[quantico]

I just found out that all new springfields are going to be shipped with internal locking parts . Looks like the grip safety is being used to me. I hate internal locking devices and will maybe get a springfield without this device if I can find one at a reasonable price. Gunbroker and other gun auction sites are allready getting a hundred or 200 more for the springfields without the lock installed. I purchased several sigs because they were up for sale and I wanted to avoid this type of thing with them... or loss of civilian sales entirely. Luckily they were sold but continue without any problems.
Are you for or against the locking stuff on 1911's ??? I want nothing not part of brownings design except for cocking serations or a trigger job. Please share your opinion and maybe the folks at springfield will notice.

 

[Paten]

Actually, if you go to Springfield's website they show exactly what the lock is. It is the mainspring housing that has the internal lock. They also say that it can be retrofitted to any 1911 style pistol. This leads me to believe that it is just the mainspring housing alone. If that is the case, you can just replace the part with a standard MSH and it's just what you want. It's not that intrusive and it is easily replaced. I think Springfields solution is a good idea.

 

[dsk]

I'll agree the Springfield system is good in that it doesn't alter the gun in any way. Those who don't like it can simply swap out the mainspring housing, something a lot of us do as a regular habit anyway.

The principle of the matter however, is an entirely different argument.

 

[ParaDox]

Like it or not, "locking devices" are here to stay.

However, I agree with Paten- if it's just the mainspring housing (presumably it holds the spring at a tensioned position, so even if the trigger is pulled, there's no force available to work the hammer) and you don't like it, then swap it out. A new housing is what, $30? Sure, it's an extra charge, but that's the cost of doing business these days.

Like Taurus- don't want to lock the gun? Leave it unlocked and pitch the key.

Gunsmiths have found a way to defeat the mag safety in a Hi-Power, the grip-safety in a 1911, the 3-way safety on Mauser military rifles... If the market demands a "fix" for this kind of superfluous "safety" device, it'll happen.

I'm just waiting for some guy to get robbed but get killed because his gun was locked up.

"Support Gun Locks: Make the World Safer for Criminals."

 

[jaydee]

Sure, if it works well, and can be removed easily, and is "fail resistant", meaning that a breakage won't create a stoppage.

Certain situations require having a method to disable the weapon, and if you can do so without needing a bunch of "accessories", like a cable, or trigger lock, it's convienent.

My wife's Steyr has a built in lock that "turns it off". When the grandkids are about, it's handy, but certainly, it's not intended to be used when danger is present, or could even be a remote possibility... Everyone's situation is different.

I'd like to find out if the system can be incorporated on older "original" style 1911's, that might be handy for certain situations as well.

 

[Peak]

I feel I'm a responsible gun owner and I resent the manufacturers continually making changes to guns for political/liability reasons only. I paid $1500.00 for a safe another $135.00 for night stand security and I'm smart enough to remove weapons when my grand kids visit. Simply just more feel good bull as far as I can see. If you are too stupid to do the things I mentioned above what makes you think remembering to use the new lock makes a difference?

 

[RMLamey]

its a horrible idea, the reasoning for the lock is to satisfy the current mantra from the left about "gun safety" (read gun control).

the pro gun control crowd learned that the terms they were using werent as effective as they would like, hence the big push for all of these new "gun safety" items. Its hard to argue against "gun safety" as it is traditionaly thought, however, the new definition has nothing to do with actual safe handling of firearms and everything to do with further control over not only the gun owner but the firearms industry as a whole.

the anti gunners know that if they can eat into a gun companys profit margin they have done far more than they could lobbying for further restrictions. they realize that if they can make the firearms industry jump when they holler, they have beaten us from the top down.

If it were really about "gun safety" then the gun companys would be pouring money and resources into gun safety classes and training (much more than they are now).

if we dont realize that we are in a fight, and we are being attacked from all angles, we will surely lose.

We all know that guns are simply tools, it is what lies between the ears of the operator that makes it safe or unsafe.

so i say, no new "safety systems" NONE at all.

And on a side note (while i typed, 4 new posts came up)....

Who do you think winds up paying for the safety? Sure i guess one could argue that we can just remove the safety.... BUT remember this is a long slippery fight... We keep giving here, there, and soon we they have chipped away until there goal is complete.

I say TO HELL WITH THEM. NO compromise on anything to do with the 2nd amendment, we have already lost far to much. If anything we need to get offensive and take some of the losses back.

------------------
" You should not copy others, but use weapons which you can handle properly" Ibid

http://www.lameyknives.com

[This message has been edited by RMLamey (edited 01-28-2001).]

