Gun lock

Details Gun lock Gun lock

1999-08-12

2001-11-06

Jordan, Charles T. (Department: 3641)

Firearms

Safety mechanism

Firearm lock

Reexamination Certificate

active

06311422

ABSTRACT:

CROSS REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
Not applicable.
FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT
Not applicable.
MICROFICHE APPENDIX
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
(1) Field of the Invention.
The claims of this invention are to be read to include any legally equivalent gun lock or method of using same. The invention generally relates to the field of gun locking devices. More particular, the invention relates to devices preventing the loading or discharging of a firearm.
(2) Description of the Related Art Including Information Disclosed Under 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and 1.98.
There are many patented locking devices, such as the following:
PatentNumber
2,479,107
5,048,211
5,289,653
4,512,099
5,115,589
5,699,687
5,241,770
Inventor
Issued
Garretson
Aug. 16, 1949
Mathew
Apr. 13, 1985
Hepp
Sept. 17, 1991
Shuker
May 26, 1992
Lambert
Sept. 7, 1993
Szebeni et al.
Mar. 1, 1994
Pittman
Dec. 23, 1997
The patent issued to Mathew discloses an end barrel cylinder lock having special cams attached to a tube and a coaxially actuating rod extending through the tube; turning a key within the cylinder lock 90 degrees causes rotation of the rod through the tube, resulting in lateral displacement of a diagonally split sleeve. Although this invention is superficially similar to the invention disclosed herein, there are several significant differences. For example, the Mathew device is designed so that lateral displacement of the diagonally split sleeve engages an “inclined face” within the gun barrel, causing the foremost wedge of the split sleeve to “abut the walls of the tapered throat, thereby locking the device in place.” (Mathew, Column 4, lines 16 through 19.) As will be disclosed more fully hereinbelow, the locking mechanism of the present invention is enhanced by dual action: (a) the foremost wedge of the terminal split-sleeve element is lodged against a pronounced ledge at the foremost end of the firing chamber, where the rim of a casing for a bullet or shell normally is situated when the firearm is loaded and ready for firing (so that said casing is held in the proper position to be impacted by the firing pin or similar firing mechanism); and (b) lateral displacement of the terminal split-sleeve element causes the lateral portions of each sleeve element to press against the interior wall(s) of the firing chamber. The Mathew device also differs in that the axial rod transverses through an axial bore through the intermediate split-sleeve element, which essentially floats loosely along the rod between the terminal split-sleeve element and the tube; such loose construction and variable positioning at the critical point of contact with the chamber or barrel increases the prospects that the Mathew locking device will be misaligned or otherwise malfunction. It is also noteworthy that the terminal wedge of the Mathew lock is anchored to the rod by means of a hollow pin extended through the lateral portions of the terminal wedge; the ends of those pins may scar or otherwise damage the interior of the chamber or barrel, and otherwise make such an attachment unsuitable for augmenting the locking mechanism by applying pressure against the interior walls of the firing chamber.
Several disadvantages of the Mathew locking device are attributable to the mere 90 degree rotation required to unlock the device. Although such limited rotation arguably expedites the locking of the device, such limited rotation also expedites the unlocking process; such a short required rotation enhances the prospect that the device may be removed accidentally, or by minors, thereby greatly diminishing the practical utility of the Mathew lock. Another disadvantage of the Mathew lock is the relatively limited number of firearms it may be used with, due to the limited length of longitudinal displacement or travel caused by the mere 90 degree rotation of the key within the cylinder lock. For a locking device to be useful in a variety of different firearms, the varied lengths of many different firearm barrels (and the varied constructions of the juncture between the chamber and the barrel) requires the locking device to be capable of accomplishing a greater distance of longitudinal displacement or travel than can be accomplished through a mere one-quarter turn. This is because of the different specifications and variances between different firearm chambers and barrels, and the juncture thereof. For example, the area and distance between the ledge and the rifling, an area also known as the headspace, varies dramatically for different makes of firearms, and for different types of firearms (such as automatic pistols and revolvers) made by the same manufacturer. The Mathews lock is made for a revolver having little headspace, and it would not work well (without substantial modification) for an automatic pistol having materially greater head space. The Mathew lock will work for particular types of pistols having headspace and other internal dimensions within a narrow range, but not for firearms having headspace necessitating a greater distance of longitudinal travel imparted by a mere one-quarter turn. Alternatively, due to the wear and tear of repeated use, the Mathew caming mechanism may be loosened up or expanded, thereby causing the 90 degree rotation to have insufficient overall travel to displace the after wedge for a positive locking force. Lastly in this regard, since the Mathew lock may not fully occupy the firing chamber, especially of older firearms (such as a .357) capable of using short cartridges (such as, for example, a .38 caliber), the Mathew device may not prevent all ammunition from being loaded into the chamber, and the possible discharge of such ammunition within the chamber. Similarly, the failure of the Mathew device to abut against any ledge at the juncture between the chamber and the barrel might make it easier to remove the locking device by a punch apparatus extending through the open chamber and forcing the locking device down the barrel.
The invention patented by Garrets on suffers from some of the disadvantages described hereinabove concerning the Mathew locking device. The Garrets on invention locks into the firing chamber merely by the lateral projection of locking pins into contact with the inner wall of the chamber, actuated by a 180 degree rotation of the lock rod by turning a key one-half a rotation. The Garrets on device does not disclose a device utilizing both pressure against the chamber wall, and lodging against a ledge at the juncture of the chamber and barrel.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
In general, this application pertains to a device for preventing the loading and discharge of a gun, comprising cooperating means for obstructing the positioning of ammunition into the firing chamber of a gun, means for activating said obstruction means, and means for locking said obstruction means in said obstruction position. The invention disclosed herein also generally pertains to a method of making and using such a gun lock device.


REFERENCES:
patent: 4224753 (1980-09-01), Bielman
patent: 4512099 (1985-04-01), Mathew
patent: 5048211 (1991-09-01), Hepp
patent: 5062233 (1991-11-01), Brown
patent: 5233777 (1993-08-01), Waterman, Jr. et al.
patent: 5241770 (1993-09-01), Lambert
patent: 5664358 (1997-09-01), Haber et al.
patent: 5918403 (1999-07-01), Lurz, Jr. et al.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

Rating

Gun lock does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.

If you have personal experience with Gun lock, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Gun lock will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2568432