# Not Sure What I'm Asking



## Binable (Aug 26, 2013)

..been considering either a new 686 or 67. ..read something awhile back re some annoying safety-like feature on the S&W's that under certain conditions prevents the revolver from firing. What did I read? ..seems like I read some gunsmiths can plug this. That's about all I know. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Binable said:


> ..been considering either a new 686 or 67. ..read something awhile back re some annoying safety-like feature on the S&W's that under certain conditions prevents the revolver from firing. What did I read? ..seems like I read some gunsmiths can plug this. That's about all I know. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?


You probably are referring to the locking mechanism where there is the possibility of it engaging while the gun was being fired. It can be removed but will leave a small hole in the side of the revolver where the key fits in. I took the "flag" out and ground off the little stud that engages the hammer. Put the "flag" back in so you do not have that hole. This renders that mechanism inoperable. It's an easy job for those who are familiar with working on guns.


----------



## Binable (Aug 26, 2013)

What's the idea behind having such a thing?


----------



## aarondhgraham (Mar 17, 2011)

> What's the idea behind having such a thing?


It made the anti-gunners feel good about themselves when the Clintons got it pushed through.

It was and is nothing but anti-gun feel-good legislation.

It's often referred to as the Hillary Hole.

Aarond

.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

I have two revolvers with them never had a problem. I just ignore it the best I can. Just like their stamping on the side of their pistols that says "capable of firing with magazine removed". They are ugly blemishes on good looking and great performing guns.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

rustygun said:


> I have two revolvers with them never had a problem. I just ignore it the best I can. Just like their stamping on the side of their pistols that says "capable of firing with magazine removed". They are ugly blemishes on good looking and great performing guns.


Supposedly the problem was on guns that had a lot of recoil particularly alloy framed short barreled revolvers, Models 642, 442 and .357 J-Frames such as the Model 640 and of course their .44 Magnums. That little "flag" is not under too much tension so it is conceivable that it could "flip on" under heavy recoil. Whether it has happened or not is debatable? Not wanting to take the chance I disabled them on all of the S&W revolvers that I own that has them. Straight out of the box before even firing a shot. They are a stupid idiotic devise! Implemented by stupid idiotic people. What's next seat belts on guns?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

aarondhgraham said:


> It made the anti-gunners feel good about themselves when the Clintons got it pushed through.
> 
> It was and is nothing but anti-gun feel-good legislation.
> 
> ...


Hillary is an A-Hole, that's for sure. Along with her low life husband.


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

A S&W with the lock is not a good choice except for range use, only, where the gun locking up while firing wouldn't be tragic.

And, any knowledgeable attorney would tell you that if you disable any lock or safety device & later use the gun in a self defense situation you'll be in trouble.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

win231 said:


> A S&W with the lock is not a good choice except for range use, only, where the gun locking up while firing would be tragic.
> 
> *And, any knowledgeable attorney would tell you that if you disable any lock or safety device & later use the gun in a self defense situation you'll be in trouble.*


Good point! But that too is debatable. As many S&W revolvers never had the locks to begin with. I doubt that S&W intended them for "range use only". Many people buy and carry them for self defense purposes. Not a good idea in that situation to have the lock engaged as you would have to first unlock it before you can fire it which more than likely will get yourself killed. Your assailant will then have your gun to not only shoot you with it but others as well. Not a good idea out in the field either against a charging animal. *Now if a child got ahold of it and the gun was loaded and unlocked that would be an entirely different story.* But then again no firearm should be left where a child has access to it anyway. Again they are a stupid idiotic devise! Implemented by stupid idiotic people. The intention was to child proof the guns. But if an adult failed to lock the gun they would be held liable regardless. Then again lawyers pass laws to benefit lawyers so anything is possible. There are also probably thousands of S&W revolvers out there on the used market that have had their locks disabled and keys missing. Purchased by people who have no idea what that little hole is for. Then there's the issue of the supplied cable locks. Would that be used against you in court also? I doubt that if the gun was used for justifiable self defense and no charges were filed against the owner that the locks would even be an issue. I would rather take that chance than have the gun lock up on me especially when I needed it most.

