Removing S&W internal lock.
- Thread starter MR.G
- Start date
orionengnr
New member
Great advice.
When it locks itself (yes, it happens, which is why he wants to disable it...) he can throw the revolver at the BG. Or throw it away, just like he did the key. I would just file down the lug. Removing the entire mechanism leaves a hole, but more importantly, leaves a gap between the hammer and the frame where dirt may get in to bind the gun.
I have a 66 that I shoot HARD in IDPA and it never locked itself. I think the alleged self locking incidents are mostly on the very lightweight guns.
I have a 66 that I shoot HARD in IDPA and it never locked itself. I think the alleged self locking incidents are mostly on the very lightweight guns.
My neighbor has had a problem with his 629 locking while shooting it. His gun was recently sent to S&W to correct the problem. After talking to my neighbor, and doing an internet search, I decided to disable the lock on my 686P. The gun is my range gun and one of my HD pieces. I have six other S&W revolvers with the internal lock, but will leave them alone.
Just don't shoot any intruders with this gun, their lawyers will have a field day on you "removing a safety device from a dangerous weapon."
And keep in mind that you will be voiding the lifetime warranty.
That said, there are detailed instructions for removal here (scroll down a bit):
http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/530103904/m/875107028/p/2
And keep in mind that you will be voiding the lifetime warranty.
That said, there are detailed instructions for removal here (scroll down a bit):
http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/530103904/m/875107028/p/2
Bill DeShivs
New member
"Just don't shoot any intruders with this gun, their lawyers will have a field day on you "removing a safety device from a dangerous weapon."
This is a myth conveyed by most carry permit classes. It MAY have some validity when you are carrying your gun, but in your home is a different ballgame. In most states if you have an intruder, you are certainly allowed to use deadly force. As long as the gun is legal you should have no problems. It would be very hard to be prosecuted or sued if someone breaks into your HOME (California and similar socialist states not included). Please explain to me why you think there would be a problem..
Bill
This is a myth conveyed by most carry permit classes. It MAY have some validity when you are carrying your gun, but in your home is a different ballgame. In most states if you have an intruder, you are certainly allowed to use deadly force. As long as the gun is legal you should have no problems. It would be very hard to be prosecuted or sued if someone breaks into your HOME (California and similar socialist states not included). Please explain to me why you think there would be a problem..
Bill
Last edited:
Are you so naive to think that people who have their homes broken into and then injure/kill BG with their legal handgun under appropriate circumstances aren't being sued in civil court and losing? Yes, it happens. Sadly, all too often. If you shoot someone, be prepared to lay down a big chunk of change. Doesn't matter if a three-time convict with crack in his blood breaks into your house wielding machetes... his family is going to get money from you after you kill him. A LOT. The only advantage you have is that your home owner's insurance might (might) cover the judgment against you. The size of the judgment against you will be directly proportional to the amount the jury feels you acted negligently or inappropriately, etc. Well, go ahead and shoot him with a gun you have altered to be less safe. Now get a jury with people who don't know a Smith & Wesson from a Wesson Cooking Oil, let alone what an internal lock is or does (remember, most everyday people think a gun can "go off" because they watch movies). Believe me, the opposing counsel is going to get a LOT of opportunity to sound off about what you did (thru their eyes). You won't get much chance to argue back, because anything you say opens you up to further cross examination. It will be your worst nightmare - being treated like a criminal for defending your family legally. Sickening, yes? Again, happens virtually every day.
You want to shoot the bad guy, again, I say put it on target and pull follow-up shots... but don't shoot him with a gun you have taken the lock off. Even if your jury is smart, your insurance company ain't buying it.
You want to shoot the bad guy, again, I say put it on target and pull follow-up shots... but don't shoot him with a gun you have taken the lock off. Even if your jury is smart, your insurance company ain't buying it.
I keep hearing this, and its beginning to sound like the teacher from Peanuts..."Wah-wa-waa-wah-wah-wah." I implore you to produce a verifiable, citationized court case that resulted in the conviction, or civil forfeiture due to the removal or modification of a passive safety device. I have been asking for this for years, and have yet to see it. All I hear is either "My uncle's cousin's neighbor's friend knew a guy" or Massad Ayoob says." Neither one holds much water with me.
As for the Smith safety pimple, its easiet to simply file the inner lug off.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
You are absolutely full of it.
1. If it's happening "all too often", can you show us some of these many cases where a JUSTIFIED shooting results in even a lawsuit - not even a successful lawsuit. In fact, show me just ONE.
2. A LOT of money, eh? Period, huh? You just frankly don't know what you're talking about. Again, show us ONE case where your fact patterned actually happened.
