Author Topic: Smith and Wesson these days (Read 1579 times)

southern utah · « **on:** May 11, 2004, 07:29:36 PM »

Graybeard have you seen the article written by John Ross about Smith and Wesson betrayal

? He wrote the book "Unintended Consequences "

http://www.john-ross.net/betrayal.htm

AZ223 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 11, 2004, 08:01:16 PM »

Interesting article. I, personally, haven't had a grudge against S & W. I was out of the gun culture during that period of time, so perhaps I didn't catch the full impact of it. Still, I've held on to the 686 I purchased in the mid-80's, and I'm glad I did.

Personally, I would like to see a forum added for S & W. I do respect Gaybeard's option, though, as it is after all his Web site. But if the matter ever goes up for a vote, consider mine a "yes".

Thomas Krupinski · « **Reply #2 on:** May 11, 2004, 08:26:53 PM »

I don't buy into that. Have quite a few of the old products before the boycott and don't plan to buy any more of theirs. What's going to happen the next time the pressure is put on?

That article sounds like run of the mill gun rag garbage that I also ignore.

Dusty Miller · « **Reply #3 on:** May 11, 2004, 08:55:57 PM »

It was my understanding that since those "less than distinguished" days S&W was purchased by an English company and has repudiated the deal the previous owners made with Big Brother. Did I get the wrong info?

Thomas Krupinski · « **Reply #4 on:** May 11, 2004, 09:51:45 PM »

Yea, and the last I heard was that the CEO was a convicted felon.

williamlayton · « **Reply #5 on:** May 11, 2004, 11:58:49 PM »

Tom-
Can you give a little more detail and some links or refrences to S&W's CEO?
Blessings

Thomas Krupinski · « **Reply #6 on:** May 12, 2004, 03:11:59 AM »

Don't recall exactly were I saw it, but I believe it was on one of the threads here. It had some verbage as to how ironic it was that he was able to run a firearms manufacturing company, but not allowed to own or possess one. It appears no one ever asked about his background when he was hired and he did not volunteer it.

I believe it was also a story about it on the CNN website. It was about a couple of months ago when I believe it was revealed and he offered his resignation and their board declined it I believe.

Sorry not much help on it now, coffee is not ready yet!

Dusty Miller · « **Reply #7 on:** May 12, 2004, 06:27:07 AM »

Does anybody have information that could confirm that the company, under new management, has in fact repudiated the deal the former management made with the government?

Iowegan · « **Reply #8 on:** May 12, 2004, 07:17:58 AM »

As a gunsmith, I have my own feelings about S&W. Not from a political standpoint or the "locks". In recent years, most of the dash numbers ment a cheaper way to make a gun, not an improvement. I have seen an overall decline in the fit, finish, and internal parts.

southern utah · « **Reply #9 on:** May 12, 2004, 07:19:39 AM »

I havn't bought any new S&Ws since the big agreemeent but I know the company was bought out a few years ago. Here is the story on the so called felon. I does not tell the charges but you can become a felon for a number or reasons. Below is fron their webb site.

Smith & Wesson Announces Changes to Board of Directors

SPRINGFIELD, Mass., Feb 27, 2004 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (AMEX:SWB), parent company of the legendary 152 year old Smith & Wesson Corp., announced today changes in the Board of Directors. In connection with plans the Company laid out months ago to have a majority of independent directors, the board announced the addition of a new independent board member with the appointment of Barry M. Monheit.

Mr. Monheit has been associated with FTI Consulting, Inc., a NYSE-listed, multi-disciplined consulting firm since July 1992, and served as the President of FTI's Financial Consulting Division from May 1999 through November 2001. Mr. Monheit has served as a financial advisor to large corporations and various creditor and lender groups with clients such as Revco Drugstores, Circle K Corporation, Greyhound Bus Company, Continental Airlines, Sakowitz Department Stores, Federated Department Stores and Coleco Industries.

The board also announced the appointment of Dennis Bingham as Chairman of the Board and Bob Scott as Vice Chairman of the Board. Mr. Bingham has been an independent director of the board since 2002, and Mr. Scott, former CEO and President of Smith & Wesson Corp., has been a board member since 2001.

James Minder, who formerly served as Chairman of the Board, will remain as an independent director. While recognizing the very serious mistakes in his early life, the board believes that Mr. Minder has led an exemplary life for 35 years and has provided tremendous services to the community, including contributing positively to Michigan families for three decades through the founding and management of his very successful child welfare organization. Based on this, and other successful business experience, the board believes he should and can continue to provide invaluable input to Smith & Wesson within both strategic planning and the ongoing drive toward operational excellence.

