How S&W sold out gun owners

C

Coolray

New member
I'm fairly new to TFL and have never owned a S&W pistol,I enjoy Taurus and Ruger revolvers. but could someone please fill me in on how S&W sold gun owners out? I really do not know, :confused: I'm not sticking up for them I just want a little info,I have read in TFL all over the place how they did sell out but I'm not sure how?
 
If you run a search here and in General Discussion and/or Legal & Political, you'll get more info than you could possibly want.
 
Basically, S&W was muscled into the agreement. Clinton & HUD said, "do this or else," and "do this and we will give you this." In other words, comply or be driven out of business. What would you have done?

There has been alot of slander directed towards S&W since. I wonder just how many of the slanderers would have donated ENOUGH money to a S&W defense fund, and/or paid double or triple prices for S&W guns so that S&W could pay its legal bills.

I wonder how many of the slanderers would have been willing to risk THEIR lives and fortunes preventing the government from doing what it did to S&W, and has plans to do to the rest. My guess is not many. It is so much easier to slander the victiom than to oppose the extortioner.
 
Spare me the *&* apologetics. HUD came to them with a carrot and a stick. Sign up and we will give you unprecedented preferential treatment. Don't sign and we will drive you out of business. *&* went for the preferential treatment and the money (trying to recapture the massive market share lost to Glock and Sig).

*&* bailed long before the expensive portions of litigation even began. Schultz has said they were muscled but Schultz is a proven liar (his interpretation of the agreement was laughable and fraudulent on its face).
 
S&W saw the easy way out and they saw $$$$$
in preferential treatment. They shall get what they reaped.
I'm very sorry to see that they will probably go out of business but they cut their own throats. None of the others bent over for the Klintonistas.

------------------
We preserve our freedoms by using four boxes: soap,ballot,jury, and cartridge.
Anonymous
 
First of all, Sig and Glock haven't lost any market share. The majority of US law enforcement agencies prefer Sig and Glock; including federal agencies. Secondly, Sig and Glock remain safely outside of the reach of Clinton/HUD; their's is a military/police world market where S&W's was primarily a civilian domestic market. Do you for one minute believe that Glock or SIG would have held out longer than S&W had the German or Austrian governments pressured either of them out of the civilian markets in either of those countries?

Unprecedented preferential treatment! Please! You talk as if the US government has not contracted with Colt for years.

By the way Buzz. What action did you take to help when S&W was being pressured into this 'agreement?' I bet that if we could look into your past we would find plenty of examples of you being pressured into complying with the government on things with which you really didn't agree.

Put the responsibility where it belongs--on the US government which increasingly behaves like Cosa Nostra, rather than an agent of the people. Don't badmouth the victims unless you are willing to step up and take their lumps for them. That is the quickest way to drive them to the other side.
 
What is Smith & Wesson?

Is it Ed Schultz and the British company that currently owns them or is it the American workers who work for the largest (Ruger is bigger now but up until 1998, it was S&W) and oldest American handgun maker producing some of the best guns ever made?

The answer is that Smith & Wesson is all of these things but too many people only see the first part of it. I tend to view S&W as being afflicted by a disease -- the management/ownership in charge. Let's remove the cancer and save the ailing patient.

FUD.
 
I hope those of you defending S&W have read the full text of the agreement. S&W saw an opportunity and jumped on it. HUD used the same strong arm tactics againt Beretta USA, SIG Arms, and Glock Smyrna, and they all resisted. The US is the single largest market for all those companies, and especially for Glock as without the US market they would see a catastrophic drop in sales. Those companies chose to stand up to HUD and reacted with a counter suit. Don't talk about the danger not being as great for foreign companies as for S&W, because it is. Let S&W die the death of a traitor it deserves.

------------------
"Get yourself a Lorcin and lose that nickel plated sissy pistol."
 
ellsworthtoohey, dont even start making this personal with me. When I found out about this crap, I let Schultz know personally exactly what was going to happen and how the contract was going to be interpreted. I should know, since I'm an attorney for the feds and I've seen idiots try the same thing as *&* (make a deal in order to secure a gov't contract and then try to reinterpret it when they realize how bad it is). What did you do to try to stop this? Let me guess. You bought another *&* to "show your support." Or maybe, you said a dirty word about Clinton.

