George Hill
Staff Alumnus
I just read the article about the .45 CQB... It's clouded my thinking... aarrgghh - I'm falling to hype!
I WANT ONE!
I WANT ONE!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Help! I'm wanting a SMITH!
- Thread starter George Hill
- Start date
George If I were you I would buy one.If you read the article on the CQB then you read the other articles.It seems like the gun industry was never mad at S+W.Kimber still has them make slide forgings etc.The NRA never quit taking there ad money it goes on and on.The only ones we are going to hurt by putting S+W out of bussiness is us.Clinton and his gang would celebrate a huge victory by letting gun owners do something they couldn't do.Also we as voters over the years actually helped put S+W in the position they were in.And in this election may have done it again as 40% of gun owners voted for Gore.(not me)So place the blame where it goes right on our shoulders.BILLG
"We", Bill? maybe you, but not me.
We are not hurt if S&W goes out of business, we are better off. I really think other companies would think twice before making another agreement like that.
Do I like any S&W products? Sure I do. I just bought a USED mint condition model 625. Not a penny of that money went to S&W.
George, if you wait a bit, you'll be able to get what you want on the used market without directly financing a company that is willing to compromise your rights away for their own financial gain.
We are not hurt if S&W goes out of business, we are better off. I really think other companies would think twice before making another agreement like that.
Do I like any S&W products? Sure I do. I just bought a USED mint condition model 625. Not a penny of that money went to S&W.
George, if you wait a bit, you'll be able to get what you want on the used market without directly financing a company that is willing to compromise your rights away for their own financial gain.
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Yes I read the other articles...
A description of handcraftsmenship of a fine .45 is one thing.
A sentamental crybaby piece about the factory workers? Thats a Liberal kinda move... For the Children... Blah.
No - If I want that type of .45 I'll buy a SIG P220.
And be completely happy with it.
But I do like that bushing set up...
That slide mounted safety is still something I just can not tolerate.
The hype has worn off me...
A description of handcraftsmenship of a fine .45 is one thing.
A sentamental crybaby piece about the factory workers? Thats a Liberal kinda move... For the Children... Blah.
No - If I want that type of .45 I'll buy a SIG P220.
And be completely happy with it.
But I do like that bushing set up...
That slide mounted safety is still something I just can not tolerate.
The hype has worn off me...
I am not trying to start anything here but if you pay your NRA dues you are supporting S+W,if you buy a Kimber you support S+W.The NRA takes S+W money and Kimber pays S+W money.Many others in the Gun Industry support S+W.So do we boycott all who deal with S+W?Or do we just blame S+W.First we put S+W out of bussiness then Kimber,Colt,Remington,Winchester etc and on down the line.Just what Clinton wants Gun owners doing what the Government couldn't do.Don't get me wrong I do not agree with S+W decisions.But we need to focus on the problem which is the Governments position on gun control and our right to keep and bear arms.BILLG
WalterGAII
Moderator
Any ideas as to how Glock gets their money to Sheitz und Weasel??? Foikem.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Bill,
Little comment about NRA and Smith & Wesson.
When I was working for NRA (associate editor of American Rifleman, October 1990 to April 1994), the company that handled S&W's advertising purchaed advertising space in contract blocks.
This means that they can purchase a particular location, and KEEP that location, in the magazine.
When I was there, S&W was purchasing in 1-year increments, with right of renewal.
So, yes, NRA keeps taking S&W's money, but they are currently contractually obligated to do so.
Once the current contract runs out, however, it is very unlikely that NRA will continue to take S&W advertising.
Breaking the contract is possible, but the price required to break the contract is quite substantial.
Little comment about NRA and Smith & Wesson.
When I was working for NRA (associate editor of American Rifleman, October 1990 to April 1994), the company that handled S&W's advertising purchaed advertising space in contract blocks.
This means that they can purchase a particular location, and KEEP that location, in the magazine.
When I was there, S&W was purchasing in 1-year increments, with right of renewal.
So, yes, NRA keeps taking S&W's money, but they are currently contractually obligated to do so.
