As if there weren't enough reason to dislike Smith & Wesson...disgusting

F

FirstFreedom

Moderator
First, there was the deal with the devil, to which S&W is still a party to this day.

At some point, along came hillary holes on all guns.

Now, they prostitute their name out for these junky knives:

http://www.armorysupply.com/merchant.ihtml?&lastcid=338&pid=40033&Step=4

http://www.armorysupply.com/merchant.ihtml?&lastcid=338&pid=40032&Step=4

http://www.knifecenter.com/kc_new/store_detail.html?s=SW628

http://www.opentip.com/products/Bullseye_Hunting_Knife_Smith_Wesson_Knives-131355.html

Now, so what? What's new, you ask? Lots of makers of guns (Winchester, Remington, Colts) prostitute their names out on junk, right? Well yes, and as disgusting as that may be, this takes an additional ugly turn, as you can see. Not only are they crappy knives, but they're crappy knives that *are a direct copy of a quality knife company, Knives of Alaska*. They are spitting image ripoffs of original KOA designs, to leech off of their good name. Prostitute AND parasite AND spineless sellout of a company. Absolutely shameful, in my view. :barf:

Go here if you want the real deal:

http://www.knivesofalaska.com/
 
There's a distinct difference between your comparison of S&W's version, and the true KOA's.

One model for example: SW = $29.95 vs. KOA = $189 (for the cheap one).

They're cheap imitations priced as such. It's not as if they're charging KOA prices for non-KOA quality.

You don't like the company because of the legislation - fine. There's a discussion where we don't need rhetoric such as "prostitute".
 
uh oh, better boycot that there british tea! i mean smith wesson... anyhow i figure if they make a gun thats of hi qual, ill buy it. if not then i wont.
 
I think the answer to "so what" is that such shortcuts to high profitability are almost always pre-cursors to another type of shortcut to high profitability, and that is, cutting corners on production of their flagship (guns), including lessening QC, lessening materials quality (they already do that with the shrouded barrels), etc. Which in turn leads to junky flagship products and eventual demise. The writing is on the wall early here, IMO. They are slowly transforming from the pinnacle of American made ingenuity (registered magnums), into just another junk maker. The point is, it's STILL happening - no corner has been turned, or the trend pulled back from.

Just so you know, when S&W made a deal with the Clinton administration, S&W was a British owned company.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. And when they became an American-owned company, did the new management pull out of the agreement and repudiate it, or not, at that time? Or did they stay in the agreement, to this day, in order to whip it out and hide under it the next time the chips are down and it is expedient for them to do so (which will be when the next Dem potus admin seeks to renew the lawsuits)? There must be SOME reason they chose NOT to repudiate, right? Can you think of any reason not to repudiate, other than to screw us gun owners and the other manufacturers over when the need arises? Especially in light of the fact that repudiating formally and publicly would have HELPED them with sales at that time?
 
...almost always pre-cursors to another type of shortcut to high profitability...
Click to expand...

Whooooa!

You must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions like that!

I think I'm gonna nickname you Scott Bakula. You know, he's that guy from the show, Quantum Leap. :D :p :)

Ok - that was a poke in good fun I hope you don't take offense.

Here's what I think. I won't get down on any enterprise (large corporation, or small sole proprietor) who attempts to supplement their income through the sale of junk trinkets as long as it's legal and in good taste. Making cheap knives that people will purchase is certainly not bad taste - even if you don't like the company.

So looking at this thread touch on both cheap goods and bad legislation -- which one is this thread really supposed to be about?
 
I guess I'm not understanding the problem with the S&W knife.

It is a cheap knife. That's why it only costs $20.00. For those who can only afford to spend $20.00, or who are unwilling to pay more than $20.00, it'll do; I'll bet it's better than trying to cut with your fingernails. :D It's not like S&W is saying, "this knife is just as good as the Alaska knife!"

If you like the Alaska knife, and if you can afford it, then buy it. The same concept applies to guns (or anything else). I'd love to buy a Blaser hunting rifle. But guess what? I can't afford it. So I'll stick with a Remington. And if I can't afford that, then I'll buy a Stevens/Mossberg rifle. Or a single shot NEF rifle.

The agreement was a big mistake for S&W. The "paper tiger" :rolleyes: NRA (I love the recent deluge of trolls/MoveOn.Org NRA-bashing folks who have posted lately) sure made them pay for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top