I guess the same can be said when people customize their guns with aftermarket parts or have trigger jobs performed on them. Hell, just smoothing out the action or performing repairs might get you in trouble. Where does it end?

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam on many different forums. Here is but one attorney's opinion:



> As you know from my posts on both the Smith Forum and our private forum, I have removed locks from the few Smiths I own that had locks from the factory, including my 340PD. As a lawyer, I fully understand the concerns surrounding lock removal. However, as a sometimes expert witness and a shadetree gunsmith, I am available to testify at very reasonable rates that the internal lock makes the gun MORE dangerous, not safer. Additionally, unless the case involves a gun accessed by a child or other unauthorized user, I could make a good argument that removal of the lock is irrelevant and keep it out on a Motion in Limine. The recklessness issue you mentioned would be the only concern.
> 
> On a related note, I view it as only a matter of time before someone sues S&W on a products liability claim arising out of a user-in-self-defense having the gun tie up because the lock is a defective design, and IT IS. I am likewise available to testify in that case!


As for me I made the decision to disable the locks after reading the many pro's and con's to this issue.


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

Well, not using the cable lock is not a modification of the gun, so it really wouldn't matter in court. Disabling a lock, lightening the trigger are modifications that provide ammunition for the D.A. to make a gun owner look like someone who couldn't wait to shoot someone. Jurors will not all be pro gun & many are ignorant about guns anyway. It is not wise to add to an already-bad situation.

The D.A. will say to the ignorant jurors: "Ladies & gentlemen of the jury, the defendant wasn't satisfied with the trigger so he lightened it so he could shoot more bullets into the victim faster to cause more bleeding & tissue destruction."

Or, "The factory put a safety device on their gun to prevent tragedies & this defendant removed it, which shows he is reckless & not concerned about firearms safety....in spite of the many children who are killed by guns.

My defensive guns are left as is. And it's wise to only use calibers that are in use by police.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

win231 said:


> Well, not using the cable lock is not a modification of the gun, so it really wouldn't matter in court. Disabling a lock, lightening the trigger are modifications that provide ammunition for the D.A. to make a gun owner look like someone who couldn't wait to shoot someone. Jurors will not all be pro gun & many are ignorant about guns anyway. It is not wise to add to an already-bad situation.
> 
> The D.A. will say to the ignorant jurors: "Ladies & gentlemen of the jury, the defendant wasn't satisfied with the trigger so he lightened it so he could shoot more bullets into the victim faster to cause more bleeding & tissue destruction."
> 
> ...


Indeed, you make some very valid points. As for me if I'm going to use a gun to defend myself I want it to work and work effectively to be able to stop a potential attacker the quickest way possible and deal with the legal ramifications later. To think otherwise is a fools errand which could easily get you killed. Especially if an attacker is all doped up and doesn't respond to getting shot, grabs the gun and turns it on you. Many times the first shot could miss many vital areas and subsequent shots will be needed.

Whether the gun was modified or not there will be legal consequences. As the saying goes: "It's better to be tried by twelve than to be carried by six". Unfortunately when Smith&Wesson caved in to the anti gun faction they opened up a whole new can of worms of unintended consequences. Do they piss off their long time customers or do they get sued by anti gun activists? Not every gun manufacturer has locks incorporated into their firing mechanisms. Fortunately for us we can choose whether to buy and carry Smith&Wesson products or not. Actually for Smith&Wesson it could be a double edge sword if the gun jams up because of it's locking mechanism and the potential victim ends up getting killed or seriously injured because of it.

Attorney's can and will conjure up all types of situations whether the gun is modified or not. That's just something we have to accept and deal with. Although it is quite possible I have yet to hear of any cases where an individual who was *legally justified in using deadly physical force* was sent to jail over firearms modifications or for the type of ammunition that they used. Of course civil court is an entirely different matter. Modifications or not more than likely you will end up getting sued in spite of being cleared of any criminal charges. Unfortunately that's just how it is. Any one who carries or owns a gun for protection has to accept this or not own or carry at all. In an immediate life or death situation where fractions of a second count hesitation will indeed get you killed. Especially if it is caused by fear of the legal consequences. Ever hear of the 21ft. rule? Fortunately most of us will never find ourselves in in these types of circumstances. Situational awareness also plays a major role in determining whether one becomes a victim or not. Along with staying out of places where one has no business being in the first place.

