Author Topic: Excellent article on Smith & Wesson..................... (Read 1639 times)

NRAJOE · « **on:** November 06, 2003, 09:24:25 AM »

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 06, 2003, 10:12:31 AM »

Got to love John Ross

That is why I still buy Smith & Wesson.

1911crazy · « **Reply #2 on:** November 06, 2003, 11:48:04 AM »

What kept me away from S&W handguns is back when dirty harry first came out you could only buy a blackmarketed M29/44mag from the
S&W salesman for $550 that kind of ticked me off about S&W. I still have the two original letters I wrote to ruger and colt about making a 44mag. Ruger got back to me and said they had plans of making one. While colt got back to me and said they had no plans on making on?? Go figure now they made one?? So I bought two Ruger Redhawks 5 1/2" and 7 1/2" both in stainless which I enjoy very much. At least one company came thru. Recently the history channel had the Smith & Wesson story on and I'm impressed I may buy a smith one day you just never know now.
BigBill

colt451911 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 06, 2003, 12:12:35 PM »

How many of the profoundly stupid terms in that agreement are still followed by S&W?

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #4 on:** November 06, 2003, 04:49:45 PM »

What I want to know is why can't S&W simply come out and say we are not going to follow the requirements set fourth in the contract!
It seems to me they dont really want to rock the boat, they are just testing the waters quietly to see how far they can get without getting thier hand slapped :roll: I'll bet as soon as the courts threaten to start enforcing the contract they will pull thier tail between thier legs and bow down to the demands.
So basicly, IF, they are (as John Ross seems to believe) not going to follow the rules of the contract, they at some point are going to have to publicly announce that, so why don't they just do it now while we have a gun friendly administration in?
No one has a good argument for that, they all just skirt the issue like John Ross and say " but look the new owners arent following the contract step by step" isnt that great,they are defying the agreement isnt that great :roll:
I simply will not buy another S&W until they act like men and step up to the plate and say "We refuse to do the things outlined in the agreement! After they do that (wheather they win or lose thier case) I will be the first in line to buy a new .500 :wink:

DzrtRat · « **Reply #5 on:** November 06, 2003, 05:13:22 PM »

They likely aren't saying that they won't honor it because they may, in fact, have to honor all or part of the agreement in the future. Why draw attention from the government to themselves? Is it not better to let trouble find us than to go looking for it?

Remember one thing. The boys that own the company now didn't sign the agreement. The ones that DID sign it lost a bundle of cash when they sold the company (because of signing the agreement). I'd sure think that the new owners would be smart enough to consider what happened to the previous owners before they willingly honor the agreement.

Why keep holding it against them if they aren't even the ones who signed it in the first place? If we support them, the company will be better off financially to fight the contract if the issue does in fact come up again. If the company is better off financially, they're also more likely to make even better products in the future.

Supporting gun manufacturers seems like a win/win situation. Boycotting those who make the tools we enjoy seems like an all around losing proposition.

But then, I guess some take particular delight in holding a grudge

~Rat

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 07, 2003, 02:04:01 AM »

It is obvious that Boycotting Smith & Wesson is not hurting them at all. There is only a handful of people doing it. I for one will not. 95% of my guns are American made and the others are older guns made in Germany. Smith & Wesson, Ruger, T/C make up a big part of my handguns. Like mentioned above, why bring unwanted attention to ones self. And if everyone Boycotting Smith & Wesson and they went out of business what would we have accomplished. Nothing but make the Antigun clowns happy. We as gun owners would be the ones to loose. So all of you that choose foreign made guns go ahead and support them, you won't hurt anyone but yourselves. Just My Humble Opinion

billmaly · « **Reply #7 on:** November 07, 2003, 05:38:17 AM »

Based on what I have read here and on other forums, most people want some Smith official to come out, face forward and say "The old agreement is considered null and void by the current owners, managers, and shareholders of S&W. We're sorry, the previous owners made a mistake. It won't happen with us at the wheel. Please, buy from us again knowing that we support gun rights, 100%".

Until this happens, and is WELL documented to overcome the inevitable internet myth machine from distorting it, people will continue to boycott S&W. Personally, I like Ruger's, but that's me.

NRAJOE · « **Reply #8 on:** November 07, 2003, 01:10:43 PM »

Quote from: cknight98

excellent reading...thanks for the link...

