Smith and Wesson these days

[myronman3]

i have been an advocate of taurus in the last two years.  of late they have let their customer service go to pot and this proves t.k.'s last statement.  
" It's really hard to fix something after your have did something to destroy it, like the trust of your customers."
  now the company that showed great promise to take smith's place has fallen in the same trap;  just in a different manner.  where as smith tried to sell out their customers rights; taurus has decided to let quality slide and treat customers poorly.      the sad part is that both companys could fix both of their problems by showing some commitment.

[Dusty Miller]

I can understand how people feel betrayed by S&W, I felt the same way when the story broke about the deal they'd cut with the government.  However, the management has changed and to my knowledge they've repudiated that agreement.  Its time to take a step back and give the situation a little breathing room and re-evalualte.  Do we REALLY want to keep holding S&W's feet to the fire over this thing?  Isn't there ANY WAY they can come in from the cold?  It seems to me like we gun owners need to be saying, "You screwed on once, BIG TIME, but if you want to rejoin the club you'd better understand  we'll NEVER accept a repeat of that sorry performance".   Am I alone in on this or is there some room for negotiation here?

[myronman3]

no, you are not alone.  some of their biggest critics are folks who loved them the most and would like to again.   they broke it and when someone screws me, they have to make up for it.     that is why i would love to see proof of them getting a solid effort into getting it null and void.    they would be rewarded with alot of us buying back into smith and wesson.    so when (or should i say if) you guys read about the agreement getting ripped up officially; i would be the first to want to hear about it.  until then, i am afraid i will be waiting in the cold.   (hey! i m from wisconsin; i am used to it!)

[paladyn]

I must add, in the last couple of days I have seen references to statements the new owners of S&W said, stating they think everyone who buys a gun should have to lock it up.

There are a couple of folks I know attempting to investigate for more info. If I find out anything that has solid evidence behind it, I'll post it.

I'm not sure now that my gun shop owner actually knows any official S&W people. I think he goes on hearsay also.

So I have to agree with the people who say they need proof. I now require proof too.
But, I have a Glock now, so I won't be in the market for any S&W's anyway.

[papajohn428]

If I were the new head of Smith & Wesson, the last thing I'd do is make a public announcement that I was going to ignore or repudiate the deal Tompkins PLC made with the Klintonistas.   The next sound you'd hear would be a chorus of The Hundred Moms Who Can't Count, Al Sharptongue, Tom Daschle, Sarah Brady, et al, screaming about how S&W has declared war on America and Homeland Security.  The media would run with it and S&W would be in worse shape than ever.  No, repudiating the "agreement" is not the way to go, but letting it quietly die might be.  If a new administration suddenly decided to try to enforce it, it would be in court so fast there'd be a sonic boom.  I don't think it can be enforced, nor would it be.  It was a sneaky tactic that had the desired effect, but I doubt it would work these days.

As for the lack of proof, I'd rather judge ANY company, group or individual, on what they DO, rather than what they SAY.  Talk is cheap, actions speak volumes.

Now if you'll help me off this soapbox, I need a nap.   :roll:

PJ

[Graybeard]

Talk is cheap, actions speak volumes.

Amen to that.

But so far the new owners have taken no action and are ONLY talking.

GB