Smith&Wesson

[Walter]

I've been reading threads tonight, and I have seen a couple of derogatory
remarks made toward S&W. I state up front that I am in no way associated
with S&W, except that I own a couple of their pistols. Which I paid cash
for.
That said, I would hope that people who have been down on S&W would give them another chance. The company is no longer owned by a British company, the ones who made the (Good Buddy) deal with the Clinton administration.
It was bought out several years ago by American businessmen, some of
whom were former exec's with S&W.
Those guys are trying to turn S&W around, and undo the damage to the
honorable name of the company that the former owners and the Clinton
administration did to the company.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/in_the_field/smith_wesson_delfay/

Check out this link and see if you don't think S&W deserves some support.

 

[Majic]

There's more to people's contempt of S&W than the sellout. In fact you don't hear a lot about the sellout anymore.

 

[Sir William]

Correct me if I am mistaken. The last I heard was that S&W was to be given preference in purchasing by federal authorities. Glock, Sig, HK, Berreta and FN are what the federal authorities are buying. What is up with that?

 

[9x19]

Federal Contract Law pervents giving preference to one company over another.

S&W would get my support IF they made products that I wanted.

I do not want locks in my sideplates, scandium, titanium, or frosty anodizing.

The new owners may think they are " ...trying to turn S&W around, and undo the damage to the honorable name of the company... ", but so far, IMO, they haven't exhibited one whit of a clue as to what that will take.

Blued steel (Stainless), case colors, K frames, and J frames (even a few N frames)... no suck-up special editions with gaudy gold filigree, no custom shop Luke Skywalker signature models, and NO SIDEPLATE LOCKS!!! :barf:

Of course, the fact that they were purchased by a company who were trying to foist locks on us anyway means they will not be turning things around.

Luckily, there are still lots of good used, REAL S&W revolvers on the market.

I think I'll buy those instead...

 

[XavierBreath]

I support all the folks who sold off their S&W revolvers in a fit of anger. As a matter of fact, I support them at the used gun counter with cash every chance I get.

I love those old blued and smooth wheelguns, and I buy them at great prices when I can find them. If Smith & Wesson still made the revolvers I like, I might buy them new, but why buy a new gun that I don't like for three times the price of a gun I do like?

I really don't care about the Clinton deal, it's the lawyer locks, the graffiti on the gun, and the lightweight frames that I turn away from. S&W used to make great guns though!

 

[coyote2]

XB
i have to agree with you and the others, S&W of new just doesn't make the guns i want to buy. i look for the older ones before all the trouble with management and QC and buy those instead. you can find some good deals on good used ones now days.

 

[45 Fu]

The fact is that S&W never got out of the deal they made with the government. Even though there is a much friendlier administration in than the last one, that doesn't mean things won't go back if people loose their minds and vote for the socialists again. A legal contract is binding and either party can be forced into action by the other until either both parties dissolve the contract or it is voided for legal reasons.

The argument that SInce they are now owned by Americans we should run back to them is very flimsy. Bill Klinton is an American (by name only) but that doesn't mean he's looking out for my best interests. The deal still stands and would no matter who bought them.

Until they get out of the deal I will not buy anything from them. I will buy used to be sure they get nothing, but I doubt that will happen as they currently make nothing that I want or need.

 

[Ozzieman]

I am a big S&W gun fan, but the company can go fly a kite

I own 7 N frames right now, and shoot them a lot, when the company became Clintons biggest support in the gun trade had there been any one else that made guns like them I would have been happy, but there was none. And I dont count Tarrus.
Now there back. I ask this, why are they back and no longer owned by the brits. I see the main reasion is BUCKS, no sales, no bucks.
OK there back, I contacted them wanting to know if I can get a new guts for a 25-5 presentation case.
I have never had a company slam a door in my face so hard before.
They are still on my POOP list and will remain there, I will continue to own S&W guns but none of them were built, or will be built after 1990, as close to the clinton admin as I will get.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"The company is no longer owned by a British company, the ones who made the (Good Buddy) deal with the Clinton administration."

Which makes absolutely no difference at all.

Buy the company, buy the agreement. It did NOT die with the change in ownership.

 

[Boats]

I am not mad at them enough to turn down a minty 1066. If anyone has a lead on one drop me a line.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Wrongo!

It IS the sellout. They are in FACT, STILL a party to the sellout agreement with HUD, and have not repudiated said agreement. They will undoubtedly (whaddya know) start complying with the agreement the next time a Dem prez gets in, and looks to enforce it, to avoid liability, despite their smoke, mirrors, and deceptive lip service about the agreement. It ain't got nothing to do with the ownership. The fact of the matter is, that the CURRENT management and CURRENT ownership has made a conscious decision to NOT repudiate it - the only rational explanation for this, in light of the fact that they are in actual breach, is that they are planning to gain its protection in the event HUD looks to enforce it and renews Clinton's lawsuit against gun manufacturers, next time a gun-grabber is in charge of the white house, and therefore HUD. What other possible explanation could there possibly be for them NOT formally, expliciting repudiating it? They are clearly planning, with malice aforethought, to butt-rape us the next time a Clinton is in office (which might literally be someone named Clinton). There is exactly ONE event that would cause me to buy S&W (and gawd I hope so cuz I sure want some), and that is an UNEQUIVOCAL, IRREVOCABLE REPUDIATION of the sellout agreement.

Those guys are trying to turn S&W around, and undo the damage to the honorable name of the company

Oh, I'm quite sure they are trying to "undo the damage" - that much is certain. Unfortunately they are choosing to do it through smoke, mirrors, and lies, rather than actual rejection/repudiation of the agreement. And, fortunately for them, but unfortunately for gun owners, the vast majority of the gun-buying public is swallowing their BS. PT Barnum was right. They're pretty slick however - they even fooled many with lots of functioning brain cells, such as moderators of this board.

 

[Smurfslayer]

Just some observations

I consider myself a Smith & Wesson "outsider", in that I didn't own one before the alleged sellout, during the clintoon years (yeah, I spelled it that way on purpose) and only recently at a gun show did I finally concede. Why?

Because other revolver triggers out there SUCK HUGE. I'm not sorry, 15 pounds is NOT a manageable double action pull guys. 9 pounds, otoh is...

Now that product is out of the way, let me point out a few items for you "sellout" boycotters.

EACH and EVERY gun company that sold LE restricted hi caps to ANY LE agency from '94 to '04 sold us out. They COULD have said 'no, not for civilians, not for LE, only legit DOD contract guns and that's it. But they didn't.

Ruger still doesn't sell standard caps any more.

Glock's senior VP advocated gun control ON NATIONAL TV.

Beretta backed odious anti-gun governor Parris Glendenning in MD.

Taurus is participating in the "Dumb-gun technology" program.

H&K will not sell parts to non armorers who are civilians, but will to LE agencies.


NOT ONE of the major gun manufacturers has come out publicly in support of pro gun legislation that I can remember - if you can, by all means show it. Where were they at the AWB renewal debate? I heard an awful lot of silence.

We could go a long way if the manufacturers would only supply the government LE agencies what is available to citizens, period. So, if you are going to boycott S&W on principle, you had better take a long hard look at exactly what the other manufacturers are doing for us too.

Not much, if anything.

 

[Hawgleg44]

Another company who has screwed us gun owners is Colt. They have said they are not selling any "pre-ban" configured AR's on the civilian market, only to law enforcement, even though the ban is over! Same goes for their full-capacity mags. I guess they agree that only law enforcement can be trusted with mags over 10-rounds.

But, I can't see why a dealer wouldn't sell one to you. No matter if they keep marking them "Restricted" or not, they are still legal to own, for those of you in free states anyway.

Colt is also working on a dumb (read "smart") gun, too.

 

[Smurfslayer]

Hypocrites, and we should call them on it.

The outgoing Frednecksburg VA police chief wanted all assault style semi autos for himself. He stated that their "only legitimate purpose was to murder people" (paraphrasing).

I got a letter to the ed. in the Frednecksburg Free lance star quoting him, and asking him why he, or any law enforcement agency like the VA SP had them since they were only for murder... you know, that whole "presumed innocent" business.

