View Single Post
Old September 24, 2012, 08:00 AM   #45
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,927
Quote:
How small of a child can disable a IL Smith? I don't know, but I don't think responsible gun safety at home should be predicated on more than just the thought that your kid can't figure a way to turn that little nubin. Promoting that as "safe" is unsafe in my opinion.
Well, a child (or anyone else) can't turn the "little nubin" unless they either posess the key or disassemble the revolver. Since very few small children would know how to detail strip a S&W revolver, keeping the key away from them would pretty much guarantee that they can't turn the "little nubin". Also, I don't see how using the ILS is any less safe than hiding an unlocked revolver in a sock drawer or on the top shelf of the closet as many people do. A dedicated gun safe is probably the best security, but carrying a safe around with you to be used in a car, hotel room, or relative's house isn't something that most people are going to do. Putting the ILS key on your key ring, however, is very unobtrusive and it would be difficult to rationalize a good reason not to do it.

Quote:
Furthermore, and again why saddle everyone with that... if it is something you want, great, not everyone does. Time to stop the group think, one solution for everyone stuff in this county and let people make choices and take responsibility for what follows.
Because it's more expensive to run two separate production lines for ILS and non-ILS revolvers concurrently. Enough people already complain about the prices of new S&W revolvers (though when adjusted for inflation they're really no more expensive than they've ever been), so I can already see the whining and moaning about having to pay extra to get a gun without the lock. S&W probably already figures, as I do, that those who want the lock can use it while those who don't can ignore it easily enough. Probably also playing into it is that, outside of internet fora, I've never heard that much complaining so I think the whole thing is probably a tempest in a teapot anyway.

You know, it's also funny that I see so many comments about the S&W lock being group think, appeasment of the anti's, an extension of the nanny state, the decay of western civilization, etc. but the people who foam at the mouth about the S&W lock seem to be by and large silent about the Taurus and Ruger ILS. Of course, those systems aren't as obvious so it's probably just a case of out-of-sight, out-of-mind.

Quote:
Furthermore I find it really funny whenever people argue pro-lock to imagine what this conversation would look like in say 1982 when what 85% of American law enforcement had Smith revolvers in their holsters. I know tons of guy from this era who to this DAY will not carry a semi-auto anything, 6 for sure in their mind trumps anything anyone can say about anything OTHER than a revolver. I have a have a world of respect for these guys and can jsut immagine telling them guys you want to add some useless or seldom used bits to their gun that might lock the action. This would have never flown back than, so why is the safety and reliability of a gun I might buy any less important?
It would probably look about like the people who whined and moaned in 1982 when the pinned barrels and recessed cylinders were dropped, or in the 60's when the fourth and fifth screws were eliminated, or in the 40's when the long action was discontinued. Revolver shooters can be a reactionary bunch sometimes and many of us just don't like anything different.

The fact of the matter is that safety and reliability has not been significantly compromised by the addition of the ILS. You can thump on the "one more thing to go wrong" drum all you like, but it cannot be denied that no man-made device can be guaranteed never to give its user trouble. S&W (and every other gun maker for that matter) occasionally had problems before the lock was introduced and I've seen no evidence that their rate of breakage/malfunction is enough higher since the introduction of the ILS to be statistically significant. With any firearm, revolver or semi-auto and lock or no-lock, you pay your money and take your chances. I've yet to see anything to convince me that the chance of having problems with an ILS S&W is different enough from those of a non-ILS S&W that I should be concerned about it.

If you don't like ILS S&W's because of looks, politics, general principle, or whatever else, that's fine; you buy what you like and I'll buy what I like. Please don't try to tell me, however, that the standards of safety and reliability have been abandoned with ILS revolvers because that simply is not the case.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar

Last edited by Webleymkv; September 24, 2012 at 08:18 AM.
Webleymkv is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04431 seconds with 7 queries