Once the current contract runs out, however, it is very unlikely that NRA will continue to take S&W advertising.
Breaking the contract is possible, but the price required to break the contract is quite substantial.
i deal with the NRA so that they can do what they can for my gun rights...i don't deal with s&w because they did nothing to aid my gun rights - they went with the fed-gov for monetary gain...i boycott s&w for selling out...i don't like kimber: has to do with their business policies, not their weapons....Colt at least went out, rather than sell out...as for who we boycott: i can only speak for myself....
to the point: if you want that s&w, get it...you don't have to justify yourself to anyone - that's your decision...i still carry an s&w, but i will never by another....and if s&w goes under, fine - their employees should have quit if they didn't agree with company policy...
to the point: if you want that s&w, get it...you don't have to justify yourself to anyone - that's your decision...i still carry an s&w, but i will never by another....and if s&w goes under, fine - their employees should have quit if they didn't agree with company policy...
Divide and conquer!
The Clinton administration is very good at it....Divide and conquer. If we turn against the biggest and best American manufacturer of firearms, we're doing exactly what they want! We (all of you...not me) put S&W out of business and we are eliminating one of our biggest gun rights supporters. C'mon folks, think about it! Who will be the next one they put the squeeze on? Colt's already doing what they want without any pressure and I don't hear any griping about them. Do all gun owners good and support S&W through this and I'm sure it will change when we get a new administration!
The Clinton administration is very good at it....Divide and conquer. If we turn against the biggest and best American manufacturer of firearms, we're doing exactly what they want! We (all of you...not me) put S&W out of business and we are eliminating one of our biggest gun rights supporters. C'mon folks, think about it! Who will be the next one they put the squeeze on? Colt's already doing what they want without any pressure and I don't hear any griping about them. Do all gun owners good and support S&W through this and I'm sure it will change when we get a new administration!
Nobody except S&W is hurt if S&W goes out of business...
The demand for firearms will remain unchanged, people will just be buying them from other manufacturers that didnt make a deal with the devil.
It is an unfortunate consequence of their decision that many of their employess may lose their jobs.
Those jobs, though, are not worth as much as our second amendment.
The demand for firearms will remain unchanged, people will just be buying them from other manufacturers that didnt make a deal with the devil.
It is an unfortunate consequence of their decision that many of their employess may lose their jobs.
Those jobs, though, are not worth as much as our second amendment.
S&W will put themselves out of business trying to live up to the agreement they made with the administration.They won't need any help from anyone else,as they can not and will not be able to dictate the policy they agreed to,and force compliance by others.However, just as bad feelings were voiced about COLT giving up the manufacture of some products,as soon as the supply began drying up ,prices of the items Colt dropped went up up up.So will it be with S&W.Supply and demand will rule!!! The same people who now say they won't have any S&W products anymore will wish the H--- they had a ton of it down the road a ways.
Mike Irwin
Staff
I posted this message (under the underscored line) in the General Handguns section a few days ago. Quite frankly, I'm rather stunned that some people view the spontaneous boycott of S&W as somehow being a maneuver that hurts us as gunowners.
Let's get something straight. If, by S&W going out of business for lack of sales prevents another manufacturer from signing a similar agreement, then IT IS WORTH IT TO SEE SMITH & WESSON DIE.
S&W CHOSE to sign this agreement. Do those of you who are castigating gunowners for opposing this agreement really KNOW what it entails?
Do you have ANY idea as to what could happen to our ability to purchase new firearms in this country if EVERY other manufacturer were to sign on to it?
Somehow you seem to think that the Government wants us to kill S&W. To that I say...
NO.
The Government wanted EVERY manufacturer to sign this agreement. They wanted consumers to do exactly what you're doing, IGNORE the horrific potential of this agreement, and blindly go about business while the Gov't forced other manufacturers into line.
Well, guess what, guys?
Those of you who continue to purchase S&W products?
You're the ones who are activly participating in the promotion of this agreement to all firearms manufacturers.
Quite frankly, YOU are the ones who are playing right into the Gov'ts hands.
Smart move, gents. You're going to be used like pawns, and you're going screw future generations.
Now that is something of which to be proud, don't you think?
Anyway, on to the message I posted in General Handguns.
------------------------------------------------------------
To all of those who think that gunowners are "cutting off our noses to spite our faces," I can only ask...
HOW?
If gunowners gave the impression that we simply didn't care about the agreement that S&W signed with the Government, even given the onerous provisions that the agreement entails, just how long do you think it would take other gun manufacturers to fold, too?
Where, then, would that leave us?
Take a REALLY good look at the provisions of S&W's agreement with the Government, and then try to imagine what the effect would be if EVERY manufacturer signed on as an active participant.
Here are just a few immediate consequences...
Try, for example, the "new guns won't accept high-cap magazines made before Sept. 1994."
No matter that such magazines are still LEGAL. No matter that that particular agreement has an expiration date on it. Essentially, a Glock 17 or a Sig 228 made under the terms of this agreement can't use perfectly legal magazines.
There's also an ancillary cost involved with that, the re-engineering costs. How much might that add to the cost of a new gun?
How about the "manufacturers will not sell guns that are resistant to fingerprints?"
Just what does that mean? How about no more Glocks, or any of the other polymer framed guns with impressed checkering or pebbling?
How about "authorized user technology"? Want to make a bet on what that will eventually entail? Computer-chip controlled firearms? How much cost will THAT add to a new gun? And, an even more critical question, will the Government be given the codes to these chipped guns that will allow them to develop a technology to disable them?
Think that's a pipedream, or an unrealize fear? Consider how far computers have come in the past 20 years. The system sitting on my desk at work has more power than 1,000 comparable 1980-era computers daisy chained together.
Do those of you who think "enough is enough" actually expect the Government to believe that this agreement is enough, or to fully comply with its own agreement?
Perhaps you've forgotten that S&W was promised relief from lawsuits ("city, state, county and federal parties agree to dismiss the parties from the pending suits"), which still hasn't materialized.
Perhaps you've also forgotten that the Government's promise of "most favored firearms manufacturer status" was rejected by Congress?
Read through the provisions of the agreement again. Look for open-ended statements that would allow the Government to come in and make extremely excessive demands of the manufacturer, dealer, or retailer. There are quite a few of them.
Ask yourself just how long it would be until the Government decides that "hey, NONE of Glock's firearms pass the safety requirement" because the trigger in the trigger isn't sufficient. How much will THAT add to re-engineering costs of a new gun?
How would all of you who are willing to forgive and forget S&W's sell-out if this sort of agreement were injected into other products that you're in contact with in your daily life?
Radios, televisions, computers, refrigerators, books, automobiles?
How about automobiles? How about this for starters...
"Within 36 months, all automobiles will be equipped with a hands-free driving system."
"Within 36 months, all automobiles, SUVs, trucks, and minivans have to get a minimum of 75 miles per gallon."
"All new automobiles manufactured after X date will have to run only on XXX fuel, and not be capable of accepting petroleum distillate fuels."
"All automobile dealers will have to carry $1 million in insurance to cover lawsuits arising after an automobile they legally sell is involved in an accident."
I will admit, there is an enormous difference between what is happening with S&W and what might happen to automobiles. But perhaps that's why the Constitution doesn't have an ammendment in the Bill of Rights covering modes of transportation, but there is one that covers firearms.
I'm truly sorry, but those of you who are willing to accept S&W's sellout, and the terms forced upon it and gunowners by the Government, just aren't stopping to consider the potential long-term costs.
One of the legacies left to us by our ancestors was of a nation of free, law-abiding men and women whose right to own firearms for personal protection and the common defense was unquestioned.
By caving in to the Government's demands and accepting S&W's betrayal, we would send the message that we no longer care about the legacy left to us by men such as Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, or the rest of this nation's Founding Fathers, nor do we care for the sacrifice made by millions of men and women who have fought in this nation's defense in times of war, or who have stood watch over it in times of peace.
That, I believe, is truly the sadest outcome of this debacle.
