Integrated gun locks?

Gun, shooting and equipment discussions unrelated to CHL issues

Moderator: carlson1

Post Reply

How do you feel about integrated gun locks?

Yes, that are a good idea and can be useful.
No, there is no need for them.
Don't care one way or the other they're easy to ignore.
Total votes: 25

User avatar

Topic author
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Spring, TX.

Integrated gun locks?


Post by dws1117 » Sat May 21, 2005 11:26 pm

With todays law suit happy society (no offense to those that earn a good living because of this) integral locks are and will continue to be a fact of shooting life. More and more makers will continue to incorporate them into thier existing guns anf any future design.

What are you thoughs? Yes, no, or don't care. Do you go out of your way to buy guns that don't have them?

I don't care. They have never affected me one way or the other. Two of my handguns have them. The Taurus and the Springfield Mil-Spec. The Springfield is easy. Just change the MSH and poof no more lock. With my Taurus 85 I forget that it is even there.

I have thought about locking them when they get put up, but have never bothered.

User avatar

Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7462
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: La Grange, Texas

Gun Locks? We Don't Need No Stinking Gun Locks


Post by anygunanywhere » Sun May 22, 2005 1:21 am

These things are essentially useless. Also, I have a whole slew of cable locks and other devices supplied with my firearms. They all fill a box in my garage. In order of importance are my devices for prevention of negligent access and discharges:

1. My brain.

2. I trained my sons, and they knew, beyond any doubt, that handling firearms was serious business.

3. 42 gun capacity safe.

"The Second Amendment is absolute...If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood

Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 911
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 3:33 pm
Location: East Bernard, TX


Post by BobCat » Sun May 22, 2005 8:46 am

There is no need for them and they are another thing to go wrong at an inopportune time.

Like you, I just changed out the msh and put in a standard mainspring etc.

On a different pistol or revolver, I'd have to see the internal workings to evaluate the possibility of the lock interfering with operation of the weapon.

Anything that can go wrong... and the worse the consequences, the more likely the failure.

Retractable claws; the *original* concealed carry

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 17589
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX


Post by Charles L. Cotton » Sun May 22, 2005 9:01 am

For the most part, I don’t care one way or the other, but I do have a few concerns that prompted me to vote “no.� Once again, you’ll see the attorney in me coming out.

Mechanical: If there is any possibility that the internal safety can fail and disable the gun when I need it, then I won’t buy it! The Springfield 1911 internal safety “seems� to be fool-proof, but they’re new so only time will tell. As dws1117 said, it’s easy to change a main spring housing. I have no idea about the S&W revolvers.

Manufacturer lawsuit avoidance: Not necessary in Texas. We changed the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code several years ago making it very hard to sue a gun manufacturer for alleged failure of the firearm. You can forget filing the “Better design� cases in Texas. That said, I’m not sure if any other states provide the protection against consumer suits (as opposed to governmental suits, or suits based upon the unlawful acts of a third-party) provided by Texas law. Without the Texas-style protection, the failure to incorporate a viable safety feature, such as Springfield’s main spring housing safety on 1911's, could be used against another manufacturer, if someone is injured by a ND that could have been prevented by that type of safety. Springfield could unintentionally be setting the standard by which other manufacturers could be judged. The same goes for Colt’s Series 80 firing pin blocks, and Kimber’s “Series II� firing pin blocks. This causes obvious problems, especially when the “new� safety feature is functionally problematic, as reports about the Kimber “Series II� indicate. Such reliability problems provide a defense to other manufactures that are sued for failure to adopt those features, but it costs money to prove you were right. If the new “safety� feature had never been adopted by any manufacturer, then it’s a much harder case to pursue.

Consumer lawsuit avoidance: The protection provided by Texas law to gun manufactures does not extend to gun owners. If you disable a safety device and someone gets hurt or killed in an accident the safety device would have prevented, the gun owner has major exposure! There can be defenses, such as “I disabled the Kimber “Series II� firing pin block because it has a reputation of failing and rendering the pistol unable to fire, and I use this gun for self-defense.� This argument may or may not save the day, but once again it’s going to cost money to prove it. This argument deals with intentionally disabling a safety feature on a gun, not the failure to purchase a gun with the safety feature. That won’t work in Texas, and I seriously doubt it will work anywhere else, except possibly in New Jersey, California and other such states.

So, although I don’t think internal safety devices are a huge issue, I do see some mechanical and legal issues that give me pause for concern. If I were king, we wouldn’t have ‘um.


User avatar

Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6134
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: Allen, TX


Post by jimlongley » Sun May 22, 2005 9:12 pm

In part I see them, as has been mentioned, as a liability in the form of something that can screw up in the finest Murphy fashion. As someone who has managed to render a Series 80 Colt 1991A1 unfireable by inserting a part wrong, even thought the gun appeared to function properly otherwise, I guarantee that I could find a way to screw up an internal safety. BTW, I only found out that I did it wrong at the beginning of an IDPA match. :oops:

I also do not leave any of my guns where they are not in my immediate control, ie with no need to be locked, unless I do lock them up, securely and in a manner where they can't be stolen.
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365

User avatar

Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3374
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: DFW, TX


Post by HighVelocity » Sun May 22, 2005 9:32 pm

I have two Springfield 1911's that have locks built into the mainspring housings. I have never taken the keys out of the little baggies that they came in. They might as well not be there.

Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:43 am
Location: Texas


Post by Braden » Mon May 23, 2005 8:29 am

I absolutely do NOT want an integrated lock on a carry gun. For a home gun, I'm not completely opposed to them but I also see no need for them. There are so many different kinds of external locks available that it makes no sense to me to make a gun less reliable by adding an internal lock. If for some reason the lock doesn't function correctly then you could easily end up in a VERY bad situation when/if you need the gun.
"I can do all things through Him who strengthens me." - Philippians 4:13

User avatar

Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: DFW


Post by Paladin » Mon May 23, 2005 10:06 am

2 of my guns have an integrated lock. H&K USP and a S&W revolver.

The S&W revolver lock is probably better than a trigger lock, although the key comes with it rusts very easily.

The H&K lock is akward to operate (have to remove the magazine). And a problem is that if the H&K lock is on, you can damage the gun by racking the slide. Not good.

The weird part is that both guns also came with either a cable or trigger lock. 2 locks for each gun?? Guess it's state law to provide the extra lock.

I don't use the locks at all as my handguns are either on me or locked in a safe, but there could be some people that get some use out of them.
NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, GOA Life Member, VCDL Member
Texas State Guard

User avatar

Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

Internal, anything...


Post by stevie_d_64 » Mon May 23, 2005 10:40 am

I first saw this system in the Taurus promotional literature from the NRA Convention...

My initial reactions was..."neat"...

But my practical side came into play and said..."Nahh, not for me...Something else to break on the thing when I least expect it..."

And..."Where's that key-thing!!!"

This is another unfortunate example of a gun manufacturer trying to do something slick to appease the "anti folks" and to ward off lawsuits...

I hope they get through this "phase"...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

Post Reply

Return to “General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion”