View Single Post
Old September 21, 2012, 12:54 PM   #27
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,170
Originally posted by MLeake
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.

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  
Page generated in 0.04707 seconds with 7 queries