Let's get something straight. If, by S&W going out of business for lack of sales prevents another manufacturer from signing a similar agreement, then IT IS WORTH IT TO SEE SMITH & WESSON DIE.
S&W CHOSE to sign this agreement. Do those of you who are castigating gunowners for opposing this agreement really KNOW what it entails?
Do you have ANY idea as to what could happen to our ability to purchase new firearms in this country if EVERY other manufacturer were to sign on to it?
Somehow you seem to think that the Government wants us to kill S&W. To that I say...
NO.
The Government wanted EVERY manufacturer to sign this agreement. They wanted consumers to do exactly what you're doing, IGNORE the horrific potential of this agreement, and blindly go about business while the Gov't forced other manufacturers into line.
Well, guess what, guys?
Those of you who continue to purchase S&W products?
You're the ones who are activly participating in the promotion of this agreement to all firearms manufacturers.
Quite frankly, YOU are the ones who are playing right into the Gov'ts hands.
Smart move, gents. You're going to be used like pawns, and you're going screw future generations.
Now that is something of which to be proud, don't you think?
Anyway, on to the message I posted in General Handguns.
------------------------------------------------------------
To all of those who think that gunowners are "cutting off our noses to spite our faces," I can only ask...
HOW?
If gunowners gave the impression that we simply didn't care about the agreement that S&W signed with the Government, even given the onerous provisions that the agreement entails, just how long do you think it would take other gun manufacturers to fold, too?
Where, then, would that leave us?
Take a REALLY good look at the provisions of S&W's agreement with the Government, and then try to imagine what the effect would be if EVERY manufacturer signed on as an active participant.
Here are just a few immediate consequences...
Try, for example, the "new guns won't accept high-cap magazines made before Sept. 1994."
No matter that such magazines are still LEGAL. No matter that that particular agreement has an expiration date on it. Essentially, a Glock 17 or a Sig 228 made under the terms of this agreement can't use perfectly legal magazines.
There's also an ancillary cost involved with that, the re-engineering costs. How much might that add to the cost of a new gun?
How about the "manufacturers will not sell guns that are resistant to fingerprints?"
Just what does that mean? How about no more Glocks, or any of the other polymer framed guns with impressed checkering or pebbling?
How about "authorized user technology"? Want to make a bet on what that will eventually entail? Computer-chip controlled firearms? How much cost will THAT add to a new gun? And, an even more critical question, will the Government be given the codes to these chipped guns that will allow them to develop a technology to disable them?
Think that's a pipedream, or an unrealize fear? Consider how far computers have come in the past 20 years. The system sitting on my desk at work has more power than 1,000 comparable 1980-era computers daisy chained together.
Do those of you who think "enough is enough" actually expect the Government to believe that this agreement is enough, or to fully comply with its own agreement?
Perhaps you've forgotten that S&W was promised relief from lawsuits ("city, state, county and federal parties agree to dismiss the parties from the pending suits"), which still hasn't materialized.
Perhaps you've also forgotten that the Government's promise of "most favored firearms manufacturer status" was rejected by Congress?
Read through the provisions of the agreement again. Look for open-ended statements that would allow the Government to come in and make extremely excessive demands of the manufacturer, dealer, or retailer. There are quite a few of them.
Ask yourself just how long it would be until the Government decides that "hey, NONE of Glock's firearms pass the safety requirement" because the trigger in the trigger isn't sufficient. How much will THAT add to re-engineering costs of a new gun?
How would all of you who are willing to forgive and forget S&W's sell-out if this sort of agreement were injected into other products that you're in contact with in your daily life?
Radios, televisions, computers, refrigerators, books, automobiles?
How about automobiles? How about this for starters...
"Within 36 months, all automobiles will be equipped with a hands-free driving system."
"Within 36 months, all automobiles, SUVs, trucks, and minivans have to get a minimum of 75 miles per gallon."
"All new automobiles manufactured after X date will have to run only on XXX fuel, and not be capable of accepting petroleum distillate fuels."
"All automobile dealers will have to carry $1 million in insurance to cover lawsuits arising after an automobile they legally sell is involved in an accident."