No problem...the new owners should not be punished for what the Brits agreed to. :x

williamlayton · « **Reply #9 on:** November 07, 2003, 03:18:18 PM »

me think--what does it matter if they come out and announce a mistake. i just do not see the wisdom in that. i am with them-just let the sleeping dog lie or ask me no questions and i'll tell you no lies.
there is more wisdom in correcting the weapon and getting on to business than facing the government and risking defending the changes you have made.
while it may be truely a noble fight, they are risking a lot. they did sign an agreement, and agreements should be binding. agreed that the agreement was harsh towards the manuf. and eventually the weapon buying public. i'm still thinking your opening a can of worms which, it seems from the post, doesn't need to be opened.
let us be thankful that the can get back some of the ground lost without the battle.
blessings

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #10 on:** November 07, 2003, 06:35:26 PM »

I think some good points were made by people on both sides of this issue. I stand on one side but respect the opinions of the people on the other side :grin:
I would like to make it clear that I do not encourage anyone to boycott S&W, and hold no Ill will towards a person who does buy from S&W. I "boycott" them on the principal of the matter, not because I like to hold a grudge or anything of the sort.
I am not to sure of the new owners yet either, I mean were they not manufactures of INTERNAL gun locks before they purchased S&W? That in itself smells kinda fishy to me. As I have said in other posts, there was no bigger fan of S&W then me, and I would like to consider that brand when I go looking at handguns,but until I am satisfied that everything is out in the open and on the up and up I simply will not give them my money.

Majic · « **Reply #11 on:** November 08, 2003, 05:03:08 PM »

They may say they aren't honoring the contract, but every new S&W revolver I see has a lock built into it. If they truly want to get their customers back they should be filing suits to overturn an agreement not made by them while they have a political party in office that may listen to them. Standing around with their heads in the sand hoping a problem goes away is a good way to get the end not in the sand shot off!!!
I'm sorry, but it all sounds like a scam to me. They are asking for support and loyalty while showing nothing being done to earn it. If they go out of business, so be it. When they bought the business they bought the agreement too and have done nothing about it, except to install a lock (which was a part of the agreement) on their product and say we can ignore it. Folks ignored seatbelts for years till the day came when it was mandated by law to wear them. I wonder what the future may bring?

williamlayton · « **Reply #12 on:** November 09, 2003, 01:52:30 AM »

i think-just me think--i read all of this, and i understand the passion behind these thoughts, but no one has given any hope other than a good fight lost for challanging the agreement. i, personally do not see any hope for a win in this arguement. i lost a good number of good fights--i've learned ta pick em better nowdays.
blessings

RemingtonDave · « **Reply #13 on:** November 09, 2003, 02:26:54 AM »

When the agreement was first signed I was so furious that I sold all my Smiths to people that were considering buying new ones.
I've softened my stance somewhat and recently bought another Smith. A 2nd model Hand Ejector made in 1916.
I dearly love Smith revolvers and have decided to buy more, as long as they have pinned barrels. That's as close as I'll get to new.
If they do eventually fold, someone will buy up the patents and tooling and keep production going without the stigma of the "agreement". We will always have Smith revolvers whether they say "Smith & Wesson" or not.

Dave

Dave in WV · « **Reply #14 on:** November 09, 2003, 04:57:08 AM »

What a lot of people don't know is Ruger contacted the distributors carrying Ruger and S&W products and informed them they would be cut off from Ruger products if they didn't drop S&W. I have products from both and I see bad form from both companies. I don't know when Ruger did this but a local gun shop owner told me about it and I've heard it since them. I read on a forum there's a distributor in Ohio that didn't bend to Ruger and is still not able to carry Ruger firearms. Bill Ruger supported 10 round magazines. Why? It didn't affect his sales all that much. He was a great designer and a shrewd businessman. Unfortunately he may have had some J.D. Rockerfeller traits too. :evil:

HappyHunter · « **Reply #15 on:** November 09, 2003, 11:04:08 AM »

Nice story and editorial.

1badmagnum · « **Reply #16 on:** November 09, 2003, 01:24:55 PM »

seems to me smith wants to sell alot of firearms to law enforcement and other individuals with deep pockets.
they are some ugly guns,I dont care how nice the triggers are.
sorry smith,but your prices are just a total sham.

