No they are not. The internal lock does not satify any California requirement. Guns being transfered must have an external, seperate lock installed when they leave the FFL. So even with this stupid internal lock, the dealer still has to install an external one.They are required for California so we don't have a choice. I don't understand why they just can't be ignored. I never paid any attention to them since they are inconsequential to the function.
Dan
I wasn't going get sucked into this thread but I have to answer that comment. That is totally incorrect. The ILS IS NOT a safely device, it's a storage device and like mentioned above, "The internal lock does not satisfy any California requirement. Guns being transferred must have an external, separate lock installed when they leave the FFL. So even with this stupid internal lock, the dealer still has to install an external one."They are required for California so we don't have a choice. I don't understand why they just can't be ignored. I never paid any attention to them since they are inconsequential to the function.
Dan
what 'almost' surprises me (and about the only thing that surprises me about these ILS threads) is that somebody at S&W doesn't shove poll results like these under the CEO's nose every day
I think I can guess why they don't quit the ILS, but they ought know by now they are not doing their marketing group any favors.
I voted, yes, by the way.
Despite no fondness or need for that ILS storage lock (S&W or other) , it's just not a deal breaker for me.
__________________
You have now. I sold my Taurus Mod. 65 ss at a loss. Got it back from CS after 2 months and it locked up again in a very short time. I may have simply ended up with a lemon, but I'm in no hurry to own another internal lock revolver. A good friend has the 7 round model (66 I think) and he hasn't had a problem with it in 3 years. With the kids all grown and out of the house I see no need for the lock on a revolver anyway....or any other gun for that matter.I have and probably will again. It's no biggie with me. I have not heard of any complaints with the Taurus version.
As many S&Ws as there are out there, lock failures must be less than .05%. Does anyone personally know of a failure?
As I understand it, and I may have the details wrong: A company called Safe-T-Hammer designed the ILS as a retrofit. They couldn't sell any. Due largely to the S&W/Clinton deal S&W was going under. Safe-T-Hammer bought S&W really cheap, not so much as a way to get into the gun business, but as a way to sell those useless locks. Safe-T-Hammer is a (poor excuse for a) lock company, not a gun company.I somehow came to believe the internal lock was a California requirement (they require so much other crap, my mind just lumped it in with the rest).
So how (why) did they originate?
Dan