1911Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello All. Just purchased NIB SA SS Loaded Champion. (Haven't yet been able to visit the range with it yet).

I have read (some) of the posts re changing out the ILS MSH. My question is: Why? I'll clarify my question:

I too am certainly not a fan of "lawyer-induced safety features". However in this litigious and somewhat gun-phobic society, I do and can understand the manufacturer's corporate-lawyer-induced "need" or desire to CYA re the Corporate interests.

So my question is what is the REAL need or reason for swapping out the ILS? As in:

(1) I realize doing so may lighten up or smooth trigger pull somewhat. That is NOT an issue for me at all, so if I may be so bold, please let's DISMISS and EXCLUDE that particular elemental facet from any replies.

(2) Is the primary reason a 1911 afficionado's "purist" notion where the disfavor is occasioned by mere virtue of the fact that an ILS lock is not part of the original 1911 design of JMB? Or,

(3) Are there any FUNCTIONAL RELIABILITY failures directly attributable to the mechanical design of the ILS system? If so, what are the details or nature of the potential, conceivable malfunction? And . . .

(4) If the answer to # 3 above is "yes - there ARE potential malf issues" - can anyone provide concrete, specific, verified, documented case-example PROOF that a real-world, real-life, actual-user issue actually exists?

I'd greatly appreciate any knowledgeable, well-informed responsive Member feedbacks concerning these questions, and thanks in advance to any-all respondents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
For me, it was a combination of things. But, most off all, I didn't care for the 'safety changes' that SA did. The titanium FP and extra power FP spring fall in the same catagory. The reasoning for such changes are simply so they can sell pistols in restricted areas (re: cali) and so that some Police Departments would likely adopt the SA 1911. Since I don't live in a restricted area and I'm not an LEO I would just as soon do with out the added 'safety changes'.

Besides the potential for a malfuction is there with the added parts. Has it happened? I don't know, but I know its not going to happen to me now. :)


clipse
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
I did it almost just to tinker with it cause I like to hot rod. Didn't make a world of difference, but it did help the trigger and made the hammer easier to cock since I also changed some springs. Another reason was switching to a one-piece S&A magwell for a solid looking corner at the back. To each their own...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,656 Posts
I removed mine on principle. Built-in locks are a "feel good" knee jerk response designed to make those that are gun-phobic feel better. I'm not interested in making someone else feel better at my expense, besides, they are an added complexity that is not necessary if one stores/handles firearms properly. At best, they are an added cost with no real ill effects, but at worst, they are a locked gun when one needs a functional firearm for defense.

On that note, I have never personally heard of anyone that had one "lock up" on them, though I did have a Smith & Wesson (22-4) "lock up" while on the range. The Springfield ILS is much simpler (and therefore less likely to fail) than the Smith & Wesson (Safe-T-Lock) system. Still, I refuse to trust my life to a firearm with a built-in lock.

YMMV

Robert
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
705 Posts
I've shot the ILS system for years, with no problems. Unless some ghost comes in during the darkness of night and turns the lock, I see no way this mechanical safety can malfunction. I have changed one out due to going to a flat MSH, but other than upgrades, the ILS will not cause you any problems.

I'm not fond of the looks regarding the two hole lock, but I can live with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,498 Posts
I changed mine because I wanted a flat MSH and because I wanted to run spec spring's (16lbs and 23lbs) not the 14lbs and 28lbs that came with the gun.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,484 Posts
Removing the ILS and using a 19# mainspring will do much more than lighten the trigger pull "just a little bit."

-- Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Keep it, don't keep it. It is your gun and your choice. Most Springers run like a Timex out of the box. I don't know of one single reason to dump the ILS unless you are trying to make it closer to a gun you have in mind. MIM parts could be lumped into this as well. Run them until they break. Again your choice. I swap out all the MIM parts and the ILS because I can not because I have too. John.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,916 Posts
My reason: LOCKS ARE FOR DOORS NOT GUNS I do believe in Murpheys' law and don't want to search for a key or have an extra part break/malfunction period. I thank Springfield for making it an easy swap out of parts unlike other types of 1911's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Thanks to all for replies thus far. I do tend to moreso agree than disagree with the apparent general concensus of "con" as opposed to "pro".

I still think the question as well as the replies to date are somewhat interesting.

All the hubbub would be much more understandable to me if anyone could reliably report ANY documented malfs attributable to the SA ILS system.

At least in this particular thread, I'm yet to see any, so I'm still on the fence as to whether or not "theoreticals" or "principles" should be that much of a concern to me.

What I've seen so far (in other threads) is plenty of people who say they don't see any mechanical basis on which they think the ILS could malf & make the gun unfireable. I haven't even seen any indications that the ILS is even mildly prone to malf'ing at all.

I do not disagree with or oppose the "purist's principles" that are adherent to the original JMB 1911 design. All I'm saying is thus far I've seen zero understandable reason or basis for the objection other than "purist principles" that are seemingly based on little moe than "conceivable possibilities". I'm not saying conceivable possibilities should be "disregarded" when one's welfare might be on the line. But I do think it sensible to determine how much regard should be lent - as in, how credible and valid and meritorious is the supposed reason for concern.

