PDA

View Full Version : Smith & Wesson


dfletcher
03-07-2009, 9:08 PM
Supposedly Smith is going to phase out the IL on their revolvers?

http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3001000143/m/13810902

The info supposedly originates from a Massad Ayoob article in the April/June 2009 "Handgunner" magazine.

Nitroman
03-07-2009, 10:06 PM
I sure hope they do. It's time to get rid of that ugly wart on an otherwise handsome line of firearms.

Rich :)

bwiese
03-08-2009, 8:50 AM
Whatever.

They're readily disableable, and the hole can be filled in gracefully.

Nitroman
03-08-2009, 11:43 AM
Whatever.

They're readily disableable, and the hole can be filled in gracefully.

Yeah...do something like that, and should something bad happen (accidental/neglegent discharge or whatever), then try explaining to the court why exactly you disabled/removed a factory safety feature. I prefer to wait rather than chance losing an expensive lawsuit...or worse.

Rich :)

Blue
03-08-2009, 11:44 AM
Yeah...do something like that, and should something bad happen (accidental/neglegent discharge or whatever), then try explaining to the court why exactly you disabled/removed a factory safety feature. I prefer to wait rather than chance losing an expensive lawsuit...or worse.

Rich :)

Eh.

bwiese
03-08-2009, 2:37 PM
Yeah...do something like that, and should something bad happen (accidental/neglegent discharge or whatever), then try explaining to the court why exactly you disabled/removed a factory safety feature. I prefer to wait rather than chance losing an expensive lawsuit...or worse.

FUD.

Negligent discharge is caused by violating the 4 rules. Whether or not safety is locked is irrelevant. Also, that safety has nothing to do with dropping, etc.

And it's further irrelevevant FUD, since I'm betting the safety on 99.9% of S&W new revolvers - or keylock safeties on other brands - go unused anyway.

Any reasonably competent counsel could show that that path had nothing to do with whatever discharge was in discussion.

And if it's a shoot of a bad guy, it's intentional anyway. (If it's not, you've got way bigger issues than the safety: a person that says "it was accidental" in a self-defense style shooting is going straight to jail.)

Nitroman
03-08-2009, 4:33 PM
FUD.

Negligent discharge is caused by violating the 4 rules. Whether or not safety is locked is irrelevant. Also, that safety has nothing to do with dropping, etc.

And it's further irrelevevant FUD, since I'm betting the safety on 99.9% of S&W new revolvers - or keylock safeties on other brands - go unused anyway.

Any reasonably competent counsel could show that that path had nothing to do with whatever discharge was in discussion.

And if it's a shoot of a bad guy, it's intentional anyway. (If it's not, you've got way bigger issues than the safety: a person that says "it was accidental" in a self-defense style shooting is going straight to jail.)

I guess my point is...why take the chance?

Rich :)

Bad Voodoo
03-08-2009, 7:15 PM
I guess my point is...why take the chance?

Rich :)

One either is, or isn't.

A responsible handgun owner, that is.

Or have you been in this state long enough to become indoctrinated into believing you actually need factory "safety features?" The 4 rules is all you need. Believe that.

dfletcher
03-08-2009, 7:38 PM
I believe the IL is marketed as a storage lock and it serves no purpose regarding a "safety" as the gun is being handled or if dropped or used in a deliberate or, depending on the circumstances, even an accidental shooting. I do wonder what would happen, civilly or criminally, if someone got their hands on an IL disabled gun (kid by accident, theft) and did something dastardly, what might happen to the owner. There would be other contributing issues to address I'm sure.

I've covered mine (Smith 21) with a removable plug, so it is not noticeable but can be reversed. It's the only IL gun I own, it's not used for defense so any IL reliability issues aren't a concern.

Black Majik
03-08-2009, 7:41 PM
I look forward to future post-lock Smiths. :thumbsup:

liketoshoot
03-08-2009, 7:45 PM
I can say that I have never "set" the IL on any of my S&W's, and I never will.
I will remove the lock too when I can find a nice plug to use.

ricknadine1111
03-08-2009, 7:50 PM
I was thinking of removing mine, tig welding the hole then bead blasting the pistol since mine is stainless and not blued.

dfletcher
03-08-2009, 8:05 PM
I can say that I have never "set" the IL on any of my S&W's, and I never will.
I will remove the lock too when I can find a nice plug to use.

The stuff I used is a battle ship grey flexible magnet strip with a tape backing - I used a leather hole punch to pop out the correct sized plug - and just pressed it in place. The "fleximag" tape is the same depth as the hole and press fits in place so as to not leave any gap. It doesn't match any finish but it just looks like it belongs there.

Sorry for the lousy description, I can never remember what the hell the stuff is called but it works fine and stays in place.

Nitroman
03-08-2009, 9:05 PM
I look forward to future post-lock Smiths. :thumbsup:

Amen to that.

Rich :)

ojisan
03-08-2009, 9:11 PM
IBTL (is gone).

PutTogether
03-09-2009, 12:11 AM
One either is, or isn't.

A responsible handgun owner, that is.

Or have you been in this state long enough to become indoctrinated into believing you actually need factory "safety features?" The 4 rules is all you need. Believe that.


While I agree with the point you are making regarding the four rules, I just don't follow you on the leap that someone not wanting to screw with a factory feature on a gun for fear of potential ridiculous legal retribution excludes them from being a responsible gun owner.

I don't see that he is agreeing the internal lock is necessary, just that he has made the personal decision that he would rather not permanently disable it, which is his choice to make.

Bad Voodoo
03-09-2009, 10:48 AM
While I agree with the point you are making regarding the four rules, I just don't follow you on the leap that someone not wanting to screw with a factory feature on a gun for fear of potential ridiculous legal retribution excludes them from being a responsible gun owner.

I don't see that he is agreeing the internal lock is necessary, just that he has made the personal decision that he would rather not permanently disable it, which is his choice to make.

Trying to pad your post-count?

If one doesn't want to "screw with" the safety features on a gun, then don't "screw with" them. Makes no difference to me one way or the other what one's personal reasons for not doing so are, unless of course one were to expound upon those reasons in public forum w/ ignorant machinations about theoretical court proceedings one would be responsible for attending as a defendant because the customizations performed by said defendant caused an accidental/negligent discharge, i.e., bad things resulting from.

Does that clear up my position for you, or do you need to get a few more posts in today?

rivviepop
03-09-2009, 11:56 AM
I just don't like the ILS and sold off the one that I had - regardless of the "it may or may not" argument, aesthetically I don't want one on my revolver and so won't buy one, it's as simple as that. Dear S&W, I'm your consumer (as are many others with the same feeling as me) - please listen to what we actually want. We're the same folks that don't want governors on our vehicles whether or not we go faster than XX mph, it's the fact that it's there that bugs us. In some ways it's more emotional than reason - I have no *reason* for collecting 3" revolvers other than I like them for the warm fuzzies they give me.

Can it be disabled? Yes, but I also hold the viewpoint that if I ever want to resell that piece of hardware then based on the method used I've reduced it's resale value (possibly). The one that I did sell I'm glad I didn't mess with it, I was able to resell it for fair value and order new keys (yes, I actually lost the d*mn keys for the lock) without too much hassle. I even have a spare set of ILS keys now just in case. :) I might end up buying something with an ILS again, but I'm doing my darndest to hold out - I have faith they'll get rid of these stupid things eventually... $0.02.

trashman
03-09-2009, 7:37 PM
I dislike the lock aesthetically...but they don't seem to be a problem except for the light-weight high-recoil guns (like the 329PD).

OTOH my ratio of nonIL-to-IL S&W revolvers is (rummages around for spreadsheet).....7:1. :whistling:

--Neill

PutTogether
03-10-2009, 9:20 PM
Trying to pad your post-count?

If one doesn't want to "screw with" the safety features on a gun, then don't "screw with" them. Makes no difference to me one way or the other what one's personal reasons for not doing so are, unless of course one were to expound upon those reasons in public forum w/ ignorant machinations about theoretical court proceedings one would be responsible for attending as a defendant because the customizations performed by said defendant caused an accidental/negligent discharge, i.e., bad things resulting from.

Does that clear up my position for you, or do you need to get a few more posts in today?


1) I don't understand the post count remark.

2) I was agreeing with you, why the hostility?

3) He can disagree and post whatever he likes on a public internet forum - theoretical or not, whether someone else likes it or not. So can I. So can you.

4) You can be an insulting dick to a stranger on the internet if you want. (but you knew that one already)

walter
03-11-2009, 12:23 PM
my smith has an IL. when i open the box I was like wtf is this key for, then i threw it away