As for the safety, it doesn't matter one single iota in a civil lawsuit where the plaintiff was shot *intentionally* as to whether or not a safety designed to prevent *accidental* shots was removed - it's just utterly irrelevant - there is no causation between the safety removal and the shooting which occurred - being ya know, *intentional*, it doesn't matter if the gun had 300 added safeties, they were disabled for the *intentional* shot, so the only relevant question is, Is the shooting JUSTIFIED? In fact, the judge would rule in the defendant's favor in a pre-trial motion motion in limine which prohibits the entry into evidene of the removed safety issue, as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial - the jury will never know of it. More importantly, these many lawsuits which happen virtually every day according to you, well, don't. If there's not merit it to it, then then defendant homeowner and his ins. company will win on summary judgment; there won't even be a trial in the vast majority of cases. Again, show me a link to ONE documented case. If it happens so often, there must be ample evidence of it.
P.S. Boycott S&W new guns with Hillary Holes until they start taking them off.
shoots awe lots
New member
Simple don't buy a Smith with a lock period. There is many models without the lock and they are sweet guns. I buy guns to shoot not to worry about a safty device. Until I have a problem with the lock I'm gonna keep shooting. I would like to hear of a case where the gun failed because of the lock in the process of defending oneselve.
A few years ago, down the road from where I live a lady had discovered two BG's trying to force her front door open after a snowstorm had shut down most of the county. She had just been taught how to use a mousegun of some kind by her BF. She told the BG not to enter the house, she had a gun. He looked through the open door and proceeded to bust the chain off the wall. He then got popped with a mouse gun. Both BG's fled and put their car in a ditch. When the County Sheriff's Deputy found them half frozen and shot, they surrendered to keep from being left in the cold.
Later the Lawyer stepped in. Took the lady to court for shooting his client. The case lasted about ten minutes from what I recall (lost the newspaper story moving). BG was asked if she told him she would shoot and he stated she did. Judge then threw the case out from what I remember. He yelled at the Lawyer too if I remember. I knew the Judge so I can understand his reaction.
Point is should one be prosecuted/sued for self defense? No. Will a Lawyer do so anyway to scam some money, You betcha. If they sue for spilling hot coffee, why not.
Later the Lawyer stepped in. Took the lady to court for shooting his client. The case lasted about ten minutes from what I recall (lost the newspaper story moving). BG was asked if she told him she would shoot and he stated she did. Judge then threw the case out from what I remember. He yelled at the Lawyer too if I remember. I knew the Judge so I can understand his reaction.
Point is should one be prosecuted/sued for self defense? No. Will a Lawyer do so anyway to scam some money, You betcha. If they sue for spilling hot coffee, why not.
Relief
FirstFreedom, thanks for the input that brings me needed relief. It crossed my mind that I should dispose of all my weapons [even kitchen knives, baseball bats, gulf clubs, and large sticks) because I might be "so naive to think that people who have their homes broken into and then injure/kill BG with their legal handgun under appropriate circumstances aren't being sued in civil court and losing". Not that I'm anxious to have a BG break into my home (and all the bloodly aftermath), but SJshooter's sermon there had me worried especially seeing how much "authority" was conjured therein.
Just like in the case of the much-repeated "the bullet would pass through the BG and injure a bystander", I'm anxious to see "ONE case where your fact patterned actually happened".
I'm growing increasingly worried about those who "deliver sermons".
FirstFreedom, thanks for the input that brings me needed relief. It crossed my mind that I should dispose of all my weapons [even kitchen knives, baseball bats, gulf clubs, and large sticks) because I might be "so naive to think that people who have their homes broken into and then injure/kill BG with their legal handgun under appropriate circumstances aren't being sued in civil court and losing". Not that I'm anxious to have a BG break into my home (and all the bloodly aftermath), but SJshooter's sermon there had me worried especially seeing how much "authority" was conjured therein.
Just like in the case of the much-repeated "the bullet would pass through the BG and injure a bystander", I'm anxious to see "ONE case where your fact patterned actually happened".
I'm growing increasingly worried about those who "deliver sermons".
Last edited:
Well, all I can say is... I pity the foolish BG that breaks into my home while I'm there. That person WILL get shot! And, lawyers be damned!!
The ONLY regrettable situation I have is that I just painted both the rooms that have outside doors... I would HATE to have to repaint!
The ONLY regrettable situation I have is that I just painted both the rooms that have outside doors... I would HATE to have to repaint!