*One modification I would never make and that is to in any way lighten the trigger pull, that is for sure an accident waiting to happen. *


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

S&W does offer a 642 with no internal lock. I don't really understand the "range gun " thing. I put way more rounds through my guns at range than I ever would in any kind of SD shooting.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

rustygun said:


> S&W does offer a 642 with no internal lock. I don't really understand the "range gun " thing. I put way more rounds through my guns at range than I ever would in any kind of SD shooting.


Indeed they do along with a Model 442 which I purchased new two years ago. Actually the "range gun" should be your carry gun especially if it is the one you practice with the most.


----------



## Binable (Aug 26, 2013)

Wow! To tell you the truth I've never owned a S&W. ..had a Ruger Convertible Single-Six 22 with the 22 s,L&lr & 22 win Mag cylinders & now the 4.2" 100. ..had a bud yrs ago whom I valued his opinion on re anything guns. He swore by Rugers. Now that is quite the question. Ruger has what I consider the medium/large framed GP100 & the small/medium SP101. But as far as I know they don't have anything to match the S&W 67. I want that 1 simply because its size seems ideal 4 the 38 spcl round. I'd prbly pick a Ruger if they had it but they don't. I'm kinda limited on which guns I go for, but with the potential legal issues of the locking mechanism & my not having what I consider a viable alternative other than maybe a 4.2" SP101, which I may or may not like, it's looking like that 2nd home defense handgun may very well end up instead being a 9mm SA. ..had a girl friend recently tell me to not over think the problem. But with my luck that's about the only way I know how to do it.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

There's still plenty of "pre-lock" S&W's for sale. You just have to know what you want and be patient. I have plenty of both, and I'll take a pre-lock any day over a post-lock.


----------



## Binable (Aug 26, 2013)

Yes. That's a possibility. The 67 wasn't gonna be my next buy anyway, so maybe I'll just c what's available @ Gunbroker & some of the other sites from x 2 x. Also, maybe Ruger will come out w basically the same n 38 spcl. Odd they don't. Must be making all the guns they care to w.o. it. Might just settle w a Ruger SP101 4", shoot 38s n it & call it close enough. The Ruger is a little lighter though so I doubt I'd be as accurate w it. That's really my main concern. Heck, I'd love to pick up the Ruger GP100 5", but they may be a bit hard to come by. May have to try & find that 1 for sale pre-owned. We'll c.


----------



## shootbrownelk (May 18, 2014)

aarondhgraham said:


> It made the anti-gunners feel good about themselves when the Clintons got it pushed through.
> 
> It was and is nothing but anti-gun feel-good legislation.
> 
> ...


 That term you mentioned in your last sentence, is not used in a civilized society! Yuck! I'm getting a mental image, how in the world did Bill "Slick-Willie" retain his eyesight? A sight like that could turn you into a pillar of salt!


----------



## SGWGunsmith (Jan 8, 2015)

As fall and then winter approaches and the warmer clothing starts becoming a requirement, concealment becomes much easier. This little "flame-thrower" is my constant companion for around 5 months until spring is here again.


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

SGWGunsmith said:


> As fall and then winter approaches and the warmer clothing starts becoming a requirement, concealment becomes much easier. This little "flame-thrower" is my constant companion for around 5 months until spring is here again.


Oh, MY!!! I can almost feel the smooth action. Wanna sell it?


----------



## Spike12 (Dec 10, 2008)

Or you could just by pass all this drama and buy a Ruger. A company that never sold out. Just sayin'.


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

Spike12 said:


> Or you could just by pass all this drama and buy a Ruger. A company that never sold out. Just sayin'.


Ruger did sell out. The LCR has a lock on the grip frame. I was going to buy a couple until I found out about the lock.


----------



## Steven (Mar 2, 2012)

The 686 is a great gun. Don't Sweat about the lock. I've shot thousands of rounds and never had the lock activate itself.

BTW it's easy to remove the lock but if you do keep it and re install it should you ever have to send you gun back for service.


----------