As previously reported, from 1976 to 1997, Mr. Minder served as president and CEO of Spectrum Human Services, Inc., a Michigan-based provider of counseling and mental health treatment services for neglected, abused, delinquent and developmentally disabled children and families, which Mr. Minder founded in 1976. Mr. Minder received a BS degree in engineering, a BA degree in sociology and history and an MSW degree in social work from the University of Michigan.

The board is working with Spencer Stewart, a leading management consulting firm that specializes in both board director and senior-level executive searches and appointments. The board expects to add two more independent board members in the first half of 2004.

In addition, John A. Kelly has been elected as Chief Financial Officer of Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. Mr. Kelly, 45 years old, has been an employee of Smith & Wesson Corporation since 1984, and has been the CFO of Smith & Wesson Corp. since 1994.

About Smith & Wesson

Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation is the parent company of Smith & Wesson Corp., one of the world's leading producers of quality handguns, law enforcement products and firearm safety and security products. Law enforcement personnel, military personnel, target shooters, hunters, collectors and firearms enthusiasts throughout the world have used the Company's products with confidence for more than 150 years. Smith & Wesson Corp. also manufacturers and markets Smith & Wesson branded handcuffs and other products utilizing its metal working expertise. For more information, visit http://www.smith-wesson.com.

Monday :: March 08, 2004

Background Check Outs Smith and Wesson Chairman
The latest CEO to be outed by a background check is James Minder of Smith & Wesson:

Springfield handgun maker Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. found... out the hard way last week after a report surfaced that James J. Minder Jr., its new 74-year-old chairman, spent 15 years in prison in the 1950s and 1960s for a series of armed robberies and an attempted prison break in Michigan. Minder resigned from the chairmanship but will retain a seat on the board.

Mr. Minder is one of the many who completely turned his life around. We see no value and a lot of heartache surrounding this outing. The Wall St. Journal reports (subscription only):

His story is all the more remarkable for what he has done since. After his final prison stint ended in 1969, he decided to turn his life around, he says. Before becoming chairman of Smith & Wesson, he spent more than two decades setting up programs and group homes for delinquent, abused, neglected and developmentally disabled children and young adults in Michigan. By the mid-1990s, a nonprofit he started with his wife was providing board, counseling or foster-home placement for more than 1,000 young people a day.

"If my work in the field changed the lives of those children, then I accomplished what I set out to do and this is the legacy I leave behind," he says.

Posted Monday :: March 08, 2004

Graybeard · « **Reply #10 on:** May 12, 2004, 11:58:45 AM »

No I had not but have now.

To me the most telling part of it is the continuation of the lies and half truths all of the media continue to spout regarding S&W. That is from his article this quote:

Quote

The new owners of Smith & Wesson incorporated their proprietary internal lock into every gun they manufactured. Then, and to their everlasting credit, since the Dogpatch crowd was out of the White House, they completely ignored virtually every other provision of the hated HUD agreement.

There has been ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE SHOWN THAT S&W HAS MADE ANY ATTEMPT to be relieved of the agreement. Even tho we now have the most gun friendly admistration this country is likely to see for a LONG time.

You may bet the farm that the NEXT time a democrap takes over the office the agreement will be dusted off and either S&W will toe the line or they will be taken to task by the democraps for it. So why do they not NOW while Bush is in office make an honest attempt to get out from under it?

That's ALL I personally ask of them. AN HONEST ATTEMPT to get out from under it. Not a back door claim they aren't following it. But an HONEST ATTEMPT to relieve themselves of the legal responsibilities of it. Nope they want it both ways. They want to NOW cliam they are not following it to get folks to buy from them again. BUT when the democraps are back in office they want to be able to kiss butt with them by still having it in place and HOPE that they will get the promised perks it offered them.

Nope I have no more use for the new owners than the previous ones. That's a crying shame to as prior to the agreement S&W was THE gun at my house. I still own several from those preagreement days. But NOT ONE RED CENT has been spent on anything S&W related since.

GB

Shootingamigo · « **Reply #11 on:** May 12, 2004, 04:25:34 PM »

