So what’s the deal with pre lock?

[SirBannedAlot]

Even ONE failure is one too many. And there have been more than one.

So then you don't own any guns?

Saying "One failure is too many" sounds great, very affirmative, like you won't stand for anything less than perfection when your life is on the line...

Of course, every model of every gun ever made has had failures... so.... hmmm.....

 

[fast306stang]

So then you don't own any guns?

Saying "One failure is too many" sounds great, very affirmative, like you won't stand for anything less than perfection when your life is on the line...

Of course, every model of every gun ever made has had failures... so.... hmmm.....

Yes again we are talking specifically about the lock. And yes, NONE of my guns have locks on them. If one of my weapons fails, it won't be because of a lock, I can guarantee you that. Again, you seem to just want to argue, but you trolled us all under the innocent guise of "What gives?"

 

[SirBannedAlot]

Yes again we are talking specifically about the lock. And yes, NONE of my guns have locks on them. If one of my weapons fails, it won't be because of a lock, I can guarantee you that. Again, you seem to just want to argue, but you trolled us all under the innocent guise of "What gives?"

I asked questions, provided counter points, and in the end said I had my answer. You keep responding, which prompts me to respond in kind... Why not just let it go?

You don't like locks, because it could fail, and Hillary. Got it.

 

[JWC]

OP, I answered you question with an honest answer thinking that this was a fair question. Now, you act as it your opinion is the only logical answer. Well, it is not. Despite your enthusiasm on this subject you giving your opinion, is not THE answer. There have been documented failures of the lock, not enough to warrant a recall, but there have been some. Seems you just want to argue with everyone who disagrees with you.

 

[GFB]

Look dude. Your thread asked a question. "What gives?" You got all the answers you need and yet you want to keep arguing. Next time title your thread "I want to talk to all you ppl who don't like locks on your revolvers and tell you why you're all wrong." BC that's exactly what you're doing here.

So do you want answers or do you just want to argue?

In my opinion, the OP had an opinion about your opinion before you posted an opinion.

And that's a fact.

 

[fast306stang]

In my opinion, the OP had an opinion about your opinion before you posted an opinion.

And that's a fact.

Nuh uh!!!

 

[GFB]

Nuh uh!!!

 

[fast306stang]

lmao!

 

[fast306stang]

Thank you for bringing some comic relief and sanity to this thread...

 

[SirBannedAlot]

OP, I answered you question with an honest answer thinking that this was a fair question. Now, you act as it your opinion is the only logical answer. Well, it is not. Despite your enthusiasm on this subject you giving your opinion, is not THE answer. There have been documented failures of the lock, not enough to warrant a recall, but there have been some. Seems you just want to argue with everyone who disagrees with you.

I am just saying, that if they failed with any sort of regularity, we would know about it... Pointing out 4 or 5 claims from YouTube or Forums over a nearly two decade period containing literally millions of such firearms, is statistically insignificant... It's not like it is a 1% failure, or even a 0.01%... We are talking in the area of 0.0001% or less...

If you say you don't like how it looks, or the politics of it... I have zero rebuttal. That's your opinion, they are neither right nor wrong, they simply are.

However, if you say that the reason is "failure" and the reality is that the rate of failure isn't any more than any other part, then to me that suggests an attempt to take the first argument, to which there is no counter point, and to add something tangible to justify how you feel. Does that make sense?

I dunno, maybe subconsciously people know that such aversion to something, "Because Hillary" doesn't really make any sense or make it an inferior weapon, so they try to add something more substantial that they can point to in order to make their stance seem to have more substance than it does?

I am refuting the "failure" aspect, not whether anyone agrees with it ideologically or whether they should or should not find the lock aesthetically pleasing... It's like arguing about what the best color is... it's a matter of opinion.

But if your opinion is "supported" by a claim of "they fail" and the evidences says that they don't really fail in any meaningful numbers... THAT is what I am simply calling out, that's all.

If you just don't like them, then just don't like them... Nobody cares... If you are saying it is because of XYZ and XYZ is proven to be false... That's something else...