Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

spin

(17,493 posts)
16. The S&W lock was a simple device that offered some advantage to certain handgun owners. ...
Fri May 2, 2014, 10:01 AM
May 2014

Perhaps it should have been offered as an accessory but installing it on all new S&W revolvers was a marketing disaster. Another factor which hurt sales of S&W revolvers with the lock was reports of the lock spontaneous locking. This actually happened to a shooter on a pistol range I was at and since I had a key on my keychain, I was able to unlock his firearm. I own several revolvers with this lock and have had no issues with them.

INTERNAL GUN LOCKS

Massad Ayoob
Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

Earlier blog posts on new Smith & Wesson products here in the last few weeks triggered a visceral storm of criticism in the Comments sections for S&’s continued installation of an internal lock on most of their revolvers. The turn of the key locks the mechanism and renders the gun unshootable, even if it is fully loaded.

***snip***

My experience and research has shown that spontaneous locking of the guns during firing (characterized as an ILF, or Internal Lock Failure) has occurred, but rarely. It normally involves very powerful guns with very violent recoil, and also very light guns (Scandium, Titanium) firing these extremely hot rounds. The buffeting from the heavy “kick” seems to be what’s jarring the parts out of alignment. However, one of our readers reported in the comments section that he saw an all-steel S&W spontaneously lock after it was accidentally dropped. Again, a violent impact to small parts seems to have been the culprit.

***snip***

Personally, all the S&W revolvers I carry or use for anything serious are older models without the locks. While I’ve bought several of the lock-equipped later models, all but one were for sport. The single exception is the Model 340 Military & Police, a roughly 14-ounce five-shot pocket revolver chambered for .357 Magnum. This gun has a unique sight concept: a huge XS Tritium Big Dot front, and a humongous U-notch rear. Developed by S&W engineer Jason Dubois to the best of my knowledge, this arrangement allows the very rare combination of fast sight acquisition in poor light, AND extreme accuracy. This gun puts every shot in one hole at 7 yards if I do my part. I’ve shot hell out of it with hot .357 Magnum loads and never had a spontaneous lock, but I still carry it with milder 135 grain Speer Gold Dot 135 grain +P .38 Special just to be sure. (And because, in a gun this light, the Magnum rounds are just painful to shoot.)

***snip***

Smith & Wesson makes their Military & Police semiautomatic pistol line with options: the customer can have it with or without manual thumb safety, and with or without internal magazine disconnector safety. I wish S&W would offer the same options with their revolvers, but it’s a much more complicated and expensive thing to do in revolver as opposed to pistol manufacture. In the meantime, we simply have the choice to buy a different brand. If you have chosen to remove the internal lock feature from your late-model S&W revolver, do yourself a favor and download copies of threads on gun forums in which this issue is discussed, and cases of lock failure are documented. Keep them on file. If you become the test case, that material may help to defuse arguments that removing THIS particular safety device means you’re a reckless person.(...emphasis added)
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2009/09/03/internal-gun-locks/