The HUD agreement in itself was found to be in error before Smith and Wesson was sold FROM THOMPSON INDUSTRIES to an AMerican Site maker. The court ruled HUD Secretary didnt have the power to make agreements with any company and was further found to be a high pressure tactic under the guise of Law. Further found the HUD Department had no power under the Constitution to exclude or include any company from entering into a contract for anything . In this instance the purchase of handguns would be done by the state not Federal government as provided by the Constitution. The Hud Secretary then insisted the agreement was made by urging of the White House. this as well was met with a frown. The then Secretary of HUD was asked to resign. Part of this lawsuit was paid for by Ruger. So you see the AGREEMENT was null and void before sale but contributed to sale. The Smith and Wesson Company was excluded by the other gun makers from shared council. Bill Ruger instituted a plan to share findings and share legal strategies along with seperate council for each gun maker. These meetings were held in secret and the findings were then sent to the HUD Secretary by Thompson Industries. Very shortly after discovery the gun makers voted to exclude Smith and Wesson from further discussions meetings and from joint council. It was Bill Rugers legal team that lead to the dismissal of the Agreement. Thru these shared council strategies the gun makers are being brought to trail as a whole as opposed to sinle company law suits. This strengthened the shared council theory and each gunmaker contributes and Ruger picks up the rest. As of today not one lawsuit has been won by the cities involved. As far as the CEO of Smith and Wesson it is true he is a felon. Did receive a 25 yr sentence for armed robbery and not his first but first as an adult. He agreed to step down but the board gave him a position on the board as his engineering background is not replaceable. He fully admitted this and further the board was aware of what he had done before it came to light. Since them he achieved his Masres and then a PHD and does contribute a good portion of his income to troubled youth programs around the country. He gives talks to at risk groups and eith it is free or the money is donated back. My only hope is that he used a Smith and Wesson in those early years LOL!! I am happy with the outcome I buy Smith and Wesson and own stock in the new company and intend to purchase more. I really dont care what was done in the past with the Evil Empire but do know they are on track. My only concern is that Bill Ruger has passed and was the backbone of the distraught and pressured industry. I dont think there is another strong enough to keep the gunmakers in line. But I do know the more we pick these people apart and let on and on about this that and the other we keep feeding these anti gun people. I feel if you dont want a Smith or Colt or Taurus be reasonable about it I dont think we need to whine about what ever bankrutcy bad board memeber thing comes up.I personally think they are all one skip and a jump from closaing their doors over these frivolous lawsuits. The legal bills are staggering. Ruger is still fighhting the product fault lawsuits from years ago. Buy one of each and use them for door stops, in the fish tank for your fish to breed in hang them on your christmas trres use them for hammers paperweights or whatever. It is far better to have a Felon CEO than a FACE RAPING PRESIDENT>

Deaf Smith · « **Reply #12 on:** May 12, 2004, 06:34:33 PM »

evil considering truely a rehabilated man. What should he have done continue hus life of crime instead? Give the man full credit he has done a lot of good with his life and he deserves a full parden and a brand new Gun from every model S&W makes!
Jim L

papajohn428 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 12, 2004, 08:37:56 PM »

I have always preferred to buy, and will continue to buy S&W revolvers. What Tompkins PLC did has no bearing (IMO) on the men and women of Smith & Wesson, or their stance on anything. S&W/Tompkins was coerced into the agreement, and likely thought it was simply the lesser of two evils, in a time when all guns were BAD because the Millions Moms et al said so. The hysterical rhetoric of the 90's has thankfully given way to clearer thinking and better leadership. They may still be under attack, but the haze of political correctness seems to be lifting, thank heaven, for a glimpse of common sense. The battle isn't over, but the smoke and mirror tactics of the media/left have been discarded, because they didn't fool anyone but fools.
Having said that, I believe the new S&W leadership is prepared to fight the good fight without flinching, and public support can only make them stronger. A united front against ALL anti-gun measures is what is needed, we can't let the media keep telling us what we think. Too many democrats/liberals/antigunners have been swayed by the leftmedia, we need to keep up the dialogue of truth, and maybe some of them will see the light we live by.
Now, if S&W would just make their guns a little more affordable....... :wink:

PJ

williamlayton · « **Reply #14 on:** May 12, 2004, 11:38:28 PM »

Those were good post and I gained from the information.
thanx and Blessings to all

GBO MGMT · « **Reply #15 on:** May 13, 2004, 02:34:56 PM »

Shootingamigo, I'd be interesting in knowing the source of the "supposed" information you shared. My own investigations have not shown what you have said to hold water. I'd love to be proven wrong. But I think what you've stated are mere half truths and mostly lies from the S&W crowd and their cronies in the magazine business. Please prove me wrong with a verifiable source of factual information. I'd love to be wrong on this one. I've never seen one shred of proof any of that is factual.