 

[quantico]

Mr Lamey , you have the same attitude that I do and believe you are thinking correctly. I have a gun safe and have little use for cable locks or fancy keypads on guns. I believe that the simplier the gun is ... the easier it is to use under stress. As for the safety being easy to remove .. I plan to do so if needed , but resent the implication later if involved with defending myself that I recklessly removed the manufacturers important and needed safety equipment. You can imagine the brush you will be painted with having dared to meddle with something else for the sake of the children.
I further hope that people will not leave weapons around children when they should be in a safe or lock-box. God forbid you don't pay attention to the device and un-lock it instead of lock it... Or forget to lock it... because responsible gun ownership does not come in a little added safety on the grip my friend.

 

[Howardk]

I can't understand why this topic is arousing such irrational passions. If you don't want to lock the gun, then don't lock it. Toss the key and you're done. If the little hole in the mioanspring housing bothers you, fill it with liquid metal.

I think a mainspring housing lock is a great idea since I have a small child and would feel better knowing there is a lock on my gun, especially if he has friends over. It would be nice to lock my gun without having to use a cable lock.

This gun lock is no different than a a cable box lock that locks out programming you don't want your kids to watch. Or, a remote lock in a car that you can use or not choose to use. I don't have a problem with gun locks as long as they are passive rather than active.

 

[Mustang]

I HATE internal locks. If I had the choice, I certainly wouldn't buy one with it on the gun.

 

[Eich1]

I think its bassically a Cover Your Ass move from springfield. Not a bad idea in this day and age. At least its a quick swap out if you dont want it. Hell gives me more mainsprings to practice diff types of checkering on!!

 

[Tac]

Let's just hope they don't come up with a
law to make us put them on any guns that we
own, that would surely ruin any collectables.

Tac

 

[Mute]

This is more than just CYA for Springfield. This is their way of remaining in the CA market and still give the rest of the 1911 consumers the ability to have what they want. If you want a 1911 with out any internal safeties (a la Series 80 or Kimber II), you can just swap the MSH.

Probably easier for them to just put this safety/MSH on all guns than to set a batch aside just for CA to be retrofitted. I don't like it anymore than you guys, but at least this method gives me the choice of how I want my final product.

 

[jaydee]

Probably time to move to the Springfield forum...

Figured it's been seen, and any follow up can be done there.

 

[Mustang]

I feel for you guys in California but I have to disagree with the firearms industry being bullied here. Cali is calling the shots for the firearms industry nation wide now? Until a revision is made in the law, stop shipping into that market. No L.E.O. no nothing. Thats my opinion. I know is too agressive right. But might be an eye opener. Whats next...oh, those locks just don't seem to be working we really need to get rid of them all together. Apparently the external locks weren't good enough but the internal lock is a cure all? I doubt it.

 

[Mute]

Actually Mustang I agree with you. The gun industry should take a firm stance. At the same time, it needs to do it wisely with strategy in mind. I doubt SA boycotting CA would do much. If say Glock and Sig and Beretta decided to do it, then we might have something, as this would affect a huge number of LEOs. Approaching it from the Law Enforcement end would probably have the biggest impact, as exceptions are always made for them.

If the exceptions do no good in helping them get THEIR guns, now you're going to see much more pressure put on our politicians from the people they hope to see enforce these stupid laws.

If our [email protected]$$ Chiefs and Sherrifs that runs CA's Law Enforcement agencies were forced to face the same consequences of these laws as the rest of the serfs, do you think there would be any gun control laws? I doubt it.

[This message has been edited by Mute (edited 01-29-2001).]

 

[quantico]

This reminds me of the stupid devices that people with drunk driving convictions have to have installed so they have to blow into some tester and prove sobriety toi start the car. How long before the locks auto lock after 12 hours ,so that every time we go to the range they need to be unlocked . All you need then is some federal law that makes postban handgun-lock tampering a federal crime.
I don't live in calif or ever plan to because I can't stand the nanny government and the droves of sheeples that follow along. If springfield made this lock a no-cost option you would preserve our right to choice about how we lock and secure our own guns. I know the locks can be left un-locked, but I honestly feel it is not a stretch to assume the liberals adding tags to gun transportation laws adding that any gun having a built in lock.. must be transported locked. I can see laws being added that require that only handguns with working locks being transferable . I just really see this as a P C move on springfields part. I don't like the thinking.

 

[RMLamey]

HowardK, I think your use of the term "irrational" is misguided at best.... Passionate may be a more appropriate word

I just cant understand why we as gun users dont realize that this is a fight that is won chip by chip. The new "gun safety" measures called for by the gun control crowd are just another chip.

Like i said before, we keep giving here and there, and soon nothing is left to give, they have beaten us incrementaly.

Matt.

------------------
" You should not copy others, but use weapons which you can handle properly" Ibid

http://www.lameyknives.com

 

[Peak]

Sorry people,it is called a slippery slope and one of my favorites just stepped on some more governmental ice.

 

[jhunnetaz]

NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!