I knew this would turn into a legal thing. I removed the lock today. I was going to just file off the pin on the flag, but ended up removing the entire lock. At least now if I ever decide to sell the gun the lock can be reinstalled. Now I can see why the gun could easily lock itself. The spring that holds the flag down is really light. It doesn't take much pressure at all to lift the flag. Seems like a good recoil could do it. Now there is a hole in the side of the frame. I'll just think of it as a lubrication hole.
The case wouldn't, of course, be because of the lock removal. It would merely be a point harped on by counsel ad infinitum and would be one of many facts that determined the amount of the judgment.
Listen, I think everyone here has heard of the now infamous case of the bad guy trying to break into a house by crawling on the roof, then he hits a soft spot, and crashes into the house, and then sues the homeowner for negligence and wins. It's a true case. In fact, it's a series of true cases, because this type of situation is almost always a slam-dunk winner for the injured. What he was doing there has no relevance to the court vis a vis your actions/negligence; ie. the bad guy's actions are separate from any negligence displayed on your part.
I think most everyone here would throw their hands up in the air and cry "BULL****! THAT CRIMINAL DOESN'T DESERVE A PENNY!", but that's simply not the case... and just as it isn't the case that legal gunowners don't get sued (and lose) when they defend themselves in justifiable situations. You don't have to spend much time in law school to see how a typical jury of idiots can conclude that the actions of modifying a weapon so that you are removing a safety device are negligent. And if you have spent time in law school you will know that, given the right jury instructions, jurys will automatically come to this conclusion, even if they are in the "BULL****!" crowd, because the instructions can be so specific as to elements (if they did X, you must y) that they don't get to apply much real logic to their own decision.
I think part of the responsibility of being a gun owner goes beyond keeping the gun away from children and knowing what lies beyond your target. It includes knowing what can and will likely happen to you should you dischagre your weapon at another person. I, too, wish we lived in a country where you could shoot the rapist in your houes and the cops/DA would just say "good job" and leave you alone. Indeed, sometimes this happens. But it is not the majority.
Every gun owner should understand that when they shoot someone, it is going to cost them anywhere from $20,000-$200,000. And I am not even talking about a judgment. It could cost you $20,000 to get the ridiculous case thrown out. Easily. I have a brother in law who had his parked car rammed by a drunk driver. The impact caused his car to hit another car, and because he had money and the drunk driver didn't, he got sued for damages. Yep, ridiculous case. Yep, about $25 grand to get a lawyer to make it go away.
Should you live in fear of lawyers? No. Should you not shoot the BG because of fear of a lawsuit? No. Should you alter your life to avoid a lawsuit? No. But should you walk around pretending like you won't get sued/lose big money when and if you have to shoot someone. Also: no.
SJshooter,
How do you think that the new self defense/Castle Doctrine law in Florida will effect future lawsuits. Supposedly, it prohibits prosecution or a civil suit against someone that uses a firearm in self defense on his own property, or anywhere else that they have a right to be.
How do you think that the new self defense/Castle Doctrine law in Florida will effect future lawsuits. Supposedly, it prohibits prosecution or a civil suit against someone that uses a firearm in self defense on his own property, or anywhere else that they have a right to be.
"Should you live in fear of lawyers? No." I respectfully disagree. Anything you do or don't do can render you shyster fodder. Whether you win or lose, it's going to cost you $200-400/hr for as long as the ambulance chasers can contrive to prance and belch at each other. Lawyers make work for each other. Remember, the purpose of the legal system is to create rich lawyers and full prisons, not to protect you and your family from criminals or abuse of power by the government. Avoid all dealings with the law if you possibly can, and NEVER speak to the police in the absence of legal counsel. It doesn't matter what they purport to do to you if you don't "co-operate" by answering their questions, which is tantamount to signing a blank confession. They will wheedle, cajole, and try to make you feel guilty for not refuting the calumnies they throw in your face. Their job is not to protect you- it's to feed you to the govt shysters from whom they take their marching orders. By killing the low life sociopath who planned to kill you and your family you have cheated the shyster brigade out of the perpetual income of prosecuting a capital beef thru the decades of concomitant appeals, or a lifetime of prosecutions and defence if you aren't killed. On top of this by defending yourself you have demonstrated your lack of faith in their courage and competence. They won't forget this and they will get even. The income they would have extracted from the criminal activities of the now defunct BGs will have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is you. Your choice is to grovel before criminals while they murder you and your family or owe everything you can ever hope to have to some tapeworm with a legal degree. The idea that there is one systen of "justice" that applies to all is so absurd as to insult the intelligence of anybody who doesn't ride the short bus. With the price of justice being $400/hr nobody but a drug kingpin, sports icon, corrupt politician, or corporate fraud can afford enough of it to do any good. Yup, I'm a total cynic for which I offer or owe no apology.