Revolver key safety

[traveler57]

Anyone know of a way to disable (or remove) the little lock type safety on my S&W revolvers? I heard some people say that they can lock on their own, and that they are a problem.

And one gunsmith told me that there was nothing I could do. He just suggested that I go out and trade them for one of the older guns, before the safety craze got out of control.

Anyone with experience on this out there?

thanks

 

[DR]

There's a little half-moon shaped stud on the safety that engages the trigger. If you grind that down you can no longer engage the safety. It would also not be obvious that the safety doesn't work so you may want to fill in the keyhole so you can't move the now useless safety.

Here's a picture showing the half-moon shaped stud:

 

[DR]

And to follow up: I was never particularly keen on the lock; I thought it was a solution in search of a problem. Given a choice between a pre- or post-lock revolver I would have taken the pre-lock but not worried much if I had one with the lock.

I recently took Michael de Bethencourt's snubby class. He probably sees more snubbies in a month than I will in my life. He reported a number of the lighter revolvers (Airlite and Airweight) locking up with full power rounds. Another poster here, The Goose, took the class and one of the students had the lock on their snubby engage while firing.

If you picture how the revolver torques in your hand when you fire it and how you turn the lock to engage it, you'll see that inertia tends to engage the lock. It's not terribly common, but there's no way to fix it quickly: no tap-rack equivalent. If it locks up you have to go find the little key. If I were to carry a lightweight revolver with the lock I would give some serious consideration to removing or disabling it (and not sell it in its disabled condition).

 

[traveler57]

Man, this is great info. And the picture shows it perfectly. Thanks.
I have a 642 airweight. And even though it may be a rare occurance, I agree that it was a solution looking for a problem. And since my snubby is my carry piece about 1/2 the time, I really, really want it to work when called upon.

But, I would assume that I should let my gunsmith do this job? Right?
Since I was planning on having a trigger job done anyway, I can now do both at the same time.

Again, thanks for this info. Without this forum, I would have been asking people for months.

 

[DR]

Man, this is great info. And the picture shows it perfectly. Thanks.
I have a 642 airweight. And even though it may be a rare occurance, I agree that it was a solution looking for a problem. And since my snubby is my carry piece about 1/2 the time, I really, really want it to work when called upon.

But, I would assume that I should let my gunsmith do this job? Right?
Since I was planning on having a trigger job done anyway, I can now do both at the same time.

Again, thanks for this info. Without this forum, I would have been asking people for months.

I would have a gunsmith do it. You need to take the trigger out to get to the stud. You should take the little flag the stud is on out entirely for grinding (how else will you know you're not leaving a little abrasive dust in the action?) That's a level of disassembly that I'm not willing to do myself.

 

[rscalzo]

S&W Lock Removal

It will be interesting to see what liability issues come up if the firearm is ever traded/sold with a disabled lock. I would not feel comfortable unless the keyhole was completed filled in which would be a pain.

 

[traveler57]

First, note that the whole point of removing a potentially dangerous and failure prone safety is that it is the carry gun I use to protect my life and the lives of my family. Having a gun that does not fire when called upon is MUCH more an issue than any potential (dreamed up) liability that someone comes up with in the future. Besides, in this case I will never sell the gun anyway.

And what next, are you thinking people will start sueing anyone that sells them a gun and then the gun misfires 2 years later??? Please, I can only hope this never happens. Consider that just this year, we finally have some legal protection for the poor gun manufacturers from stupid law suits when their gun is used in a crime.

Also, I am the believer in education (gun safety and handling), and not government imposed "protections" for me. And that is a whole other subject. A useless and malfunctioning "safety" on a gun is kind of like the TSA at the airport....... it is only making the uninformed "feel" safe.

Okay, I'm off my soapbox.... But I just had to reply, since I am stuck in the PR of MA and the AG here.

 

[mark056]

So...you are in court after defending your life with your gun. Prosecutor: "The defendant shows wanton disregard for safety, to the point that he purposely deactivated a safety device. Clearly this act in and of itself..."

Need I say more ? S**t like this happens everyday in courts across America. Let's say you are acquitted in criminal court, well guess what ?The same argument is going to show up in civil court in the lawsuit filed either by the relatives of the deceased, or by the person you shot if that person survived. Now we all know that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a convention of the criminal court and the much lower standard of "based on the purponderance of the evidence" prevails in civil court.

Now the answer is to your question is really quite simple, I think: Purchase a make and model of a firearm that does not have the locking feature, or purchase an older model of this gun if you can.

The prudent shooter, whether he or she lives in Massachusetts or Montana will not on purpose deactivate any safety device on any firearm used for personal defense. It is just not good policy.