I will admit, there is an enormous difference between what is happening with S&W and what might happen to automobiles. But perhaps that's why the Constitution doesn't have an ammendment in the Bill of Rights covering modes of transportation, but there is one that covers firearms.
I'm truly sorry, but those of you who are willing to accept S&W's sellout, and the terms forced upon it and gunowners by the Government, just aren't stopping to consider the potential long-term costs.
One of the legacies left to us by our ancestors was of a nation of free, law-abiding men and women whose right to own firearms for personal protection and the common defense was unquestioned.
By caving in to the Government's demands and accepting S&W's betrayal, we would send the message that we no longer care about the legacy left to us by men such as Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, or the rest of this nation's Founding Fathers, nor do we care for the sacrifice made by millions of men and women who have fought in this nation's defense in times of war, or who have stood watch over it in times of peace.
That, I believe, is truly the sadest outcome of this debacle.
I agree with you Mike. I shake my head when I hear,"...I won't buy post-sellout S&W, but I WILL buy a PRE-sellout."
:barf:
If you really dislike the S&W agreement with the government then you will not buy ANYTHING that is S&W, REGARDLESS of its manufacture date. It is counter intuitive to think that laws of supply/demand do not apply to S&W products.
If you really want a pre-sellout S&W and dislike the agreement, and BUY one, then you have taken money from another manufacturer that DIDN'T sign any agreement.
On the CQB, it looks good, but...
Mike
:barf:
If you really dislike the S&W agreement with the government then you will not buy ANYTHING that is S&W, REGARDLESS of its manufacture date. It is counter intuitive to think that laws of supply/demand do not apply to S&W products.
If you really want a pre-sellout S&W and dislike the agreement, and BUY one, then you have taken money from another manufacturer that DIDN'T sign any agreement.
On the CQB, it looks good, but...
Mike
Buy from whom? I don't know of any dealers and few distributors who will handle S&W products, simply because they can't afford the insurance, training programs, loss of other sales, store inspections, and all the other garbage they have to go through to sell S&W products under the infamous agreement.
I don't like the idea of putting a manufacturer of fine firearms out of business, but I know of no other way to express my disgust with them.
If I don't buy, they go out of business, which serves the anti-gun agenda. If I do buy, there is more pressure on other companies to conform since S&W suffered no consequences. I think my main beef is not the agreement, but that Shultz lied about it, claiming up to the last minute that S&W would not make any deals, even when he was actively making deals.
Jim
I don't like the idea of putting a manufacturer of fine firearms out of business, but I know of no other way to express my disgust with them.
If I don't buy, they go out of business, which serves the anti-gun agenda. If I do buy, there is more pressure on other companies to conform since S&W suffered no consequences. I think my main beef is not the agreement, but that Shultz lied about it, claiming up to the last minute that S&W would not make any deals, even when he was actively making deals.
Jim
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Whoa
Guys - Chill...
This wasn't about S&W the Company or its Agreement...
It was about the PISTOLS.
Even before the Agreement - I disliked Smith autos.
Mainly for two reasons.
1. Slide mounted safeties.
2. That hairdryer grip profile.
Honestly - Other than those two points - Smith does make a fine auto. I would put them very close to SIG in quality.
full length polished rails, smooth action, and one of the best factory triggers in the business... plus the bonus of good sights. Everything you would want.
Accurate, reliable and tough.
But my two complaints are accute enought to void the Smiths in my book. If these factors are not an issue for others, I have in the past recomended them.
It was just surprising for Kodiac to want a Smith!
That special bushing is very cool.
I would that I could have one on my Springfields!
So - enough about that damned agreement... no more... We are talking guns here.
Guys - Chill...
This wasn't about S&W the Company or its Agreement...
It was about the PISTOLS.
Even before the Agreement - I disliked Smith autos.
Mainly for two reasons.
1. Slide mounted safeties.
2. That hairdryer grip profile.
Honestly - Other than those two points - Smith does make a fine auto. I would put them very close to SIG in quality.
full length polished rails, smooth action, and one of the best factory triggers in the business... plus the bonus of good sights. Everything you would want.