Graybeard · « **Reply #17 on:** November 09, 2003, 05:50:28 PM »

Yes it is true. Once upon a long time ago the rivialry between Ruger and S&W was so strong and Ruger thought their position was so strong that they told all distributors to decide which they wanted to sell. Their biggest distributor pulled out on them and it hurt them big time. They sure didn't take long to rethink that bad idea and changed. But the distributor stuck with their principles and still didn't handle Rugers. Dunno about today. Not sure they are even still in business or if so whether they now carry Rugers. Don't matter really, this was all way prior to the agreement.

Why do folks always want to bring up Ruger when the discussion is about S&W and their Anti American/ Anti US Constitution stance? The issue isn't Ruger it is S&W pure and simple.

You'll not catch me standing up for Ruger. I own one TOTAL. I own more S&Ws but for dang sure none made since the agreement and not nearly as many of them as I did prior to the agreement.

To me the issue is plain and simple. The company did wrong. They violated my rights or at least entered into an illegal agreement to do so and then tried to violate them. I am others objected and stopped buying their products. It put them in such bad shape they sold out at a huge loss to a company that thought they could pull a fast one and get folks to buy their guns again even tho they have done NOTHING about the agreement. It sits waiting for the next democrap to take the presidency to be dusted off and put back in place. THIS WILL HAPPEN! It is a matter of when NOT IF.

When someone steps on my rights I don't take it lightly and say oh well shame on you but what the heck I'll forgive you and give you my hard earned money in spite of you spitting in my face. Nope not the way I operate.

For the moment it is STILL a free country. That is changing fast. When we get the democraps in office again it will change even faster. The S&W agreement will be a part of that. When you've lost all your freedoms and are under the iron fisted totalatarian rule of a new US Government minus the US Constitution that you've let folks rip assunder without even whimpering you'll wish you'd stood tallaer sooner. Don't think it can't or won't happen. We're headed there fast. All the needed laws are already in place. They are just waiting for an administration willing to do it to ya. GW isn't him. The next democrap will be. Passion? You betcha. When we start talking about the US Constitution and revoking the hard fought for rights in it you bet I'm passionate.

GB

williamlayton · « **Reply #18 on:** November 10, 2003, 12:00:17 AM »

interesting. lets see if we can sort this out. lets remember the pendelum theory here.
it is a free nation, that is it is free to the extent our laws allow. the laws are passed by a legislature-elected by the population. let us at this point remember that, at least in theory, the majority must protect the minority.
we elect, except in a few exceptions, the folks who make the laws which govern us. the government is not a person. the government is people.
if we believe in any issue strongly enough, and we can convience enough people we are correct- notice i did not say right- in our stance then we should be able to effect change.
well folks that is susposed to be how it works, the theory of it is good. the facts are somewhat different than the theory.
the government is not the people. the government is special interest groups. now i will not get into who these special interest groups are. some are VERY powerful individuals who lean towards a republican, not necessarily to be confused with the republican party, form of leadership. the old saying is these folks are for those who have and want more. less controls by any folks who oppose them in their effort to get more. one, at least, thinker has taken this to its end results and has proclaimed this group will be at the helm of a one world government.
there is another group of special interest folks whose attempt is control any form of constraint by the government on an individual in their right to live in a free, and unrestrained, lifestyle. they believe all people have a right persue life without constraint. this, some believe, leads to chaos, a hastening of the second law( i think)f thermodynamics.
what group are we in? well if ya consider it all, and think about it, it might scare tha hell out of yourownself.
soapbox is clear.
blessings

ironfoot · « **Reply #19 on:** December 04, 2003, 04:15:09 PM »

The furor over the S&W agreement never made much sense to me. The agreement resulted in restrictions on how they could market their products. Gun dealers who could no longer buy S&W guns wholesale were, understandably, upset. For general gun buyers, the agreement meant that S&W guns would still be available to the general gun buying public from some gun retailers. At a time when government was very anti-gun, S&W had found a way to still sell guns to private citizens.

Redf150 · « **Reply #20 on:** December 05, 2003, 07:50:57 AM »

Quote from: 1badmagnum

seems to me smith wants to sell alot of firearms to law enforcement and other individuals with deep pockets.
they are some ugly guns,I dont care how nice the triggers are.
sorry smith,but your prices are just a total sham.

