard statement - "the lock doesn't bother me.." It will if you desperately need to fire the gun in self defense and you can't. And there have been a number of documented cases of the lock engaging itself and S&W knows this - it's NOT an internet rumor. It WAS a bad design.

Last edited by drail; 05-20-2017 at 03:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-20-2017, 03:54 PM
kurusu kurusu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Portugal
Age: 59
Posts: 570
I think that horse just winked. Beat it some more.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-20-2017, 03:59 PM
magazineman magazineman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,127
1911Crazy----------- Your grandson has been taught to report a gun if he finds one? Great. But since when have kids followed parental advice 100% of the time? There was a study done where they taught a classroom of kids gun safety with an Eddie Eagle video & a live lecture by a policeman.

Then two days later they left the kids alone with two unloaded guns hidden among toys in the classroom. Then watched on hidden cameras.

Kid finds a chrome gun (Jennings/ Lorcin) picks it up, & looks down the barrel.

We teach our kids to not eat their vegetables, clean their rooms , remember their homework, sit up straight, write their thank you letters, do their chores,get off that phone, yadda yadda. the list is endless.

What percentage of that gets done, on time, every time? What I'm saying is "taught" is not a reliable system.

Guns locked up is the most reliable method. Teach the kids & lock the guns. You said you keep your guns locked up when he visits. So I think you too know that teaching alone is in NO WAY a replacement for safe storage.

Not by a long shot.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-20-2017, 04:21 PM
nypd3765 nypd3765 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 188
I won't beat a dead horse, I'll just step around it. I'll buy a pre-lock Smith or another brand. No IL for me, not that I don't trust them, but anything to do with the Clintons and anti-gun sentiment, I stay away. Plus the Hillary hole looks ugly.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-20-2017, 04:51 PM
Hapworth Hapworth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by FNHipowerluv View Post
Has S&W ever made a formal announcement, about why they still have the internal lock safety, on the exposed hammer revolvers? Everyone has their theories, but I would like to hear what the big whigs have to say. I am not trying to start a flame war. Please don't turn it into one. Thanks.
As you can see, there's no bringing this subject up without starting a fire. You asked a simple, direct question and explicitly requested facts not opinion or speculation, and the latter is all that's been posted. Oh well.

The answer is no, S&W has made no formal announcement regarding the internal locking system, its logic or its future. Whatever the story is, it's theirs -- everything else is supposition.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-20-2017, 05:01 PM
havanajim havanajim is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,348
Click image for larger version

Name:	horse.jpg
Views:	26
Size:	72.8 KB
ID:	360481
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-20-2017, 05:13 PM
1911crazy 1911crazy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 3,109
The school is teaching the grandson/kids about guns. If you see it don't touch it, get an adult right away. They want the kid to report it to the school too. The school is getting involved in gun awareness with the kids. They get it at home and from school that's awesome.
__________________
Ask yourself is what i'm about to do SAFE???? (From the national timber fellers association)

Gun Safety never sleeps or takes a day off, besafe do it right......
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-20-2017, 05:15 PM
1911crazy 1911crazy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 3,109
I don't ccw a IL s&w revolver. I shoot and enjoy it. I ccw RedHawks.

My SA 1911 from Brazil has the lock on the backstrap(key start). I guess I need to tell the bad guy wait one minute while I turn this on. Just kidding but the lock on the main spring works.
__________________
Ask yourself is what i'm about to do SAFE???? (From the national timber fellers association)

Gun Safety never sleeps or takes a day off, besafe do it right......

Last edited by 1911crazy; 05-20-2017 at 05:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-20-2017, 06:02 PM
magazineman magazineman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,127
As long as a lock did not interfere with normal use of the gun I wouldn't mind it's being there. I'd just ignore it.

Like all the features my phone has that I don't use.

But since I prefer much older guns I'll never have one of the locking ones anyhow.

So, it's a non-issue for me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved