S&W - Let me get this straight...

B

Big Dog Dad

New member
Let me see if I have this straight in my mind. I'm supposed to continue with the boycott of S&W because of the deal it made under previous ownership with the devil (Klinton). The ultimate result of this is to drive one of the oldest American gun makers out of business. This will really make the anti-gun crowd sad. Correct? This will narrow my search for any new revolver to the man who brought you the 10 round magazine limit, Bill Ruger and his marvelous collection of "They're really built strong" revolvers. Let's see, if I take a cinder block and fasten a chunk of gas pipe to it, it too will be very strong. The only problem is that if I conducted a poll, I bet the cinder block would probably break even in terms of beauty and workmanship. Or, I could look to Brazil for their collection of grip exerciser, recycled beer cans and rusty Ford fenders melted metal revolvers. Let's see, I could always pick from the two pieces that Colt produces each year. Oh, I forgot, there's always Freedom Arms that make marvelous revolvers. The only trouble is that I'm in a dilemma. Do I buy that new house or spend the same on a revolver? Not quite the same, but rapidly approaching each other. Just some inane ramblings on what to do with S&W. Feel free to flame away!!
 
A

AC's & 45's

New member
All you are supposed to do is follow your conscience.

I personally do not like s&w autos at all. Their revolvers are ok.

I however will not buy a new one. All of the gun makers have had to make some concessions in order to survive. Smith and wesson however went way too far and sold us out. They have had the chance to make ammends since slick's reign. The problem is they didn't. That is why I will never own a s&w.

I agree it is a shame to see them going down the tubes. Especially so when they should have the power to get us back.

A US company owned by foreigners is a recipe for diaster for OUR freedoms. But that is my opinion and my conscience speaking!

:barf:
 
B

bastiat

New member
This seems to be popping up alot, but it's always the same old arguments. So therefore, here's the same old counter arguments:

1. The agreement, by which the new ownership is abiding, accomplishes many things the anti's want. They also manage to do it without even going through the legislative process. Backdoor lawmaking at it's worst. As Mike Irwin said, at least ruger had the decency to go through the legislative process.

PS- I don't buy rugers, either. Until they work towards making sure the 94 ban sunsets. Then maybe I'll consider it.

2. S&W goes out of business. Good. Guess what happens to the patents and the equipment? Think they just sit around collecting dust? Nope. They get sold to satisfy the creditors. But I don't think they'll be selling the HUD agreement at an auction.

Result: Their guns will still be made. Maybe by a different manufacturer. If you think that's bad, well, if you think S&W is operating under the same ownership as 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago, you're wrong. There's nothing wrong with ownership changing hands. It could actually result in something good.

3. There's also dan wesson.

4. Two of the biggest S&W fans on board (or at least the with the best knowledge of their firearms) are Tamara and Mike Irwin. Do a search and see their comments on current stock S&W quality. It isn't good from their perspective. Others have said that stock taurus now matches or beats S&W in out-the-door quality for new revolvers.

5. I'll answer one of your future arguments in advance: "S&W employs american workers that had nothing to do with the agreement - we can't punish them for the what the previous owners did."

Judge smales replies: "Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."
In all brutal honesty, there are other jobs out there, and the RKBA is more important than a few hundred jobs or any one gun maker.

_________________________

And while you're formulating your next response, please take a look at the summary of what the agreement, when it is enforced, will accomplish. Tell me which of these aren't that bad. Heck, if your'e feeling adventurous, go line by line and defend every one of them.


All guns must have internal locking devices
All guns must have Authorized User Technology ('smart' guns)
All guns must have a DA trigger pull of 10 lbs or more
All guns must have a barrel length of 3", unless it meets some set performance specs
All pistols cannot have a combined length and height of less than 10"
All pistols must have a manual safety
All new guns cannot accept pre-ban high cap magazines.
All guns will be ballistically fingerprinted

All dealers can no longer sell government defined 'assault weapons'.
All dealers can no longer sell pre-ban high capacity magazines.
All dealers can no longer sell at gun shows that allow private sales
All dealers can only show a customer one gun at a time. Comparing two similar guns side by side not allowed.
All dealers must store their guns in fireproof vaults after hours

All buyers must complete a certified training course
All buyers must wait 14 days between buying handguns
All buyers will contribute via their purchase to a fund to educate the public about the dangers of guns.
 
Last edited:
M

Mike Irwin

Staff
Few facts for you to gnaw on:

1. When Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W, they knew they were buying the deal, too. They're now responsible for it, even if they didn't negotiate it.

2. When purchasing S&W, Saf-T-Hammer execs apparently publically stated that they would abide by existing agreements.

3. Saf-T-Hammer, since it purchased S&W, has done/said nothing that would lead anyone who follows the situation closely to think that they are attempting to nullify the agreement.

4. Just because the agreement is dormant now, with a semi-pro-gun administration is in office, doesn't mean that it always will be dormant. If Saf-T-Hammer doesn't work to extricate itself from the agreement, an anti-gun administration could shove it down their, our our, throats.

5. The S&W agreement is FAR more dangerous than Ruger's contribution to firearms laws. The word "law" is an important distinction -- Ruger worked inside of the Constitutional process for passing laws to craft something, while not very palatable, that was one hell of a lot better than what was being proposed in Congress at the same time.

In contrast, the Clinton administration, not having been able to get any interest from Congress in passing even more draconian anti-gun laws (while ignoring its pledge to enforce laws already on the books), did an end-run around Congress to get, extra-legally, what it couldn't get legally.

6. Ruger's "contribution" is actually fairly narrow in scope, but again, not very palatable. S&W's "contribution," on the other hand reaches out to attempt to regulate independent businesses by making S&W a defacto enforcement arm of the government.

7. If S&W did go out of business, just what would really be lost? There are a dozen firearms manufacturers, which have REFUSED to sign this, or a similar, agreement that would simply move up to fill S&W's place.

8. If the above-mentioned void is immediately filled by companies that want no part of this agreement, how do the anti-gunners actually win?
Answer, they don't. They don't get anything of what they wanted, other than a phyrric "victory" that they can crow about.

9. The number of S&W firearms that are currently on the used/secondary market is probably more than S&W's total output for the past 5 years combined. The used market for S&Ws is flooded, and likely will remain flooded for quite a few years.
 
C

C.R.Sam

New member
And, they have been under five owners so far. No big deal if they change hands again except maby for the better.

Sam
 
D

Doug 29

New member
Big Dog Dad,

I'm in agreement with you. All of the current Smith & Wesson revolvers that I've examined have been of SUPERB quality! I wouldn't hesitate to buy one.
 
S

Selfdfenz

New member
BDD, would you buy a car from a company that wanted to do business with the government so badly that they advocated YOU not be allowed to drive the car you bought from them?
If the answer is yes, go get yourself a Smith.

JMHO

Selfdfenz
 
W

Will Beararms

New member
Please see the "Petition" post in the Suggestions thread. If you don't mind a little work, and I know you don't please give us some input and we can work together to make this thing a reality.

I bought a CZ 83 .380 today. The owner of the gun shop, second owner I've talked to in one week saying the same thing, stated that Smith is under new ownership and the agreement is considered null and void. If we can back this up with something in writing to that effect, I believe your troubles and Smith's will be over.

This may come at no surprise bit the shop owner told me he has not trouble selling the SW revolver and naming his price but the autos just don't move at all. Thus, he is one of the official out lets for SW Close-Outs on Auto. He has a TSW4566 for $439.00 w/o the light rail BTW.

I love the 3913/3953 series and I don't know many that don't but back to the subject at hand, we can make a difference for ourselves and future generations--------------let's roll.
 
M

Master Blaster

New member
The whole situation sucks all the way around.

Safety Hammer could repudiate the deal by saying it aint constitutional to require their customers (a third party) to abide by a deal they did not sign. The current justice dept might let them out of it but they have made no effort.

How about if I signed an agreement with the govt that said you would have to pay me $100 every time you use the word gun?
:mad:

The used ones in blue made in the 50s 60s and 70s are much better than the new ones, and they are less expensive. Go to the gun shop and compare them side by side.
BUY USED.
 
B

blades67

New member
I'll help Smith & Wesson out of their economic slump just as soon as they help themselves out of the hud agreement, both in writing and public statement.:mad: :barf:
 
S

Scarborough

New member
I also like S&W but my personal boycot continues. Mike is right about the availability of the used models. If a guy wants a Smith just buy a pre owned gun. Cheaper that way and cheap is good!
 
B

BigG

New member
Big Dog Dad,

I think you summed it up quite well. :)

There is a strong puritanical element who will try to indoctrinate you but let your conscience be your guide.
 
9

9x19

New member
The new Saf-T-Hammer S&W does not deserve my support... they have done absolutely nothing to earn it.

The agreement is in effect, if not being enforced, and until it is null and void... or the S&W name is no longer associated with s&w revolvers (ie patent and tooling sold to someone else, like Glock :D), I'll abstain from purchasing any new ones.

As an aside, at Dallas gun shows, it is possible to examine products from a wide range of manufacturers, both new and used. IMNSHO, the latest production S&Ws suck hind tit when next to the latest production Ruger and Taurus offerings. The "heritage" line is way overpriced and really of lesser quality than an original example of the guns they mimic, while immediately depreciating upon purchase as opposed to the used guns steadily increasing in value.

Yep, lots of reasons, be they political, aesthetic, or financial, to stay far away from new S&Ws...
 
M

Mikul

New member
The boycott of S&W products has kept other manufacturers from agreeing to the same deal. Every time you avoid S&W, you help keep that ridiculous agreement from spreading.

Read the agreement, it is not about safety features.

If we drive S&W out of business, we've lost a valued firearm manufactuer. It will be a sad day. If we let them thrive, we drive a spike into ourselves and the rest of the gun industry. S&W dealers cannot sell "assault weapons," or standard capacity magazines, there would be waiting periods, and there's more. Imagine the widespread damage that will have to all firearm manufacturers, not just S&W.

Ruger is a separate issue. He sold us out. Some say he helped write a deal that would have been far worse if the politicians had written it. And there's Ruger's $1,000,000 donation to the NRA. Personally, I would buy a Ruger, but only as a last resort.
 
G

George Hill

Staff Alumnus
S&W autos are not that bad. They are smooth and reliable with very good triggers and sights.
They have only two issues:
1. Slide Mounted Safety/Decocker.
2. Screwed up grip angle (for me).

Now, BOTH of these issues are resolved in the S&W 945 series. I consider these to be very fine automatic handguns. My question is... if S&W wanted to build a upper scale 1911 - then what didn't they use the same parts that they mill for some other companys that produce 1911s? Why does the 945 have that round plug in the slide where they normally put a safety? Why is the frame non standard in pattern so that normal 1911 aftermarket parts don't easily fit? I don't call that a 1911... Yeah - it is a great single action auto - but JMB wouldn't want to take credit for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top