|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 21, 2012, 12:24 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
|
Quote:
It is pointless to condemn those of use who refuse to buy the guns with the I.L. as emotional, cry-baby radicals just because you have no issue with them. |
|
September 21, 2012, 12:54 PM | #27 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Originally posted by MLeake
Quote:
I don't really like or dislike the lock. I don't use it, but it doesn't bother me either. I am not willing, however, to limit the selection of handguns I'll consider buying to those available without locks nor will I pay the premium that is often wanted for a pre-lock gun if I can get a newer lock-equipped one for a better price. Quote:
I don't condemn everyone who refuses to buy an ILS-equipped revolver. I only take issue with those who do try to portray them as unreliable or attempt to exaggerate the rare problems in order to justify their own emotionally-based preferences, but I do not include you in that group. The types of people that I'm talking about aren't difficult to spot as they often also use childish invectives like "Safety Wesson," "Smith & Clinton," "Hillary Hole," or "wind-up gun." As to boycotting ILS guns in hopes that S&W will drop the feature, it's your money and you can spend it as you like. That being said, the lock has been with us now for over a decade and S&W has shown no indication that they're considering getting rid of it, so you may be waiting for quite a long while. |
||
September 21, 2012, 01:07 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Webley, the ILS does nothing to prevent the theft of the gun itself from your vehicle.
For that, I have a Console Vault with combo lock in my truck, and portable lockboxes that cable lock to seat frames or trunk hinges if traveling and using rental cars. As far as Maryland goes, their gun laws are a major reason I have never sought employment in Maryland. Seems to me this is true of those states that I think require such devices, in general (NY, CA, MA...) The group-think that decides such a lock should be mandatory is a symptom of a greater problem. And, aside from aesthetics, and added (though minimal) risk with no corresponding gain (for me), I resent the locks because such PC group-think lies at the root of the locks' origins. They symbolize something I detest. |
September 22, 2012, 08:22 AM | #29 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
September 22, 2012, 08:41 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 663
|
Quote:
|
|
September 22, 2012, 09:31 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
|
Quote:
|
|
September 22, 2012, 10:48 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2011
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 2,834
|
I might buy another one at the gun show soon, I seen like 2-3 at each gun show in either SS or Blued/Black finish They are $380ish with no lock. Very rare to come by.
|
September 22, 2012, 10:59 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,457
|
Sarge's standard commentary on internal locks, for anyone interested.
If it bothered me, I'd simply trade into an old S&W w/the lock, or something else altogether.
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice. |
September 22, 2012, 11:11 AM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
|
|
September 22, 2012, 11:15 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I would love it if S&W would do a no-lock reproduction of the 1917; that is really the only revolver I feel a desire to add to my collection at this point. I do not want a revolver that would look like a 1917, but has a hole in the side, and a re-shaped frame to accommodate the hole.
|
September 22, 2012, 02:11 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,457
|
The Model 22 tempts me something fierce MLeake, being the 1950 Model I'll likely never own. If they ever offer it in 45 Colt, I'll probably end up eating crow
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice. |
September 22, 2012, 02:33 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2008
Posts: 557
|
I simply did what was mentioned earlier , bought a non-lock 642.
|
September 23, 2012, 11:00 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Posts: 2,474
|
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? I mean really people? Just because the misguided state of Maryland requires them does not mean it Makes good sense to saddle all of us with them. Franky my big problem with the lock is not just that I don't want It, it's that I am not paying what Smith wants for a new gun just to have to take it apart and make it as it should have been from the start. For 100 bucks or free? Ok fine. For 800 or more? I will buy pre lock thanks! |
September 23, 2012, 11:03 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
|
In regard to the internal lock. All mechanical devices have elements in their design that are prone to malfunction. The more parts that can malfunction, the more malfunctions will happen. To illustrate (although a revolver thread), among the parts of a 1911 that are most prone to malfunction are, the extractor (looses proper tension), the ejector (leg breaks off), and the safety plunger tube (becomes loose). If those parts could be somehow improved or eliminated, there would be fewer malfunctions with that gun. Note the Ruger SC1911 with integral plunger tube. It eliminates a frequent source of malfunction making that 1911 a mathematical certainty to have fewer malfunctions than models with standard parts if ignoring for the sake of argument, all other extraneous factors. It is a forward-step in engineering design.
The revolver has few parts or fewer that the 1911 that are prone to malfunction. The extractor rod is known to become loose, but with the invention of Blue Locktite, that is no longer of concern. In short, the fewer parts, the better. 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. |
September 23, 2012, 11:59 AM | #40 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Originally posted by RsqVet
Quote:
Originally posted by dahermit Quote:
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. |
||
September 23, 2012, 12:39 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 451
|
My greatest objection is what is yet to come. Law makers criminalising the locks non use. I can see all sorts of nightmare scenerios where innocent gun owners are criminally charged because their guns wern't locked and were either stolen and used in a crime, or misused by someone else. I guarantee there are venomously anti gun attorneys just chomping at the bit.