GB

paladyn · « **Reply #16 on:** May 14, 2004, 05:58:39 AM »

The owner of my local gun shop told me S&W had in fact told the government to shove their agreement. Don't know if it's true or not, but I do not use semi-autos at all. I love revolvers and only revolvers. And of those Colt and S&W make the best, and I can't afford Colts.
The two S&W's I do own however are at least 15 years old. The only other one I have right now is a Dan Wesson model.
Ruger's the only other revolver I would consider.
And I read Bill Ruger also signed anti-gun agreements in the 90s.

paladyn · « **Reply #17 on:** May 14, 2004, 10:53:44 AM »

Quote from: Dusty Miller

It was my understanding that since those "less than distinguished" days S&W was purchased by an English company and has repudiated the deal the previous owners made with Big Brother. Did I get the wrong info?

Actually, S&W was owned by that English company when they made the Clinton deal. I'm told that company sold them when people started boycotting them back to Americans, and it is they who have repudiated the deal.

myronman3 · « **Reply #18 on:** May 14, 2004, 03:18:40 PM »

it seems that lots of you were 'told' or 'had heard'. funny, no one has been able to post any PROOF that the contract is null and void. seems to me to be very enforcable as soon as someone comes along and wants to.
it seems that a bunch of folks will believe anything that comes down the grapevine. PROOF, please...(yeah, i know i will be waiting a long time)

Dusty Miller · « **Reply #19 on:** May 14, 2004, 08:50:26 PM »

OMIGOD!! Now we have somebody demanding PROOF in an internet forum!! Can anything more monumental happen in the entire rest of humananity's future?!!

williamlayton · « **Reply #20 on:** May 15, 2004, 12:12:39 AM »

Scripture-
Proove all things.
I like proof, an most folks doan mind sharing the source of information. It is a good thing to check it out.
This thing with Smith is kinda understandable, in a way, let sleeping dogs lie. Kinda a truce, course this could all come crashing down if'n tha right idiot wakes up witout his coffee.
Hope he aint reading these post.
Blessings

myronman3 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 15, 2004, 03:43:14 AM »

that is the thing. it could still be enforced. and thereby could still erode our second amendment rights. this is the whole point. buffalo yourselves if you like; but that is the way it is.
and sorry, dusty; i dont swallow anything unless i know it is FACT. you bet i will ask for proof. you present something here as truth; you had better be able to back it up. there are too many here that will call you on it. and trying to shame someone into silence aint going to work either. your reputation is in your hands.

magooch · « **Reply #22 on:** May 15, 2004, 04:10:32 AM »

. It is far better to have a Felon CEO than a FACE RAPING PRESIDENT>[/quote]
What does that mean?

williamlayton · « **Reply #23 on:** May 15, 2004, 02:23:18 PM »

Magooch-
Now I aint trying to defend the man or justify what he did but I seriously doubt that it was a forced or coerced situation. Seems it was more of a groupie kinda thing.

Blessings

paladyn · « **Reply #24 on:** May 16, 2004, 06:31:19 AM »

Well, the owner of my gun shop is an honest guy, and he knows S&W people. If he says they disregarded the agreement, that's good enough for me.

Dusty Miller · « **Reply #25 on:** May 16, 2004, 07:14:15 AM »

I dunno, I think he ought to have to PROVE it!!

myronman3 · « **Reply #26 on:** May 16, 2004, 10:05:18 AM »

good one! feel better?
still, i see no proof. perhaps there is none? :eek:

i see...

Thomas Krupinski · « **Reply #27 on:** May 16, 2004, 10:18:53 AM »

Quote from: myronman3

good one! feel better?
still, i see no proof. perhaps there is none? :eek:

i see...

Many times I have been asked to take the word of someone who knows.

After all the facts came out, it has come down far too many times that those who ask you to just trust their statements because they know are just wrong. I am with Myronman3 on this and I think it is good to demand proof.

Dusty Miller · « **Reply #28 on:** May 16, 2004, 10:47:45 AM »

There is no proof, you are correct. Even if the CEO of the board of S&W stood up publicly and repudiated the agreement there would be no proof. Even if he put it in writing there would be no proof because he has no legal obligation to live up to such a public statement. No matter what he said or did could provide proof because the company could still be living up to the deal behind the scenes. This is not like DNA evidence, you can't PROVE the company is not doing something it said it would not do. I thought all this was fairly obvious when this thread got started.

Thomas Krupinski · « **Reply #29 on:** May 16, 2004, 12:47:46 PM »

Quote from: Dusty Miller

There is no proof, you are correct. Even if the CEO of the board of S&W stood up publicly and repudiated the agreement there would be no proof. Even if he put it in writing there would be no proof because he has no legal obligation to live up to such a public statement. No matter what he said or did could provide proof because the company could still be living up to the deal behind the scenes. This is not like DNA evidence, you can't PROVE the company is not doing something it said it would not do. I thought all this was fairly obvious when this thread got started.

That's their problem! It's really hard to fix something after your have did something to destroy it, like the trust of your customers.