Say it aint' so Ruger

[Meadhall]

After reading the post about Rugers new Alaskan Model Redhawk, I thought I would check out their website and see what else they had new. Saw a few that caught my eye, then I began reading about the 'new' vaquero and the 50th anniv. Blackhawk and the term 'internal lock' jumped out at me as a feature. The Mk3 and the P345 were bad enough, but someone please (!) tell me they are not putting internal locks on their single actions now.

 

[BusMaster007]

...for the children...

 

[Dienekes]

Probably, for the same reasons we have been provided air bags for cars. I don't recall any popular demand for them, yet they are installed at our expense even though we may not individually want them or even believe in them.

At least internal locks for guns are inexpensive, generally unobtrusive, and can be either avoided (buy the older versions) or just ignored. My SA Mil-spec has the mainspring housing lock. Have never used it and don't expect to.

Personally I am more offended by Ruger's New Model Blackhawks ("carry six rounds safely") than the locks. The newer guns tossed a very good 100 year old system out the window for a legal fig leaf.

Forget how to use the brains God gave you and there will be consequences.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

...for the children...

If that was not so sad, it would have been more funny.

 

[Jim March]

One, they hid it in the grip frame, UNDER THE GRIP PANELS.



They put a tiny dimple where you can drill a hole for external access if you want.



Finally, it's compatible with all the current aftermarket grip frames so if you want it TOTALLY gone, kewl .

 

[J Miller]

One other comment.

From all the pictures I've seen, and the MK III and P345 I've actually seen, Rugers key lock is a vast visual improvement over the ugly wart S&W has seen fit to put on their revolvers.

I'm waiting with the fidgets to get my hands on one of the new Blackhawks and or Vaqueros. And then I'll decide what to do about the 'hidden' lock.

Ruin a fine set of grips by drilling a hole in it? NOT!

Joe

 

[Jim March]

Ruin a fine set of grips by drilling a hole in it? NOT!

From what I've read so far, the dimple that you can optionally drill out is in the grip FRAME (the metal part) versus the grip panels.

 

[J Miller]

From what I've read so far, the dimple that you can optionally drill out is in the grip FRAME (the metal part) versus the grip panels.

Hmmm, I've been reading about this on several forums, here, TRF, and Sixgunner.com. Somehow I thought I read it was the grip pannel that was dimpled. I'll pay better attention the next time I read about this lock.

Joe

 

[Standing Wolf]

Not in my gun safe, much less my holster!

 

[Jim March]

<scratches head>

I guess I could have gotten it wrong, but I thought somebody said "grip frame".

Not that it matters much. We'll know for sure when they turn up for real.

 

[J Miller]

Jim,
This should answer some questions about the lock, and maybe pose some more.

I bought a copy of Shooting Times Special Collectors Edition for Rugers today, and on page 36 in an article written by Sheriff Jim Wilson is a picture of this new key lock. This lock may not be as easy to get rid of as some think. Here is a scan of the lock pic from this article.

Jim Wilson has this to say about the lock:

The action of course, is the Ruger New Model action. And in order to be competitive in the modern firearms market, the revolver has an action lock. But Ruger has installed this action lock in a most unobtrusive manner: in the grip frame, at the base of the main-spring and hammerstrut. When the device is activated by a key (that is provided), the hammer can't be fully cocked and the transfer bar doesn't lift into firing position. The simple mechanism is completely covered by the sixgun's grips. In short, this new Ruger sixgun has a traditional look with a concealed safety lock so that the shooter can make decisions based upon his personal safety needs.

Untill I actually see one, I'll hold my comments about just how dificult it will be to get rid of. From the picture I can't see how the hammer strut and spring are supported.

Joe

 

[BlkHawk73]

Better get used to it fellas. To get your products into the markets that require these features, you gotta make the changes or loose a lot of money from not being allowed in those markets. Sooner or later more states ill require these locks. Whatcha gonna do then, not buy any more guns?

Wonder if all the preachers of a certain brand will become traitors to thier favorite brand if locks were standard.

 

[seeker_two]

J Miller: Thanks for the pic.

From what I see, Ruger picked a dandy way to put a safety key lock on a sixgun. Hidden out of the way, easy to disregard, protected from external elements/exposure, no blemish to the exterior a la S&W, and hard to defeat. Looks like a good way to safe a gun that you're going to store & not need immediate access to. All in all, not a bad job.

That being said, I'm against locks on guns in any form (except muzzleloaders, of course ). It's just another mechaninsm that can go wrong at a bad time.

I see why Ruger has to do it. And I hate that the world has become such a place to make it neccessary for Ruger to do this.

 

[J Miller]

seeker_two,
Your welcome.

To those that say, "get over it", or "get used to it", or "Sooner or later more states ill require these locks. Whatcha gonna do then, not buy any more guns?"

My answer is the same now as it was when I first saw S&W's lock.
No way will I buy a gun with a function prevention device built in, unless I can remove it. I don't want it on the gun. Period!
That said, that leaves out the new S&W's, Taurus, S.A. (except for the 1911s), and now Rugers (except for the Single Actions).

There are now reports of sudden and severe failures of S&W's key locks.
In the In the American Handgunner magazine, Jan/Feb 05 issue page 28, Massad Ayoob discusses S&W's key lock and how he has verified three cases of sudden failure with it. A Mdl 342 Ti Airlite firing .38 Spcl +P+, a Mdl 340 Scandium firing .357 ammo, and a Mdl 329 Scandium firing .44 ammo.
The first two locked up the guns while firing, and the last one the lock flag part left the gun. It continued firing. All of these occured on the range, all were being used by LEOs. What would have happened if the locks had failed in a self defense situation?

This maybe an insignificant number, but how many have failed that didn't make the magazines? That were quiety repaired by S&W?

My point is that, these devices can and will fail. I don't want such a lock on ANY of my guns that might somehow be needed in a self defense situation. And with the way things are, any and all of my hand guns "may" be used in this capacity. Ergo, I don't want these function prevention devices on any of my handguns.

Joe

 

[SouthpawShootr]

Doesn't look too bad to me. I wouldn't base my decision not to buy based on this one thing. I've had enough problems with Rugers to cross them off my "buy" list, so it matters not. A number of states have laws or are considering laws requiring internal locks. It's coming, like it or not. Another ten years and you won't be able to get a gun without an internal lock.

 

[BlkHawk73]

No way will I buy a gun with a function prevention device built in, unless I can remove it. I don't want it on the gun. Period!

well isn't a convtional safety a "function prevention device" since it's function is to prevent and unintended discharge of the firearmwhen engaged or in some disengaged. Guess you don't buy ANY guns then huh?

 

[Zeke Menuar]

Guess you don't buy ANY guns then huh?

I buy guns, lots of guns. Guns that were made before lawyer triggers and idiot locks were even dreamed of. That is what a C&R license will do for a guy.
The last type of gun I will buy is one designed by the legal department with bad engineering designed to save me from myself.

This is my opinion, your opinion may vary.

ZM

 

[victory]

Heh, i thought they did something like reduce their 6-shooters to 5 shot capacity. That's probably next.