Integral locking system on Springfield Armory 1911s

[lonegunman]

Can this thing be removed, and just replaces with a regular mainspring housing?

Personally, i dont want it on a gun. I would be forever worried it wasnt turned off, and all i would have to defend myself would be a poorly shaped club.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Yes, they can be removed. I had mine replaced by a different MSH to accept a detachable Ed Brown magwell.

The ILS on new Springfields comes unlocked by default, and you don't ever have to switch it to the "locked" position.

 

[blades67]

If you don't lock it, why would you "be forever worried it wasnt turned off"? It can't activate itself.

 

[orlando5]

Because for some reason or another it turn on by "accident". The reason why don't I buy a Springfield because of the integral locking system.

 

[blades67]

Because for some reason or another it turn on by "accident". The reason why don't I buy a Springfield because of the integral locking system.

When have you seen this happen? Not heard about it, actually saw it with your own eyes? I didn't think so.

 

[lonegunman]

My problem with the integral lock is that i do not need or want it, at all, in any way, period. I dont want a gun that can be deactivated.

 

[croyance]

You can change the mainspring housing.
Locks do not turn themselves. You can always fill the lock with loc-tight. It would do the same thing.

 

[blades67]

My problem with the integral lock is that i do not need or want it, at all, in any way, period. I dont want a gun that can be deactivated.

So you only have revolvers? Any box magazine fed gun can be "deactivated" by removing the magazine.

 

[yankytrash]

Is this a feature on all Springfields now, or just a few select models going to the slave states?

 

[lonegunman]

Blades67, you can roll your eyes all you want...

I understand any gun can be deactivated one way or another... revolvers can be deactivated too; just unload them.

Do you think the integral locking system is a good idea? if so, why?

To me it is unnecessary. I guess the supposed reason they put it on the gun is to prevent unauthorized people from being able to shoot it, but why would they be able to get ahold of it in the first place if it is stored correctly? Isnt the lock a mechanical solution to a problem best dealt with by responsible gun safety?

Integral locks are politically correct... thats enough reason not to want one. You can thank the lawyers and politicians for it.

The lock may or may not ever be a mechanical problem, but if it is unnecssary and poses a theoretical risk of causing a problem, or even a perception of a problem that lowers confidence, then it is a liablity.

 

[WESHOOT2]

HOW CUTE -- MORE JUNK

"Integral lock on gun"; that's what the world needs to be safer.

More stuff to fail; mechanical device............

(I'm still laughing.....)

 

[Sundance]

I am wondering why Blades67 is defending something that the anti gun liberals in Washington created. If you aren't with us Blades67, you are against us. Pick a side. Don't straddle the fence.

 

[Marko Kloos]

I am wondering why Blades67 is defending something that the anti gun liberals in Washington created. If you aren't with us Blades67, you are against us. Pick a side. Don't straddle the fence.

Nobody is forcing you to buy a gun with a built-in lock. It wasn't put there by the liberals in Washington, it was put there by Springfield Armory. If you don't like any of the features on a Springfield, the solution is simple...don't buy one. Railing against mandatory internal locks forced on us by legslature is one thing, but this is a private company offering an internal lock out of their own volition. Springfield has the right to build weather stations into their 1911s if they so choose. You have the right to take your dollars elsewhere.

 

[Sundance]

Ooops...found another one...it appears that lendringser is a fence sitter also...well at least blades67 has company.

Springfield Armory put in there integral gun lock for the same reason everybody else that has one did. They did it out of pressure from the federal and state governments... and from the litigious society in which we live. This is the same reason Kimber screwed up a perfectly good gun when they came out with the series II guns. Don't kid yourself. They did not have a choice. When governments mandate that something can't be sold in a certain jurisdiction unless you do such and such, you are going to do such and such or go out of business. I am not criticizing SA, I am criticizing the politicians who pressured them to do the lock thing.

And blades67 and lendringser and other gun owners just like them who won't take a stand are allowing it to happen.

Until we all stick together and put our collective foot down and draw a line in the sand and 100% of us VOTE as an integral unit, we will never win this fight.

So keep giving in to their gun locks, and 1911 firing pin safeties, and 10 round magazines, and no flash hiders or bayonet lugs, and kinder and gentler weapons and pretty soon we in the US will be like England or Australia or Mexico and have few if any guns at all.

Here endeth the lesson!

 

[Marko Kloos]

Tone down your rhetoric....you're barking up the wrong tree.

Don't assume to know which one of us will "take a stand", and don't assume that you have the only right approach to safeguarding your liberties. Where do you take the gall to tell me what I can and cannot buy with my own money? How does that make you different from the gun grabbers? They say that if I buy a rifle with a pistol grip and a bayonet lug, I turn into a borderline criminal. You say that if I buy a handgun with an optional lock, I turn into a traitor to the cause of freedom. If you think you have the moral right to tell people what do do with the fruit of their labor, you know precisely squat about freedom.

 

[Brasso]

Yes, they can be replaced. It's just as easy as taking out the original and slipping in a new one. No extra parts required. I just put a Smith & Alexander arched housing in mine. It cost $34 from Brownells.

 

[Tamara]

Sundance,

So keep giving in to their gun locks, and 1911 firing pin safeties, and 10 round magazines, and no flash hiders or bayonet lugs, and kinder and gentler weapons...

...and their transfer bars, and thumb safeties, and grip safeties, and rebounding firing pins!

You seem to have trouble comprehending the difference between voluntarily-added mechanical features, and the legislatively-mandated sawing-off of bayonet lugs and corking magazines.

 

[Sundance]

First off lendsringer, I never said not to buy it. I said don't sit around and act like it is OK that they are adding an unneccesary gun lock because it is politically correct.

And I am not assuming anything...you proved by your earlier statements that you are a fence sitter. It is either all or none. There is no gray...only black or white.

If I wanted a SA, I would buy one regardless of the lock. As I said earlier, I don't blame SA. The first thing I would do is take out the mainspring housing and throw it in the trash and replace it with a non locking one.

You are putting words into my mouth that I did not speak.

I am criticizing the politicians and you for saying the lock is an ok thing. Not Springfield Armory...they are just trying to stay in business.

And Tamara, as usual, you claim to be the Molon Labe queen but obviously your need to be a smart aleck overrides that. You know exactly what I am talking about. But let me spell it out for you.

Gun locks...the locks that are included with a gun or integral to the gun because it is either the law, or part of some deal with the devil, or because it is politically correct.

1911 firing pin safeties...the ones used by Kimber that were put in so they could sell their guns in the two states that would not approve them without the firing pin safety. Springfield Armory and Wilson both chose to use stiffer firing pin springs and a titanium firing pin instead.

10 round magazines...the maximum number of rounds allowed by law in a newly manufactured magazine after the crime bill thanks to Bill Clinton.

Your sarcasm is useless...there is no confusion. And I know, you are the almighty moderator, just like a radio talk show host...and there is no point in arguing with you because you don't fight fair.

I am through here on this thread...

I thought we were all on the same side...I guess I was mistaken.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Geez.

If you disagree with a liberal, you fail his/her "test" and you're against children, for starving the poor, and you hate minorities.

We on TFL often deride liberals for this attitude, especially when they claim to preach "tolerance".

Yet for some TFLers, if you disagree with ANY PART of what they percieve the libertarian party line to be (and nothing is written in stone, so it varies greatly), then you've failed THEIR "test" you're against freedom and liberty and may as well be giving money to Chuck Schumer and marching with the Million Moms. Apparently, there's a very long list of things you can't do in order to be a true libertarian.

I guess buying a Springfield 1911 is one of those no-nos, now. Shucks.

Such closed-mindedness is a failing regardless of one's political alignment.

 

[carebear]

That's why I almost didn't buy a 1911. That "government mandated" grip safety. It was forced down Browning's throat as a "safety measure" by those turn-of the-century liberals! I HATE being a "fence sitter" in my own mind!

How far back and how far afield are you people willing to go with this nonsense? Do you buy cars with seatbelts? (gov. mandate against freedom 1950's) Buy electrical products with GFI's? (70's I think) Reducio ad adsurdum (look it up, its a capital-L Logic thing).

There are both abstract philosophical and real "bottom line" differences between "caving in on gun rights" (or any others) and businesses putting options on products they want to sell, for whatever reason.

YOU have the freedom to buy any other 1911 you want, you can also modify SA's product for minimal cost if you choose to buy their product.

I can handle my enemies, God save me from my friends.