__________________
Mark Lane to William Buckley: "Have you ever referred to Jessee Jackson as an ignoramus?" Buckley: "If I didn't, I should have" |
September 23, 2012, 05:07 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
|
Quote:
When it comes to car locks, would you like to have to deal with an internal lock of some sort every time you drove your car, or a stand-alone anti-theft device like "The Club"? |
|
September 23, 2012, 07:07 PM | #43 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
Look, there are lots of ways that you can secure and/or make a handgun inoperable. I'm not trying to debate which is most effective. What I'm pointing out is that there are some legitimate uses for the ILS. You or I may never use the feature, but some people do. Quote:
|
||
September 23, 2012, 09:41 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Posts: 2,474
|
Actually I put "real" locks on my house, i.e. sidebar schlage because I realize how crappy a home depot grade lock set is in terms of direct forced entry or picking.
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. 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. 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? |
September 24, 2012, 08:00 AM | #45 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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. Last edited by Webleymkv; September 24, 2012 at 08:18 AM. |
|||
September 24, 2012, 08:18 AM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
|
Quote:
|
|
September 24, 2012, 09:00 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Webley, I won't buy a Taurus - too many friends have had too many lemons - and I was not aware of the ILS on the LCR when I bought it. (I no longer have the LCR).
I do not believe my old GP100 had the lock. I traded the GP100 for a Colt 1917 that definitely does not have a lock. My new S&W handguns, 442 and M&P auto, were specifically purchased as no-lock variants. |
September 24, 2012, 11:06 AM | #48 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Originally posted by dahermit
Quote:
Originally posted by MLeake Quote:
|
||
September 24, 2012, 02:03 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Posts: 2,474
|
Webley ---
You state: "The fact of the matter is that safety and reliability has not been significantly compromised by the addition of the ILS" 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". So let’s start with statistics, what are you sources for what guns pre-and post lock. You are presenting arguments as if you have hard, data on this matter and if you do I personally would be interested in seeing it. If you don't have some hard numbers it's fine, lets just not act as if we do have that data. Next what do you call significant? When we speak of such things it is usually relative to the situation and device in question. A failed transmission in a car is a warranty headache, a failed helicopter transmission has a body count much of the time. Given that many people use a gun for self defense this would make most want to minimize the chance of mechanical failure. I will grant you that the smith ILS has a "low" chance of failing. Is it 0.1%, 0.01% or .00001%? I do not know, and neither I suspect do you. However the fact is however low the chance is the lock can not fail if it is not there. FURTHERMORE in medicine, aerospace and other fields we routinely invest massive sums of money in engineering, equipment and materials to reduce or eliminate failure modes that are as small a percentage as the ILS number is likely to be. Therefore I personally do not think it is unreasonable that some people, myself included consider this significant and seek to eliminate the ILS from our guns either by not purchasing or disabling it. If you do not consider the number significant, I certainly am not going to try and convince you otherwise however I would hope that you can see the other side of the argument for those who do consider the lock to be an issue. In addition please realize that many of us have had to turn many fasteners we do not have a bit or fitting for or defeat locks for which the key is lost or gone. Spend enough time doing this and you look at anything pretending to be a lock a lot differently from say a decent pad lock, door lock, safe etc. The ILS is definitely a pretend lock much the same way luggage and brief case locks are pretend locks, yes the will slow someone down but not by much and the false sense of security especially when it comes to a gun may be a very bad side effect. |
September 24, 2012, 11:46 PM | #50 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
Now, from 2001 (the year that the lock was introduced) until 2010 (2011 and 2012 figures aren't available yet) S&W has produced 1,554,248 revolvers according to the ATF's statistics. If we only take the two documented cases, that's a failure rate of approximately 0.000129%. Even if we're extremely generous and assume a failure rate of 100 per year (which I very highly doubt), that gives us a total failure rate of only 0.0643%. If we take it even a step further and assume the ridiculously high failure rate of 1,000 per year, we're still only at 0.643%. In order to get a 1% failure rate, we would have to have an average of just over 1,554 "auto locks" per year. So, even if we have a failure rate of 0.643%, that would still be a grand total of 10,000 "auto locks" over a ten year period and I'd think that we'd have more than two documented, verifiable incidents particularly since so many people want so badly to prove that the lock is the horrible, awful thing that they claim it is. Of course, if you know of documented cases that I don't, please share them. Quote:
If we are to hold firearms to the same standards that medical equipment is, then we should be inspecting them at least daily, if not multiple times per day and having a gunsmith replacing all the vital parts after a predetermined number of rounds whether they're causing problems or not. Fortunately, firearms generally do not require as intensive maintenance as medical equipment does because they are not nearly as complex. Last edited by Webleymkv; September 26, 2012 at 02:29 PM. Reason: Miscalculation |
||
|
|