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The same lunatics who are gun nuts are also heavily misogynistic. chrisa May 2014 #1
I agree. aikoaiko May 2014 #2
Hey, fair enough, not everyone wants one, but I do Recursion May 2014 #3
Again I agree. There are too many idiots among us. aikoaiko May 2014 #6
No one deserves these kind of threats. Even on-line threats Eleanors38 May 2014 #24
No excuse for stalking and harassment JJChambers May 2014 #4
it was unlocked Duckhunter935 May 2014 #11
so leaving a post unlocked means the host agrees with its point of view? CreekDog May 2014 #36
You whine a lot! nt Logical May 2014 #37
Well, the reason for the stalking and harassment is because gun advocates are afraid that DanTex May 2014 #18
Clearly, the "locking" technology is defective in GD! Eleanors38 May 2014 #25
LOL, so technology can land jets and soon will be driving cars but..... Logical May 2014 #32
Have you? JJChambers May 2014 #39
The main issue is extreme gun owners will not let anyone even try to create this technology.... Logical May 2014 #47
Exactly, this isn't about whether the technology is of use to a particular person. nomorenomore08 May 2014 #87
Granted, it wouldn't be suitable for every situation Prophet 451 May 2014 #43
Very thoughtful post, thanks Recursion ucrdem May 2014 #5
I agree that the NRA's extremism is the biggest threat to RKBA. The backlash ... Scuba May 2014 #7
I am glad to see at least one pro-gun advocate here call out NRA and LaPierre*. hlthe2b May 2014 #8
Two DashOneBravo May 2014 #19
And many more. Lizzie Poppet May 2014 #22
Three, I am pro guns and hate the NRA! Nt Logical May 2014 #34
four nt Duckhunter935 May 2014 #48
Lots - probably the vast majority - of pro-2A DUers have nothing to do Codeine May 2014 #38
The vast majority of the "Gungeon Gang" Jenoch May 2014 #41
I'm not sure why anyone would be threatened by this. . pipoman May 2014 #9
The S&W lock was a simple device that offered some advantage to certain handgun owners. ... spin May 2014 #16
I have one with a lock, pipoman May 2014 #31
I own several revolvers with the lock but use them for target shooting. ... spin May 2014 #44
Threats are too far and Duckhunter935 May 2014 #10
Guns in GD DashOneBravo May 2014 #51
not whining Duckhunter935 May 2014 #52
Well.... DashOneBravo May 2014 #77
No Duckhunter935 May 2014 #78
I read this morning that a gun shop owner in MD also..... Bonhomme Richard May 2014 #12
Fuckin' A, Recursion sofa king May 2014 #13
Yeah, there's really no way around that, is there? Recursion May 2014 #14
and mostly everyone here too is ignoring that part of the story. BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #53
"I realize there's a more-or-less-matorium on these," Lizzie Poppet May 2014 #15
Well, here's why it's happening. DanTex May 2014 #17
No.. it is because some states have a provision SQUEE May 2014 #91
reliability standards Make7 May 2014 #92
And again the determining factor... SQUEE May 2014 #93
You don't think an independent agency could prove the state's determination faulty? Make7 May 2014 #94
Independent agency? possible, yes SQUEE May 2014 #95
The issue is a study in hyperpartisan intransigence. rrneck May 2014 #20
"It's a novelty item that only serious gun enthusiasts with lots of cash will buy." uncle ray May 2014 #26
Nicely put. The UDT issue isn't a biggy in itself, but it can be Eleanors38 May 2014 #27
Of course! "Both sides" are to blame... DanTex May 2014 #33
Yes. ntt rrneck May 2014 #35
So... Democrats didn't spend tons of political capital creating the definition of "assault weapon".. krispos42 May 2014 #56
Great post with a lot of valid points. (n/t) spin May 2014 #45
Thanks, Recursion. Paladin May 2014 #21
Might want to take look at "your side," too, Paladin. Eleanors38 May 2014 #28
How many death threats have you ever received from "my side", Eleanors38? Paladin May 2014 #30
plenty of wishing for ill-fortune and rapid extinction... Eleanors38 May 2014 #64
As I thought. (nt) Paladin May 2014 #80
This message was self-deleted by its author LeftishBrit May 2014 #23
Very good post sarisataka May 2014 #29
Well said. WilliamPitt May 2014 #40
This baffles me Prophet 451 May 2014 #42
One downside is Murphy's Law ... spin May 2014 #46
lets hope the cops Duckhunter935 May 2014 #49
That's easy DashOneBravo May 2014 #50
Yes, that seems like a good testbed Prophet 451 May 2014 #58
There is a downside... reliability krispos42 May 2014 #54
OK, to take those in order Prophet 451 May 2014 #57
I expect that as the technology gets better, it will become less of an issue, too krispos42 May 2014 #66
Well, DashOneBravo May 2014 #59
That would be so sad that gun fanciers could not buy the "guns they are comfortable with." Hoyt May 2014 #82
*yawn* krispos42 May 2014 #83
How do you cheaply backfit it to existing guns hack89 May 2014 #71
Good question Prophet 451 May 2014 #74
It's threads like this ... Trajan May 2014 #55
Why don't you contact the Ads & ask them to close it? Eleanors38 May 2014 #65
Pretty unreasonable to broad brush millions of people for allegations of a handful of crimes Taitertots May 2014 #60
"...if you don’t want our gun, don’t buy it. It’s not for everyone." Make7 May 2014 #62
Two key points... Taitertots May 2014 #63
There is existing legislation mandating "smart guns"? ( n/t ) Make7 May 2014 #68
Yes Taitertots May 2014 #69
You do understand what the word "could" means, right? Make7 May 2014 #73
There is legislation. Regardless of your opinions about the matter. It effects millions of people. Taitertots May 2014 #75
A law that hasn't gone into effect to ban the sale of non-"smart guns" affects people how? ( n/t ) Make7 May 2014 #85
Stop being willfully obtuse Taitertots May 2014 #86
So you can't explain it? ( n/t ) Make7 May 2014 #88
I can. Why should I? It is obvious and you are being willfully obtuse (n/t) Taitertots May 2014 #89
Why do you want to deny millions of people the opportunity to buy safer guns? Make7 May 2014 #90
I'm for the second amendment being what it's actually written to be for AcertainLiz May 2014 #61
No where in the Bill of Rights is there any reference to Eleanors38 May 2014 #67
You are out of step with both the president and our party platform hack89 May 2014 #72
So I could keep my milspec Duckhunter935 May 2014 #76
This is not a war zone, believe it or not. Hoyt May 2014 #79
The only coherent post, up to this point. ronnie624 May 2014 #81
This message was self-deleted by its author oneofthe99 May 2014 #70
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #84
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Sorry, I have to start a ...»Reply #16