Why S&W have locks

[ron]

Now I understand why S&W is putting internal locks on their revolvers. S&W was purchased by Safe-T-Hammer, the company that developed the locks. The gun manufacturer really is only a vehicle to market those blasted gun locks. The entire Connecticut operation was purchased for a mere $15 million. phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2001/05/14/daily1.html

They are likely to move S&W to Arizona.
It seems that Ruger also is talking about including internal gun locks soon.

It all is starting to make sense - not the need for internal gun locks, but the sudden push to impose the locks on us.

Ron

[TMan]

My guns are in a safe in a locked closet, which is alarmed. The closet is in a bedroom, which is also locked and alarmed. However, my guns are much safer because they have these stupid internal locks.

I know it is only a matter of time when one of the internal locks will break and render the gun useless.

However, if I'm carrying the gun on my person, meaning I might need it to protect my life, or the life of a loved one, it is much better to have the internal lock on the gun so it is safer.

How is it safer? Well after the criminal removes it from my dead body, he will have to deal with getting a key to unlock it before it can be used in his next crime.

["DoubleAction"]

I often make the mistake of referring Safe T Hammer as Safe T Loc. Don't much matter to me, since I haven't bought into the newer MIM hammer/ trigger/internal safety lock revolvers yet. The S&W 500 and 460 are two which would be unique to have.
I've been playing catchup for the most part with my collection, and have tapered off during the last year or two.

[TMan]

DA, in retrospect, I'm very glad I went with the 460 vs the 500. I've thought about getting a 500, but then I talked to a counter guy that has one, and he says that with some loads he can feel the bones in his hand separating. That is just a trifle bit too much recoil for me.

However, keep in mind that I'm shooting the 200 grain bullets. I've read that with the 400 grain bullets that the recoil approaches that of the 500.

The X-Frame S&W revolvers are just impressive. I have a picture of my next door neighbor, who is very strong, holding the 460. You can really see the muscles in her arms, and a big grin on her face.

The other really cool thing is that you can shoot factory loads for 460 Casull or 45 Long Colts through the thing too.

I'm thinking that before the end of the year that I'll add a Ruger Alaskan, which is a stub-nosed Super Redhawk in 454 Casull. (I've got a case of ammo, and now that I have the sights dead-on with 460 Magnum, I don't want to shoot the 454 Casull in the 460 XVR, so I need something that will shoot 454 Casull). I've dry fired the Alaskan and I didn't like the trigger, but I found out that it is really a Redhawk, so I could do trigger work on it.

Getting back to the topic: locks - I really think that this is just the liberals and lawyers beating up the gun companies and foisting this on us. I'm hoping that instead of capitulating on everything, the manufacturers will do innovative things like Savage did with their Accu-trigger.

[ron]

It's true that there is pressure to impose 'smart' guns and internal locks on us, but it looks to me, in this case, like a slick marketing move by Saf-T-Hammer. Now they own the manufacturer of a large quantity of guns, all carrying their lock. As they sell guns with the locks, all under the guise of responding to the external pressures, they get their lock out to the public. Competitors then jump on the bandwagon to include this new gun 'safety' feature, and there is an even bigger market for the Saf-T-Hammer lock.
Economics trumps political philosophy.

Ron