My issue is not the question of whether the ILS "belongs there" or not. My issue is the ILS system IS there in my gun - so does it work and function as intended and designed, or not? Thus far I see no valid evidence to conclude that it does not work OK as intended. We all know there's a million things than can "conceivably" malf on any gun. The important element is how often DO they malf? I guess I'm just questioning whether or not the ILS really poses any valid "issue" at all. I recognize that is largely a matter of personal opinions, all of which I respect one's right to have and hold. I just wonder how well they are based in FACT as opposed to principles that some segments of 1911 users think a 1911 should be. If we're all such JMB-origin-design "purists", none of would own 1911s with lowered and flared ejection ports, correct?

I can agree with the member who said "locks belong on doors, not guns". I can agree with that for you since that's your opinion, and I tend to agree with that myself, as well - on principle - for myself in my own situation. I have zero children in the household, so have no need of such a lock. But I also recognize that a gunowner with kids in home might not share that same principle, for his own valid cause and reason in his own opinion. Maybe there's times his gun is not intended to be readily used for SD. Maybe he has 20 guns to choose from at any given time. Yes, the kids should be educated and disciplined to gun safety. Is that to say kids never disobey a parent? The ILS can be locked or unlocked at will. Some municipalities are so asinine gun-phobic their laws REQUIRE a stored gun in the home to be locked. Does the mere lock existence make it a "bad thing" - if it's not malf-prone - to a gunowner with kids at home? Let's remember that SA sells guns to "JMB-design-purists" and non-purists alike.

Put another way, if it's gonna come down to undertaking or not undertaking an alteration based on purely subjective rather than objective principles alone, I'm also gonna weigh "Conceivables" and "possibilities" at the other end of the spectrum as well.

For example, (and yes, I know, the 1911 is probably the most routinely modified-to-taste guns out there) but nevertheless I've handled enough bodiily injury and product liability lawsuit investigations to know what a "field day" criminal District Attorneys and civil-court Plaintiff's Attorneys can make concerning a gun that's been modified by the owner-user, regardless of whether or not the mods are "germane" to the incident complained of, and regardless of whether it's just "blowing smoke" or not.

Thus the reason for my OP post and the specificity of my questions therein. Perhaps the "ILS issue" being an "issue" is just "blowing smoke", too? Seems to me the answer would lie in the existence of a documented verifiable history of propensity to malfunction, or lack thereof.

Again I stress I am in general agreement, moreso "con than pro". But the essential question is, if the apparent allegation is that the ILS is malf-prone enough to be overly concerned, is that just "blowing smoke" too? If not, what is the basis, and where is the evidence in support of the claimed basis?

I guess by occupation and habit I'm a just a firm believer in confirmed FACTS above and beyond anything else, and am attempting to confirm what FACTS there may be.

I have seen one reply in a differing thread that made very little sense to me. Someone pointed out that the ILS is a solution to a non-existent problem, and primarily intended to make SA 1911s Kalifornia-compliant. I can agree with that assessment. But the member went on to say, in so many words, that SA like all makers is "more concerned with corporate income than User Safety". Inferring or implying that in order to enable more sales in Kali, SA would incorporate a Kali-mandated safety lock that is prone to malfs. That's the part that makes zero sense to me. It's inferred also that the ILS is induced by corporate attorneys. Well, you can bet your booties that the SA corporate lawyers as part of their CYA concerns have anticipated the adverse results of a safety system that malfs rendering the gun inoperable at the wrong time, yielding consequential injury or death to the consumer gunowner. That's like "product liability nightmare", because the product failed to perform and fulfill the intended use and purpose and function for which the item is designed, manufactured, advertised, marketed and sold to the public. So I would think that in the normal course of R&D, the SA engineers and designers would have adequately function-tested all aspects of the ILS before letting it go into production. Does that make any common sense to anyone?

So I'd still appreciate continuing replies from anyone so inclined, even if they be merely personal opinions, with or without verifiable facts. But verifiable facts or evidence in support of a held "con" ILS posture would of course lend a little more weight and credence to the validity of such an opinion. If there's valid "evidence" out there, I'd like to see/hear it.

Thanks again to all for your viewpoints and thoughts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,317 Posts
lots of assumptions

I took them out (I own two with the ILS crap) because I wanted a different MSH that could take more 'universal' parts (some of which I installed).

Crap like that ("gee-gaws") has no place on tools that may get called on for immediate social need.

Assuming that any machinery is sufficiently tested before issuing to the buying public is constantly disproven (is that a word?).



And on a personal note, I refuse to step down (ever downward) towards "lowest common denominator"; you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,916 Posts
I'm thinking you'll find that the ILS is a sound design but many still remove it for the K.I.S.S. rule. I've yet to hear of any reports of a defective one so far. I do keep my weapons locked away and have a touch pad safe to retrieve a weapon smartly.......:hrm: What if my touch pad dies when I need it?:mummy: Great! There goes my theory of locks don't belong on guns! I'll stay in the corner now and keep to myself:p
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top