Now there is a certain type of Red Blooded American Live Free or Die (not necessarily from NH) type of shooter who will say "better judged by twelve, than carried by six" or something similiar. I would reply on two levels: first do you want to live for years on end with the same kind of vermin you eliminated in your shooting incident ? second, do you mind being gang raped by twelve in the prison shower ? Folks, it ain't the shooting, it's the aftermath of the shooting you have to think about. Complaining, or mouthing some platitude about your God given rights isn't going to take away the reality of what it means to live in these United States in Anno Domini 2005.

So, either live with a safety device which might compromise the ability of the weapon at a crucial point, deactivate said safety device and face both civil and criminal court nightmares, or simply acquire a weapon that does not have said device.

I know what option I'd pick.

Good luck, good shooting and regards to all,

Mark

 

[Weerd Beard]

Mark, I've really been enjoying reading your posts, and I do agree with you, that legally speaking that "modifying" a gun in any way can be used against you in a cort of law.

But here's an interesting question: Why does my truck have a lock-out on the pasenger-side airbag?

It's because not all sized people are airbags safe, and they have been known to cause harm to a small percentage of the populous.

I might argue that the lock on the revolver is designed for one aplication, but not idea for others (such as personal defence).

I'm far from a lawyer, and I won't lie and say the courts make one lick of sence to me.

All things being equel I would simply buy a revolver without a lock.

But if they're not, I would NOT want to use a gun that may not work when it's called upon to defend life. Much like I wouldn't use ammo in an automatic that might have a tendancy to jam the gun.


Just my 2c

-Weer'd Beard

 

[mark056]

"I might argue that the lock on the revolver is designed for one aplication, but not idea for others (such as personal defence)." W.B.

Thank you for your kind words and for your thoughtful comments. I am no bottom feeder (no offense to any of you attorneys out there, I work for the State so I prostitute myself in a different way [roll] ) but it seems to me that the argument promulgated in your statement is precisely the CYA argument that S&W would use when little Johnny or Little Susie got Mommy's or Daddy's revolver and accidently shot and killed the little boy/little girl who lived next door. S&W can argue that they included a safety device on their revolvers which rendered said revolver inoperable and that it was Mommy or Daddy who was negligent in not engaging the lock, thus rendering the revolver in question inoperable. Clearly Mommy or Daddy were irresponsible and thus liable, maybe even criminally negligent.

Key to this (no pun intended here) is the option to make something safer. You have the same option with your air bag. A ten year or child (old enough not to be required to ride in the back) or an adult might be still of diminutive enough weight and stature that an engaged air bag might cause injury or even death and because the safety device might in fact cause said death or personal injury, you acted in a prudent manner by not turning on the airbag. If I were riding with you, you could be liable by NOT activating the airbag. All safety devices, are to a degree, situationally dependent.

I think the reasoning here is clear. As long as you retained the safety device NOT deactivate or remove it, and you use that ability to turn it off and on depending on the situation, then you are fine. It is when one purposely deactivates or removes or renders PERMANENTLY inoperable a safety device, that the argument questioning one's behavior comes into play.

To demonstrate how off the wall things have become, I will refer you to a case cited by Massad Ayoob in the Feb 2006 issue of "Combat Handguns". (Harris Publications gets their pubs out early) In this case which took place in "gun friendly" Florida, there was an accidental discharge of a stock Colt Commander, and an innocent bystander was killed. When the police searched the gun owners car, they found a Browning Hi-Power in it with the magazine safety removed. The prosecution argued that anyone reckless enough to have a defensive gun with a safety device removed was obviously habitually negligent in the handling of guns. In this particular situation, the defendant was able to get a favorable plea bargain, but it still was a conviction, and the defendant's lawyer did not want to take it trial and have the prosecutor present this theory.

Ayoob goes on to say "Judges give lawyers great latitude in establishing their 'theory of the case'. It is perfectly allowable for them to bring things that wouldn't seem to matter to you and I, such as a gun that was not even involved in the fatal shooting in question." (P.86, CH, 2/06)

This is the sort of thing that those of us who have elected to be responsible for our own protection have to guard ourselves against in my opinion and is part of our overall personal defense strategy. Shoot someone and your life is under a microscope and the state isn't kidding when they say everything you say or do will be used against you in court. It goes well beyond the Miranda warning.

Conversely, if you were engaged in a lawful shooting and your S&W revolver became inoperable due to a design flaw which allowed the firearm render itself inoperable, then your heirs might have grounds to sue S&W.

Regards,

Mark

 

[Weerd Beard]

It's a sick goddamn world we live in...... And that's why we need the guns.

Just think a man in FL was prosicuted on the ground of the condition of a gun that was never used in a crime or any questionable act....yet it was only JUST recently in Mass that it became legal for a lawyer to site that a drunk driver had been caught for the same crime multiple times before.

I guess I could go on, but I'm too flustered.

Grrrrr

-Weer'd Beard

 

[Len-2A Training]

That's because most of the legislators are lawyers. And most have probably driven while drunk. They do what they can to cover each other's ass.

 

[Chris]

As much as the other attorney might like to present it, the lock on the S&W is a "STORAGE" lock, not a functional safety.