Accurate, reliable and tough.
But my two complaints are accute enought to void the Smiths in my book. If these factors are not an issue for others, I have in the past recomended them.
It was just surprising for Kodiac to want a Smith!
That special bushing is very cool.
I would that I could have one on my Springfields!
So - enough about that damned agreement... no more... We are talking guns here.
Mike Irwin
Staff
BigMike,
Actually, I WILL buy pre-sell-out S&W. Why? Because I buy them used, the older the better. Not a penny goes to the company. Of my 10 or so S&W revolvers, only 1 of them is 1980s vintage. Every other one is pre-1980s. The oldest is 1917.
As for Smith semi-autos, I have never cared must for them in any event.
1. Rotten ergonomics.
2. Safety placement (but I can deal with it).
3. WAY WAY WAY overpriced.
4. I don't agree that the quality is there, especially not when compared with the price.
5. Generally bad triggers.
Actually, I WILL buy pre-sell-out S&W. Why? Because I buy them used, the older the better. Not a penny goes to the company. Of my 10 or so S&W revolvers, only 1 of them is 1980s vintage. Every other one is pre-1980s. The oldest is 1917.
As for Smith semi-autos, I have never cared must for them in any event.
1. Rotten ergonomics.
2. Safety placement (but I can deal with it).
3. WAY WAY WAY overpriced.
4. I don't agree that the quality is there, especially not when compared with the price.
5. Generally bad triggers.
At the last two gun shows, I have $700 in my pocket and I was looking to buy a pistol. The only gun that grabbed my was a S&W Tactical 9mm. But I didn't buy it. I walked out empty handed instead of buying a S&W...
And I consider it a religious atrocity to walk out of a gun show empty handed.
And I consider it a religious atrocity to walk out of a gun show empty handed.
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Jeeze...
I wanted to talk GUNS here but most of you only want a chance to talk about THE AGREEMENT...
Does anyone else want to talk about GUNS in this GUN THREAD?
Maybe we should have an ANTI S&W FORUM for you guys.
GUNS PEOPLE...
I was talking about the GUNS!
S&W is under new management... and I bet money that when Bush gets in the Whitehouse...
This Agreement is out the Window.
Just Watch.
Now - Does anyone want to talk about the freakin pistols?
I wanted to talk GUNS here but most of you only want a chance to talk about THE AGREEMENT...
Does anyone else want to talk about GUNS in this GUN THREAD?
Maybe we should have an ANTI S&W FORUM for you guys.
GUNS PEOPLE...
I was talking about the GUNS!
S&W is under new management... and I bet money that when Bush gets in the Whitehouse...
This Agreement is out the Window.
Just Watch.
Now - Does anyone want to talk about the freakin pistols?
George I agree...
I am disappointed that S&W hasn't come out with newer generation auto loaders. At one point, early 90's, I considered the Sigma, but as I followed them they began to have some problems and I nixed the idea.
My issue with Smith autos, Agreement or not, is that they just don't have the appeal to me that they did years ago. Most autos I have owned since then have fit my hand better, been more concealable, less expensive, lighter, etc. When I see the ads for the new tactical models I just see them as the same old model with the doohicky on the frame to mount a light or laser-ugly. The 945 was a little nicer, but not enough.
Mike I.-
I think I see what you are saying. I only meant to point out that there was/is an inconsistency in the logic regarding buying Pre vs. Post manufactured pistols.
Mike
I am disappointed that S&W hasn't come out with newer generation auto loaders. At one point, early 90's, I considered the Sigma, but as I followed them they began to have some problems and I nixed the idea.
My issue with Smith autos, Agreement or not, is that they just don't have the appeal to me that they did years ago. Most autos I have owned since then have fit my hand better, been more concealable, less expensive, lighter, etc. When I see the ads for the new tactical models I just see them as the same old model with the doohicky on the frame to mount a light or laser-ugly. The 945 was a little nicer, but not enough.
Mike I.-
I think I see what you are saying. I only meant to point out that there was/is an inconsistency in the logic regarding buying Pre vs. Post manufactured pistols.
Mike