The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 21, 2012, 12:24 PM   #26
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Like I said, looks. If you don't like the look of it, that's fine as long as you're honest about it. I personally think that a full underlug on anything but a Colt Python is hideous, but I don't go around telling people that guns with full underlugs are of sub-par quality or unreliable. Looks is a matter of personal preference that there's no point arguing about. The people I take issue with are the ones that try to justify their personal preferences by blowing the lock stories out of proportion.
I do not buy any S&W's with locks. S&W has lost me as a customer. They can get me back as a customer if they drop the locks. It is a moot point why I dislike the lock. I do not, " go around", telling people they are unreliable or exaggerate the problems people have had with them. If people wanted/needed a gun that was safe from teenagers and children et. Al., they could open the cylinder, put a cable-padlock through the barrel it would have worked just as well and would have been a arguably better alternative to loosing those of us who were customers over the issue. Some of us believe that if sales of the I.L. models fall low enough, S&W will go back to making only non-I.L. models. If they did, there would not likely be an out-cry for the return of the I.L.
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.
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
Old September 21, 2012, 12:54 PM   #27
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,933
Originally posted by MLeake
Quote:
Webley, good post, but begs the question - why add unnecessary parts that add complexity and increase (if only slightly) chances of a malfunction?

How many of us use the lock?

I have gun safes. Locks (ILS, cable, etc) see no use at all with my guns.
Well, the state of Maryland appears to require them for all newly-made revolvers sold there. I could also see them being somewhat useful if one needed to temporarily secure their handgun in a car or hotel room while they went to a hospital, government building, or other such place where handguns are verboten. You could, of course, do the same thing with a cable lock or padlock, but the little ILS key is easier and more convenient to carry around.

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:
Quote:
Like I said, looks. If you don't like the look of it, that's fine as long as you're honest about it. I personally think that a full underlug on anything but a Colt Python is hideous, but I don't go around telling people that guns with full underlugs are of sub-par quality or unreliable. Looks is a matter of personal preference that there's no point arguing about. The people I take issue with are the ones that try to justify their personal preferences by blowing the lock stories out of proportion.

I do not buy any S&W's with locks. S&W has lost me as a customer. They can get me back as a customer if they drop the locks. It is a moot point why I dislike the lock. I do not, " go around", telling people they are unreliable or exaggerate the problems people have had with them. If people wanted/needed a gun that was safe from teenagers and children et. Al., they could open the cylinder, put a cable-padlock through the barrel it would have worked just as well and would have been a arguably better alternative to loosing those of us who were customers over the issue. Some of us believe that if sales of the I.L. models fall low enough, S&W will go back to making only non-I.L. models. If they did, there would not likely be an out-cry for the return of the I.L.

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.
I think you took my post the wrong way. I never said, nor did I mean to imply, that you go around telling people that ILS guns are unreliable or exaggerate problems. You are honest enough to admit that you dislike ILS guns because you think they're ugly and I can respect that.

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.
__________________
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  
Old September 21, 2012, 01:07 PM   #28
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old September 22, 2012, 08:22 AM   #29
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,933
Quote:
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.
The ILS does, however, prevent or at least make more difficult unauthorized use of the gun. As I noted before, there are certainly other devices that can be used to secure a handgun, but the ILS key is smaller, lighter, and more convenient to carry than most of them and doesn't cost anything extra.

Quote:
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...)
I don't much care for the gun laws of Maryland (or the other states you mentioned) either and prefer to live elsewhere. However, not everyone is fortunate enough to choose which state they live in and, if I had to live in Maryland for one reason or another, it would be nice to know that I could legally buy a new S&W revolver if I wanted to.

Quote:
The group-think that decides such a lock should be mandatory is a symptom of a greater problem.
Agreed.

Quote:
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.
Rather than resent S&W or the lock itself, I resent the people who made it necessary to begin with. Specifically, I resent Tomkins PLC and Bill Clinton for dragging the name of one of the greatest American gun companies through the mud and opening the door for the locks to become an issue in the first place. As you yourself pointed out, the lock is a symptom of a greater problem.
__________________
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  
Old September 22, 2012, 08:41 AM   #30
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
Quote:
the lock is a symptom of a greater problem.
The lock isn't a problem per say. To me it portends the trend in years to come. Our demographics are changing along with tolerance for this kind of misguided attitude that guns think for themselves, and the idiot behind it is just another victim. A separate locking devise would be more effective, but choosing to mar the appearance of a fine weapon seems more appealing to some. Kind of like drawing a mustache and blacking out a tooth on a picture of clinton.
coyota1 is offline  
Old September 22, 2012, 09:31 AM   #31
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
...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...
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that until recently, all S&W revolvers had the I.L. system, but now there are models that have no lock. If that be true, then there has been some movement in the right direction.
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
Old September 22, 2012, 10:48 AM   #32
9mm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2011
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 2,711
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.
__________________
See user title
9mm is offline  
Old September 22, 2012, 10:59 AM   #33
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 4,911
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.
__________________
I'm inclined to think if a man hasn't gotten his point across in 4912 attempts, 4913 probably isn't going to do it.
Sarge is offline  
Old September 22, 2012, 11:11 AM   #34
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,933
Quote:
Quote:
...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...