Price is to high? I just paid 430.00 for my .40 cal model 410.
Smith is not high by any poormans standards, cause im poor.
They are one step higher in price than Rugers but they are more refined.
And as for being ugly, If you had a legitimate argument you would have stated the reasons you think they are ugly, And state that thats your Own opinion.
Most people who are brand loyal can lay a lot of smack down, but their backing for their views are more shallow than my first wife.

myronman3 · « **Reply #21 on:** December 05, 2003, 03:22:04 PM »

my idea of a good article about s+w would read either that they filed a suit against the federal gov. to get the agreement declared unconstitutional; or that they stuck with with the agreement and it finally lead to them going out of business. now either one of those stories would make me happy; but i would much rather read the first one. but the longer they wait the more iwant to read the second one.

c mac · « **Reply #22 on:** December 05, 2003, 05:16:32 PM »

From a different point of view. I've got a couple of old rugers. One an old army. Very good triggers. Crisp, around 3 or 4 lbs. All bought new with no work done on any. Made in the early 70s. I was going to buy a new one last year. I think the trigger was about 6 lbs. with about 1/8" creep. Did they forget how to do it right? What's that all about. I ended up buying a new S&W 657. No creep. About 3 lbs. I see no need to do any work on the trigger. My point is that Ruger is afraid of the liability of a lite trigger. While S&W still gives the shooter a trigger that he doesn't have to spend a bunch of bucks on to shot. So, who caved on this issue?

c mac

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #23 on:** December 05, 2003, 05:51:54 PM »

myronman3,
Well put :grin:

jfruser · « **Reply #24 on:** December 06, 2003, 04:42:13 AM »

Well, I can tell you another way S&W is not following the Klinton agreement: my SW1911 has no internal trigger lock. Oh, it came with one of those funky cable gun locks, which promptly got chucked in a drawer, never to be seen since.

That's a mite better than some of the other 1911 makers are doing, Springer for one.

The guy who bought S&W owned a trigger lock & gun accessory company before he bought S&W. The story of the risk this guy took on when buying S&W (bought for a few $million, with $10-20million in potential lawsuit liabilities), and the eventual triumph he had against the gun-grabbers and against those that bet AGAINST him is inspiring (S&W is now worth 4-5X what he paid for it).

I say ACTION counts more than WORDS. S&W's actions since being bought by an American have been exemplary.

myronman3 · « **Reply #25 on:** December 06, 2003, 04:02:44 PM »

ya wouldnt believe it but i actually get tired of repeating it. all i want to see is an effort. A MEANINGFUL EFFORT, please. i would love to add a smith to the closet; but wont even consider it until.... do i even need to go down that road again?
i hope all you smith owners are right; and i hope i am eating crow soon. but i bet i wont be...

ftstinyc · « **Reply #26 on:** December 08, 2003, 04:13:54 PM »

It's like getting a divorce and you blame the new wife for what the 1st
one did and you want her to say she sorry. Actions speak louder than
words but we will see.

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #27 on:** December 10, 2003, 03:54:19 PM »

I liken S&W to a child sneaking into the kitchen to steal a cookie or two,

eventually all the drama going on in the world right now is going to slow down, and anti-gun politics will heat up as they always do.

When this happens S&W will get caught with it's hand in the cookie jar,because they have done nothing to get this agreement repealed by the current gun friendly white house. I will be interested to see how S&W reacts when this happens.
I am with myronman3, I hope to be eating crow as well, but we will have to wait and see

ftstinyc · « **Reply #28 on:** December 11, 2003, 03:44:23 AM »

By not buying Smiths is exactly what the antigunners want, It is
much easier to go up against a weak company rather than one with
strength. If I were Smith I wouldn't say anything either until the company
was in a position to do so. I have bought 5 Smiths in the last year and
will continue to do so. I hope my small contribution my help them get
the strength they will need for the up and coming battle. I wonder what
crow taste like. I hope i don't have to find out.

myronman3 · « **Reply #29 on:** December 11, 2003, 07:22:30 AM »

Quote from: ftstinyc

If I were Smith I wouldn't say anything either until the company was in a position to do so. I have bought 5 Smiths in the last year and will continue to do so. I hope my small contribution my help them get the strength they will need ..."quote] to what? sell out OUR constitutional rights? if i have to choose between my constitutional rights and smith and wessons well being, i sure hate it for smith.
and as far as them waiting, what are they waiting for? the next democrap to get in the white house? time is of the essence and the clock is ticking...
hell, i would love to be on their side. but they are going to have to earn my trust back. i hope i am wrong, but i think the smith backers will be tasting crow alot sooner than i will. tick tock, tick tock....