It would be like asking why you didn't keep the trigger lock on when you used your gun. Um, because it's a STORAGE LOCK, not somethng to be used in the act of shooting.

Like a trigger lock, I find the internal lock a poor storage choice and choose not to use it. Instead i store my gun in a locked safe. The law allows me to select my own storage method and my storage choice was to NOT use the internal lock. It's the equivilent of disabling the door locks on my car and instead storing it in a secure garage. Sure, it might be easier to steal if it's not in the garage, but it doesn't at all effect the operation or safety of the car.

Add to that the evidence of such locks 'locking' while in use and I think you could have a good argument for removing it. Like it was stated above, this isn't a malfunction you can quickly solve.

Sure it might add some length to your trial, but I seriously doubt it would be any more an issue in the long run than that of using hollow point bullets or any caliber that has the word 'Mag-a-num' in it.

 

[mark056]

"As much as the other attorney might like to present it, the lock on the S&W is a "STORAGE" lock, not a functional safety...Sure it might add some length to your trial, but I seriously doubt it would be any more an issue in the long run than that of using hollow point bullets or any caliber that has the word 'Mag-a-num' in it." Chris

Chris,

The wonderful thing about this forum and our great nation is the fact that we have the right of self-expression and opinion. By nature, and through life-experience, I am one of those individuals for whom the glass will always be half-empty rather than half-full.

Yes indeed, you are correct the key lock on S&W revolvers is a storage device, but it will be PERCEIVED as a saftey device. In court, perception is truth. If you were to be judged by a jury of your peers, such as the members of this forum, it might be a different story, but in fact you are NOT going to be judged by a jury of your peers. In fact, there is a good chance that at least a few members of that jury won't think that anyone other than a police officer or soldier needs a gun for any reason. Remember an attorney can develop any theory of the case, he or she wants, and there are just enough "sheeple" out there to embrace whatever whack-job theory a prosecuter or attorney for the plaintiff might come up with. As far as a trial goes, I can only speak for myself, but I would want a speedy a trial as possible, simply because the cost of a criminal trial would destroy me financially and the same for a civil suit.

Now you do raise a very good point about hollow points and the word MAGNUM. The hollow point argument can usually be dismissed (except in New Jersey where to the best of my knowledge they are still illegal for civilians) by demonstrating that is what the police carry, and the reason for it...which is not to provide reliable expansion (a very real reason) but that hollowpoints ensure that they are less apt to penetrate through a target and hit an innocent bystander. The M-word can be worked around, too. On the other hand if my handgun were a "Vindicator Avenger Cobra Master Blaster .500 S&W Magnum Special Bull Dog Pug" I might receive a less receptive response than say if I simply owned an "Officers Model" or a Model 10 or whatever.

Now I have worked in the criminal justice system for the last 7 1/2 years, and over time have seen many of my perceptions shattered by the reality of the system.

First and foremost, remember that the police are not your friends, and I don't care if your next door neighbor is one and you share barbecues and beer together, it doesn't matter your wife's cousin is a cop down in Plymouth or wherever, or if you are a security guard, constable, process server, EMT, dispatcher or other police agency civilian or a member of the armed services. You shoot somebody, you are a suspect...period. Figure that the prosecutor is really the persecuter, motivated by politics and that he or she does not particularly like you and may even hate your guts because you are equated with "gun culture" which is an anathema to many, it immediately means that you are a racist nazi sociopath in many fine legal minds.

Now you might say, hey...Mark, aren't you going off the deep end a bit ? To wit I would say yeah, there are exceptions to every rule, and I am sure that there are cops and prosecutors who do take the side of a lawfully armed citizen forced to use lethal force to defend himself or herself, BUT, IT IS NOT A GIVEN THAT THEY WILL DO SO. Good guys and gals wind up in jail because they have faith in the system.

The Romans had a proverb, which translated in English is;: "If you wish for peace, prepare for war." If you have undertaken the awesome responsilbity of arming yourself, the ordeal of a lethal encounter begins after you prevail over the bad person you shot. Be prepared to face a system you always believed in, and people you were taught to respect.

Mr. Murphy may be dead, but his law prevails on a regular basis.

Respectfully,

Mark

 

[G4Y4HK]

All hail the Hillary Hole

 

[Wickedcoolname]

S&W Lock Removal

It will be interesting to see what liability issues come up if the firearm is ever traded/sold with a disabled lock. I would not feel comfortable unless the keyhole was completed filled in which would be a pain.

I wouldn't even consider trading or selling a gun with an altered safety. I would definitely eliminate the the safety lock, but once done the gun is a keeper.

 

[PATRON]

Just get yourself an older revolver,you won't have to deal with that stupid safety lock the hole it leaves when you remove it,
and most of all the stupid liability if you sell it and someone gets hurt. You also have to see,what gunsmith is willing to
do that work .Liability.

 

[Palladin]

Holy necro thread Batman