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that until recently, all S&W revolvers had the I.L. system, but now there are models that have no lock. If that be true, then there has been some movement in the right direction.
My understanding is that they are using up existing pre-lock frames that they had in inventory.
__________________
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  
Old September 22, 2012, 11:15 AM   #35
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old September 22, 2012, 02:11 PM   #36
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 4,911
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
__________________
I'm inclined to think if a man hasn't gotten his point across in 4912 attempts, 4913 probably isn't going to do it.
Sarge is offline  
Old September 22, 2012, 02:33 PM   #37
223 shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2008
Posts: 391
I simply did what was mentioned earlier , bought a non-lock 642.
223 shooter is offline  
Old September 23, 2012, 11:00 AM   #38
RsqVet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Posts: 2,386
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!
RsqVet is offline  
Old September 23, 2012, 11:03 AM   #39
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
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.
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
Old September 23, 2012, 11:59 AM   #40
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,933
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  
Old September 23, 2012, 12:39 PM   #41
DFrame
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"
DFrame is offline  
Old September 23, 2012, 05:07 PM   #42
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
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.
A small child is not likely to defeat a cable lock running through the barrel either.
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"?
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
Old September 23, 2012, 07:07 PM   #43
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,933
Quote:
Quote:
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.

A small child is not likely to defeat a cable lock running through the barrel either.
A small child is even less likely to defeat a safe, but that's not very convenient to carry around with you should you need to secure your gun in a car, hotel room, or the bedside drawer of your grandmother's house. The ILS key, on the other hand, can be carried on your key ring very easily.

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:
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"?
Apparently you've been driving older cars. Many new cars have door locks which automatically engage when the transmission is shifted into gear or the vehicle is driven over a certain speed and some even have locks which automatically engage after the car sits for a certain period of time without any doors being opened. Unlike the S&W ILS, however, those features are designed to engage themselves without any action from the driver. My S&W revolvers, however, will remain unlocked unless I choose to lock them just like the doors on my older cars and my home.
__________________
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  
Old September 23, 2012, 09:41 PM   #44
RsqVet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Posts: 2,386
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?
RsqVet is offline  
Old September 24, 2012, 08:00 AM   #45
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,933
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  
Old September 24, 2012, 08:18 AM   #46
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
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.
Unfortunately, they have locks now too, albeit hidden under the grip where S&W should have designed them (or in the back of the hammer ala Taurus), also if they absolutely had to have them. Then we would not have the I.L. supporters whining about people whining about them.
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
Old September 24, 2012, 09:00 AM   #47
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old September 24, 2012, 11:06 AM   #48
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,933
Originally posted by dahermit
Quote:
Quote:
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.

Unfortunately, they have locks now too, albeit hidden under the grip where S&W should have designed them (or in the back of the hammer ala Taurus), also if they absolutely had to have them. Then we would not have the I.L. supporters whining about people whining about them.
So again, we're back to looks. As I said before, if you don't like the lock because of looks, that's fine and I won't argue the point. However, I do notice that there are a lot more people complaining about the S&W lock for reasons other than looks than there are about the Taurus and Ruger locks for any reason at all. Like I sad before, out-of-sight out-of-mind.

Originally posted by MLeake
Quote:
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.
The Rugers with come equipped with the lock include the LCR and sinlge-actions like the Blackhawk and Vaquero (I don't know if the Single Six or Bearcat have them). To my knowledge, the GP100, SP101, Redhawk, and Super Redhawk are not currently offered with locks (though I wouldn't be surprised if that feature was incorporated into them in the future). There are also some Ruger semi-autos with locks including the P345 and, IIRC, the SR9/40.
__________________
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  
Old September 24, 2012, 02:03 PM   #49
RsqVet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Posts: 2,386
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.
RsqVet is offline  
Old September 24, 2012, 11:46 PM   #50
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,933
Quote:
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.
Well, there have only been two documented and verifiable incidents of the ILS "auto locking" that I'm aware of, one reported by Michael Bane and the other reported by Massad Ayoob. That is not to say that it hasn't happened more, but all the other reports I've seen are anonymous posts on internet fora which, as I mentioned before, are unreliable. There are several reasons that internet posts are unreliable. Most obviously, the honesty of the poster is unverifiable and thus a reported "auto lock" could be nothing more than someone with an axe to grind or simply someone who likes to stir the pot. Secondly, the poster's expertise in diagnosing the problem is often unknown so a revolver that actually locked up for some other reason might have its issues mistakenly blamed on the ILS. Finally, a poster may post his experience on multiple fora under multiple handles thus making one incident appear to be many. Likewise, if more than one person was present when the incident occurred, you may have multiple people posting about what is, in fact, one incident and thereby also making one incident seem like many.

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:
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.
I can't speak for aircraft, but medical equipment often has a much higher failure rate than you're giving it credit for. For example, my father works in a 200-bed hospital which has a 10% ventilator-to-bed ratio. I asked him if 1 ventilator per year failing (which would be a 5% failure rate) is excessive and he informed me that actually, in his experience, the failure rate is typically much higher. It is for this reason that ventilators have multiple alarms and per policy are checked at least every two hours and that the vital components of the ventilators are proactively replaced after a predetermined number of hours in use. Also, I have a very difficult time believing that a piece of medical equipment like a ventilator or an aircraft can be held to a higher standard of reliability than a revolver regardless of the money spent because a ventilator or airplane is an exponentially more complicated machine than any revolver ever produced.

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.
__________________
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 26, 2012 at 02:29 PM. Reason: Miscalculation
Webleymkv is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

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 05:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14776 seconds with 7 queries