View Single Post
Old September 23, 2012, 11:59 AM   #40
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,901
Originally posted by RsqVet
Quote:
Thinking the smith lock deters theft or misuse is kind of silly. There are people who can defeat any car lock on earth in seconds, how long will it
Take anyone to defeat the IL?
Well, I very much doubt that a small child would be able to defeat the lock and I don't thing that even a master locksmith could get an ILS revolver to shoot any faster than one with no lock at all. By that same line of thinking, we should remove the locks from all our cars and houses because some criminals might be able to defeat them.

Originally posted by dahermit
Quote:
Enter the internal lock. An unnecessary part that has been known to malfunction. What it does, is provide a mathematical certainty that the chances for malfunction is more likely, however slight. It is a backward-step in engineering design, no more, no less.
If I really wanted a revolver with as few moving parts, and thus as small a chance for malfunction, as humanly possible, I wouldn't buy a S&W regardless of the lock but rather a Ruger. You see Rugers lack a rebound slide and hammer block and, with the exception of the Six Series DA revolvers, their ejector rods cannot come unscrewed.

I buy S&W's instead because Rugers, while fine guns, do not fit my hands as well, do not have triggers that I like as well, and are not as pleasing to my eye as a S&W. Even though the S&W has the potential to have more problems, the risk is very small and one I'm willing to take in order to get the gun I like more. Such is also the case with the ILS, the remote chance that I might have a problem with it is not great enough to outweigh the better selection, availability, and sometimes price that ILS revolvers can offer.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04409 seconds with 7 queries