Dan C. Johnson , a S&W Interview Suggestion

[Gunslinger]

In this, http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=67480, thread you mentioned, and we have discussed, the fact that you soon will conduct an interview with the new owners of Smith & Wesson, Saf T Hammer.

As I have stated previously I am no writer, nor do I aspire to be one. However, and I hope you do not think this presumptuous of me, would it not be informative and productive to solicit questions from the membership here that they would like to have asked?
We do, after all, represent the core of their market base and it would seem only logical that an open exchange would be of benefit to not only the membership (the consumer) but to the company itself.
Heretofore Smith & Wesson, and now Saf T Hammer, have evaded questions from various reporters and the gun buying public alike. This, sir, places you in a unique postition and one that could afford the answers to questions that may well place this issue to rest.

So, what do you say? Would you entertain questions from the masses to ask of Smith/Saf T Hammer?

 

[C.R.Sam]

I second the motion.

Sam

 

[missmanytoes]

The only question I'm interested in knowing the answer to is: Are they going to dump that agreement? Because until *&* gets rid of it, I'm of the opinion that they can just die.

-sarah

 

[Gunslinger]

I agree Miss that is the most pertinent question and the one foremost in all gun owners minds.
However, be that as it may, I think we should try to remain as objective and diplomatic as possible and allow them (Saf T Hammer) to respond to questions presented in a polite, articulate manner.
To me at least if I were afforded the opporunity to interview the owners this is what I would strive to do in addition to asking that all telling question.

But, again, I am no writer and do not have an audience with the owners.

Bill

 

[Dan C. Johnson]

Great idea, Gunslinger, and I did ask for suggestions on questions at the Handguns forum I moderate for Alloutdoors. Sorry, I was a little slow posting over here. FL is one of the most active boards on the Net and I visit here often. I just don't have a lot of time to post on boards other than my own, but I do read a lot of the posts and get a lot of my ideas for articles based on what you guys are interested in. I read a lot of comments on many of the gun related boards, including FL, on the S&W purchase and formed my questions based I what I interpreted as important to gun owners. The questions were sent to Bob Scott last Thursday, he has replied, and the article should be going up very soon, hopefully this afternoon. Thanks for all the comments.

Dan C. Johnson

 

[Gunslinger]

Well, I would be less than honest if I did not say that I am more than a little disappointed that the interview questions were sent in last Thursday and our direct in put will not be included.
However, I am heartened to hear that you composed your questions based on the remarks made by members, again the core of their market, from various boards including ours.

I would be curious to know the questions asked and eager to hear where we may be allowed to see/read the responses from Saf T Hammer.
Am I being overly presumptuous again if I were to ask if the pertinent question was put before them?

Bill, with an inquiring mind.

 

[Dan C. Johnson]

Gunslinger;
I did ask him directly what he plans to do about the agreement. Unfornately, his reply was not so direct. Since Alloutdoors is paying me for web rights to the article and interview I can't ethically paste it here. I will post a link to the article as soon as it is up though, looks like it will be tomorrow sometime. The complete interview is in the article. Since it was a written interview, I was not able to followup on his replies like I would have liked to, but there are five questions and I hope you will feel I covered the important points.

Dan C. Johnson

 

[Gunslinger]

I did ask him directly what he plans to do about the agreement. Unfornately, his reply was not so direct.

Thank you but that comes as no surprise.

Since Alloutdoors is paying me for web rights to the article and interview I can't ethically paste it here.

I understand.

Since it was a written interview, I was not able to followup on his replies like I would have liked to.....

This may explain why they agreed to a writen interview.


In a thread earlier you asked that we give them (Saf T Hammer) the benefit of the doubt and remain objective. Without their open exchange with their customers I cannot see where they will get nor deserve any "slack" at this point. We, the gun owning public, are open and explicit in our views regarding the company, the sale to an American firm and the agreement. They, on the other hand, it would seem, are playing politics in the grand tradtion and speaking out of half of their mouth. To this point they have been unresponsive to questions from us and/or reporters. That tells me one of two things. They either do not care or they plan to continue the agreement and do not have the cajones' to say so even though that is the question they know we all want an answer to.

Bill....laughing a sad, knowing laugh

 

[USP45]

Dan, Thanks much for your hard work. I'm looking forward to reading your interview.

~USP

 

[Dan C. Johnson]

Here's the link to the article;

http://www.alloutdoors.com/info/newsandreports/display_article.asp?ID=9705

Dan Johnson

 

[johnbt]

Thank you.

Time will tell which previous owner's values he is referring to in his closing statement.

John

 

[C.R.Sam]

Nicely done Mr Johnson.

Mr Scott's responses appear to be justifiably guarded. Therefore he didn't really say anything that would allay my suspicions.

Now, even more, I wonder what is REALY going on.

Is the pig in a poke really a rabid wolverine?

Sam

 

[RHC]

At the NRA meeting James Baker said the administration considered the agreement a "dead letter." I'll wait until S & W and the government formally rescind the agreement.

By the way, I'd always heard that the reason you didn't buy a pig in a "poke" (a bag) was that sellers would put cats in them and claim they were pigs, but I guess a runty little pig would be just as bad.

 

[USP45]

I guess the boycott is going to go on...

RS: Our first priority is to restructure the company in a manner that reflects the current realities of the market and Smith & Wesson's revenue level. We must get our own house in order first and deal with the things we can control here. Any legal issues that exist today will be there in 60 to 90 days and we will look at them at that time. Our very focused initial priority is the structure and operation of the company.

S$W's money/sales problems will only be worse in 90 days. Their legal problems don't change no matter how they treat the HUD/Boston Agreements.

RS: We will utilize Saf-T-Hammer's innovative products on Smith & Wesson firearms, when and where it is appropriate. The design of some S&W's will not allow for use of the Saf-T-Trigger and some will. We believe it is the best option available to meet some of the existing legal requirements on some of Smith & Wesson's products. Smith & Wesson will continue to research possible Authorized User Only technology under the terms of the grant given us by the federal government, so yes it is an ongoing project.

IOW...
1. That part of the product line that doesn't work with 'Trigger will be dropped in 60 days.
2. The New S$W will try to convince HUD that the 'Trigger satisfies part of the Agreement.
3. The Agreement mandates the research and development of "Smart" tech.

Seems to me, plan 'A' is to try to live under the HUD/Boston Agreements.

Let's get ready to spend $8 million in about 6 months to buy S$W and Saf-T-Hammer.

What a shame...