But back to S&W and the other manufacturers who "sold us out". Anybody up for a total boycott of all manufacturers? Because that's what it would amount to if you're going to pick one of them out on principle. Otherwise, we are no better hypocrites than they are.

I bought guns from S&W, Beretta and Taurus when they announced "free standard cap mag" deals. I didn't buy a Sig because :1: I was running low on money and 2: they're not left hand friendly.

Does it forgive the mortal sin of arming the government whild disarming civilians who make up the overwhelming majority of their sales? No.

 

[Hawgleg44]

Glock also almost entered into the same agreement with the Klinton administration. In fact, they agreed right up until the signing. The govt reps were there, along with the reps from S&W, but Glock, at the very last minute, didn't show. They had been talking to the "leadership" at S&W right up until the end.

 

[abelew]

Im not mad at S&W fo their "deal" anymore. It was a political decision that slapped us in the face. Its done, and I haven't bought a s&w that wasn't used. Im more upset about the stupid "scratch." I just dont understand why it had to be right there, so obvious, and if you buy a ss gun, the stuipid thing is BLACK. They couldnt even make the stupid thing match the color of the gun. Honestly, they should have put it somewhere unobtrusive, if they had to use one at all. I will never, (read: over my dead body) buy a gun with a "scratch."

I don't like colt, S&W (Even if they do make the best revos out there), or any other maker who does this BS. That said, sometimes you just cant get around buying something they made, because it is, cough, the best product for your needs. If this is the case, just dont buy it new, as used guns do not make profit for the company that made it, so you are not supporting the stupid trigger locks.

 

[johnbt]

I feel so dirty.

Everytime I visit my parents my father and I visit the range and tour the gun shops. The last couple of years he's expressed some interest in getting a .17 HMR, so we keep an eye out for a good one. We've looked at $1200+ Anshutzes (stocks felt funny to him), cheap revolvers (that's what he said and I couldn't disagree), Rugers with really bad triggers(any newbie could tell) and the run-of-mill entry-level American rifles. Oh, and CZs, the ones with the sloppy checkering done by the guy with a bad hangover.

So what do I see the last trip while he's still looking at a not-so-prime example of a 20-y-old Python? A new Model 647 that feels just about like his favorite 8 7/8-inch Model 17. Okay, it is stainless and it doesn't look like the 17 or his favorite Python, but the 3.5-pound SA trigger is clean and can be lightened. The DA is very nice as is.

He really liked it, so I bought it. Well not really, he sort of bought it, but I had to do the paperwork because he didn't want to. The old boys in there were chuckling at us, but my dad had the final laugh when he pulled out a checkbook with his name, my mom's and MINE on the account. They have more dern accounts than I can keep up with and I have a POA on each of them(though I've never used it.)

So I bought a new S&W, but I don't feel dirty - I was just pulling your leg.

Nice gun, too. Bought an EGW mount and put an Ultra Dot Match Dot on it. Next I'll lighten the trigger for him. My dad will be 84 next month and I don't care about your dern boycott.

John

 

[Walter]

Wow....

I knew a lot of gun owners were down on S&W, but I guess I didn't
realize the depth of the bitterness. I can't blame anybody for their
dislike of S&W though, because they did pretty much sell out the
2nd Amendment back during the Clinton administration.
Maybe I got taken in by the press releases of the new management of
S&W. But I have to say, I've been looking at that CS9, and it looks
pretty good to me.

 

[denfoote]

Walt,
Just wait for the hoots and hollers when you admit that you actually own a (gasp) Sigma!!!

By the way, I own a Sigma!!!

 

[MADISON]

S&W deal

S&W was owned by an English holding Company. The English are anti-gun. The S&W president did make an agreement with The Clinton Administration.
The pro-gun owners and would be buyers of Smith & Wessons said 'hell no' we won't buy Smiths. They almost bankrupted the Company. They are under new ownership and seem to be comming back.
The then president of Smith was transfered to be president of Murry Lawmowers. I read an article in September that Murry Lawmowers was in Chaper 11 Bankruptcy because of RECALLS, bad engineering and lack of financing.