To lock or unlock

I have a friend who was looking for a .40 caliber Glock. He went to a gun store which happened to only stock Glocks with the optional internal lock. The salesman was showing him how the lock worked by dry firing the pistol and then locking it to demonstrate how the gun could not be fired with the lock engaged. The Glock would not unlock. My friend left the store with the salesman still trying to unlock the gun.

He wound up buying a Glock without the locking device. He was able to do this because Glock offers the lock as an option. Smith and Wesson has decided that their customers do not deserve a choice about such things. They have taken the decision to include an internal lock on all of their revolvers.

The S&W lock is located in the frame near, and in some cases behind, the cylinder latch. In some guns it is necessary to move the cylinder latch forward to insert the key which locks/unlocks the gun. All Smith revolvers sold in the American market have this feature.

This is not a good thing. The S&W lock is made of several small stamped metal parts and a tiny spring. Each little part must work correctly or the gun will fail to lock, or much worse, fail to unlock. The July/August, 2006 issue of American Handgunner has an article by Charles E Petty about this.

Now the first thing you need to understand is this. If you look up “gunwriter” in a thesaurus you will find synonyms like “whore”, “liar”, “paid advertising flack” and so on. In other words gun magazines exist to sell advertising to companies that make firearms, firearms accessories, and other products that gun owners are likely to buy. The articles which take up space between the ads serve the function of promoting the products which are advertised in the magazine.

On the staff of any gun magazine the advertising department has more power than the executive editor. Gun company PR flacks have the ability to get gun scribes fired from staff positions and can make sure that freelance writers never make another sale, at least not under their real name.

For this reason you must understand that when Mr. Petty wrote about the problems that Smith & Wesson is having with their gun locks the entire purpose of the article was to downplay and dismiss any concern that potential S&W customers might have. It seems that Smith has been having a problem with the locks engaging during firing and locking the guns up. On the target range this is annoying; in a gunfight this could easily be fatal.

Reports of the lock failures have been circulating on the internet so the first thing Petty does is to make sure that the reader knows that everything you read on the ‘net is pure bullshit and should under no circumstances be relied upon.
Next Petty called up Smith & Wesson to ask them about the problem. Now since I can’t prove that S&W called up American Handgunner editor Roy Huntington and ordered him to publish an article pooh-poohing the lock failure issue as PR damage control I won’t make that allegation, but the reader may assume what he wishes.

A Smith & Wesson factory rep told Petty that “only a couple of guns have come back” (to the factory for service due to the lock engaging while shooting). The rep went on to say that gunsmiths at S&W were unable to duplicate the condition so the spring was replaced and the gun was returned to the customer (on the theory that it is better to do something than nothing).

One thing you need to remember about shipping a gun back to the factory (or anywhere else for that matter) is that you can’t just mail it. You have to overnight it and that costs $35.00 each way. So the people who sent the guns back to S&W paid at least $70.00 to do it (not counting insurance). This is not something that most people will do for an imaginary problem.

Mr. Petty then took a bunch of S&W revolvers that were being tested (revolvers made available at no charge by S&W so that they could be tested and written about) to the range and fired several cylinders of ammo through them rapid fire double action and did not experience any lock up problems.

On the strength of an afternoon at the range with a few guns and what was probably less than half a case of ammo Petty wants us to draw the conclusion that the lock issue is a non-problem.

Here is something else, by way of background, which you should be aware of. Gun companies like Smith and Wesson have done studies and found out that most people who buy a gun only shoot it around 300 times during the entire time that they own it.

They buy it and take it to the range and shoot it some to make sure that it works then they put it in the nightstand or the glove compartment or the closet or gun safe and only take it out and shoot it rarely. Then it gets traded or sold or given to one of the kids or just kept there on the shelf.

This means that most people who buy a gun never shoot it enough to run into the problems that pop up with extended use. Remember when the FBI made the switch to automatics after the tragic Miami shootout? The Bureau wanted a pistol that they cold issue to cadets at the Academy and have them carry and shoot monthly for their entire 20 or 30 year career.

Most of the guns that were submitted failed due to the inability to withstand that much shooting. The factory representative from Sigarms even told the FBI that if they wanted a gun that could withstand 11000 plus rounds to forget an aluminum frame.

The reason that there are almost no stories of frame failures floating around the civilian firearms community is because almost no one shoots their gun that much. Therefore it is neither surprising nor comforting that there are only a handful of stories of S&W lock failures. Unless the lock is defective from the factory very few shooters will put enough rounds through the tube to cause it to break from normal wear and tear.

But little stamped metal moving parts that function in an environment of recoil have to be prone to failure with enough use, unless S&W has figured out a way around the laws of physics.

If you don’t think that you are going to shoot a gun that much and you don’t mind playing the odds go ahead and buy a locking Smith. But if you are like me and you don’t own a gun that you don’t shoot you might want to think long and hard.

Another issue to consider is what the hell good is the lock anyway? If you intend to store the gun in an unready state (that is in a condition that does not allow it to be simply picked up and fired) then it should be unloaded and stored in a secure location. If the gun is to be kept in a ready state for duty, concealed carry or home defense then you do not want to lock it and have to depend on your ability to locate and manipulate something about the size and shape of a handcuff key to make your gun ready to shoot.

The only purpose the lock serves is to make trouble for you in court and assist the anti-gun moonbats in discrediting self defense as a valid reason to own a gun. If you do not use the lock and an accident happens you will be crucified in court for neglecting a safety device that could have prevented the accident. It is hoped that this will frighten enough gun owners into using the lock that there will be some cases of gun owners trying to defend themselves with guns which they are unable to unlock in time.

The antis will then be able to say that the gun in the home was useless. The bad guy took it away from the home owner and now it is on the street endangering innocent lives.

Whether you want a gun with an internal lock up to you. Do your homework and make an informed decision. As for me, I love S&W revolvers, but I will only be buying older used ones from now on.