Unprecedented preferential treatment is EXACTLY the right term. What else do you call a contract that calls for violation of every statute and regulation concerning procurement? This contract is patently illegal by virtue of the fact that it requires the gov't to give special treatment to

As for Colt, please recall that Colt lost the military contracts for decades because it couldn't beat FN and Singapore's prices. Your attempt to compare the situations is rather pitiful.

As for *&* being primarily civilian, thank you, you proved my point. *&* used to be a major gov't contractor (LEO and military) both here and abroad but lost due to inferior quailtiy and design compared to both American and European designs. This was their big chance to break back into the market. They lost (thanks to the boycott and Congress).

By the way, while you are apologized for *&*, why don't you make excuses for Schultz referring to all the customers who are boycotting the company as right wing nuts obsessed with the 2nd Amend.? And, while you are at it, why don't you explain *&*'s fullfledged cooperation with (and support of) the inherently fraudulent anti-trust investigations of the boycott being conducted by various states?

Did the HUD act in an illegal and disgusting manner? Yes. But *&* wasn't a victim. It was a willing conspirator.

If ya'll want to keep buying *&*s and absolve yourselves of any guilt, feel free. The brownshirts are down the hall and to the left. Go ahead and put one on. If you are going to help destroy liberty, you at least should wear the correct uniform.
 
If it were true that S&W just did what they had to do, then Glock, SIG, and even the often lamentable Ruger would have done the same thing.
As for SIG and Glock not being in the same position because of their gov't contracts, would you make the same argument about Taurus? They're certainly not the preferred weapon of LEOs, and they make most of their money off American civilians (they can't be making much off Brazilians, can they?) But they stood up to the government's tactics and it worked for them.

Now, I do NOT mean to imply that S&W isn't more innocent in this mess than Clinton and his justice department or HUD. Obviously that's not the case. We all know why S&W did what they did. But we don't have the option of trying to be understanding and forgiving. We cannot allow anyone to think for a second that they can have it both ways by caving to the pressure and still selling guns to American consumers. Yes, it sucks to think of S&W dying. I've never had the chance to buy a new S&W and now I guess I never will. But sad as it may be it's necessary.
 
I have NOTHING positive to say about Ed Schultz and the British that owns S&W -- everytime he speaks, he puts his foot in his mouth deeper & deeper.
 
What S&W did was pathetic and Ruger is barely any better. But, the entire firearms industry could (and should) band together and fight these moronic, anti-rights lawsuits in a different way. When a municipality files suit against one manufacturer (or all of them collectively) the entire industry should bow to the local government's wishes and agree not to ship any firearms, ammunition, magazines, parts, holsters, etc. to that city. INCLUDING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THAT COMMUNITY. I am not anti-law enforcement, I am a peace officer, but if the entire industry banded together and boycotted that particular city, the peace officers of that city (and more than likely the national Fraternal Order of Police and a few others even) would probably demand that the government drop the suit. I know I would, and I know many others who would also. It would take the entire industry to go on strike against that government entity though. If one manufacturer crossed the line, it would not work. And it would take an increase in civilian purchases to make up for the drop in LE sales to help keep the affected companies in business. I'm willing to do my part!
 
Buzz, I do owe you an apology. I was starting to get personal, and that is uncalled for. I apologize.

S&W is not the first manufacturer to succumb to pressure from the government, pressure both real and imagined. I can remember the time when Ruger Mini-14s shipped with high capacity magazines. Then suddenly, only five rounders were available. This was done before there was even a hint of a lawsuit. It seems Ruger decided to take proactive action to avoid trouble during the assault rifle flap.
 
Firearms manufacturers run businesses. They have a responsibility to shareholders and employees. They may not care, like Ruger, if AR-15's are banned, for example, if it increases Mini-14 sales.

Do you really believe that S&W wants more regulation and fewer guns sold?

I think it is our responsibility and not theirs to protect the Second Amendment. I personally believe that a boycott is a gutless move which does nothing to accomplish our goals. I will continue to buy Rugers. I just bought a S&W M66 because it was the gun I wanted.

Political involvement in the form of giving money to NRA type organizations until it hurts is the real answer. Then write letters, talk to your friends and neighbors, and vote. Then send some money to the campaign of a local pro-gun politician.

We are all hostages. You. Me. S&W. Ruger.

"We must all hang together, for if we do not, we shall certainly all hang separately."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MountainGun44: ... it is our responsibility and not theirs to protect the Second Amendment. I personally believe that a boycott is a gutless move which does nothing to accomplish our goals ... [/quote]Well put!
 
Boycott of Smith sends a message to the other manufacturers that have so far held the line against government blackmail.

If we buy product from the resistors while refusing to buy from Smith it is great incentive for the other manufacturers to continue to resist the government blackmail.

Smith n Wesson is a foreign owned company on American soil. The fact that it employs a few hundred Americanns does not change that.

I take pride and pleasure in ownership of my American S&Ws, far as I am concerned the company is now in the hands of the enemy.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Don Gwinn:
I've never had the chance to buy a new S&W and now I guess I never will. But sad as it may be it's necessary.[/quote]

If you desire a new S&W, just pick up a copy of Gunlist or Shotgun News. There's plenty of good pre-sellout S&W's that are New In Box advertised for sale.

YES, S&W MUST DIE!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I take pride and pleasure in ownership of my American S&Ws, far as I am concerned the company is now in the hands of the enemy.[/quote]

My sentiments too Sam. I love the old S&W sixguns of the 1920-1960 era.




------------------
Just one of the Good Guys
 
You know, I'm probably asking for it by jumping into this thread, but something struck me recently. Everyone slams Smith, psychologically distinguishing it from US companies such as Ruger because it is owned by Tompkins, a British holding company. Yet there are several other manufacturers based out of foreign nations with strict gun control, yet there was no capitulation from them? I asked myself why, and I may have found an answer.

I unfortunately reside in the state of California. (A situation that will hopefully soon be remedied) I am looking at the impending wrath of SB-15, a law much like the Mass. law requiring safety testing for handguns. Fortunately California was bright enought to exempt the safety requirement, thereby allowing Glock, Sig, etc. to be sold, so long as they passed the mechanical safety test.

This makes at least two states thus far (and you know what they say about what happens in California--eventually it spreads like a desease) that have adopted misguided safety regulations. What does this mean? Well, your well intended boycott will have little affect when sales of handguns are restricted by legislative means.

There are many who ask why Smith signed the agreement when no one else did. I ask you, what would the cost of magazine disconnects, etc. be for Glock? How about the cost to retool for about Beretta or Sig? Now ask how much for Smith. None-- Why-- Because they already have magazine disconnects.

If you want my oppinion, (which you probably don't, but oh well) all of these companies care about your rights as much as it affects their profits! Like Ford in the recent recall, they put on a facade of support for their customers, but the real reason for their actions is that they want your money!

Look at Ruger. The company now has a veritable monopoly on .223 rifles in California. The five round magazines may have pissed off you and me, but it kept Ruger in the money game long after Colt, Bushmaster, etc. have gone.

We boycott Smith and Wesson as if it will send a message to other manufacturers, which it did. However, when other manufacturers are faced with the same option (i.e. close down or agree to our demands) you will see every manufacturer do the SAME THING. The reason you haven't in regards to the HUD pact is that the other companies were better off financially than Smith (as evidenced by 1998 sales figures) and Smith was bearing much of the burden of the lawsuits, a burden that it felt it could no longer monetarily accept. The result of this will be that Smith and Wesson will loose, and possibly die, while we THINK that we have sent a message to other companies. Unfortunately the message that we have sent Smith and Wesson is paramount to asking whether it would be better to die by drowning or by fire? Either Smith was to close it's doors due to ever-mounting legal expenses combined with lagging sales, or try to offset the burden, only to be killed by its customers.

We have now given a great weapon to the anti's. We have shown them that the lawsuits will work, whether meritorious or not, because all they have to do is put the gun manufacturers in peril (not hard to do--the gun industry isn't tobacco)and if they try to get out from under the dark cloud of lawsuits, gun owners in america will be all to happy to kill one of their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top