New Smith & Wesson Revolvers

Hello All:

Let it be known by all men that I have a Smith & Wesson 629
Classic with a 5" barrel that is by far and wide, of the best quality since the firearms of 'yonder years. Fit and
finish is unbelieveable; with a silky smooth double action,
and a crisp and clean single action. And it's not even a
PC model!!!:D:)

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
As far as I am concerned S&W can jump in a lake. Those wimpy cowards bowed down to the firearm prohibitionists. They are comprimising too much. I am supporting the boycott on all S&W model pistols. If this offends any S&W fans, sorry.

CelticSniper308
 
I think we can ALL agree that S&W's "agreeing to" THE AGREEMENT is less than ideal...I think that HERE is where opinions start to diverge...what to do(from an INDIVIDUAL standpoint) about the "agreement". I supported the "Boycott" for a while...then, I came to realize that S&W's demise was EXACTLY the kind of result Klinton, Brady, Reno, et.al., were looking for...and I CERTAINLY don't want to be accused of furthering THEIR agenda!!! So, what is a "thinking" gunny to do??? Well, you may certainly vote with your wallet...as I did for some time. As a point of fact, I HAVE NOT yet purchased a "post-agreement" S&W...but I WILL do so, if and when I find one of their products that is on my "want list", IF it is at a price I am willing to pay. It just seems silly to me to try and BANKRUPT one of the world's BEST arms makers BECAUSE they were trying to survive an untenable situation, i.e., the multiplicity of lawsuits against them. At this juncture, SOMEONE is SURE to point out that the "agreement" has NOT kept other jurisdictions from filing suit against S&W...that is, unfortunately, true. It is ALSO TRUE, however, that , to THIS DATE, S&W HAS NOT tried to get anyone in their retail/distribution chain to "sign on" to the agreement...I would posit that IF the "agreement" isn't enforced, then what's all the hubbub about??? We could certainly argue about S&W NOT being supportive of the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms"...and, while that IS TRUE, it would surprise some here how many American arms makers are in that same boat...and have been, for a while!!! I, for one, think it would be a shame for America to loose the manufacturing knowledge, expertise and capacity that S&W has...FWIW....mikey357
 
sorry mike

didn't mean to insinuate that you were a 'rugerite'. i just always have to throw in the ruger thing on this boycott deal. i just happened to do so after your post.
 
cuerno...NAAHHH, I didn't take it personally...after all, I'm married AND a "civil servant", so...I guess I've develpoed a somewhat "thick skin"!!!....mikey357
 
Mikey357, Thanks for bringing to my attention of that. I did not see it that way. I am sure that that is what Clinton, her husband, and their pet (Janet Reno) had in mind. Get us angered at S&W not buy from them, and they go out of business. That would not help us at all. Thanks for the insight. LONG LIVE SMITH AND WESSON!!!!!
 
Celtic,

Think about it this way...

The Clinton administration doesn't care if S&W stays in business or goes out of business.

That was NOT the aim of the agreement that S&W signed.

What the Clinton administration wanted was for EVERY gun manufacturer in the United States to sign the same, or a very similar agreement.

That's right, the Clinton Administration wanted every manufacturer to enforce strictures on their stocking dealers, such as:

1. Making sure that none of their dealers sold guns at gunshows where private transaction take place.

2. Making sure that none of their dealers sell LEGAL high capacity magazines or LEGAL semi-automatic rifles in their places of business.

The Clinton Administration also wanted manufacturers to:

1. Re-engineer guns so that they would not accept LEGAL high capacity magazines.

2. Re-engineer guns, at the arbitrary whim of the government, to meet nebulous "safety" criteria.

Those are just the tip of the iceberg represented by this agreement, and that's what people who see no problem with Smith & Wesson's actions are missing.

What did Smith & Wesson receive for their capitulation?

1. The promise that they would be dropped from Federal, State, and Local lawsuits seeking to recover damages for firearms violence. To date, S&W still faces over 90% of the lawsuits originally contemplated against the company. Why? Because the Feds never had the authority to dictate what would happen to state and local lawsuits.

2. The promise that S&W would receive highly preferential treatment in the letting of Federal contracts for firearms. Congress quickly squashed that idea.

So, what did S&W receive for their concessions?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

The Government has shopped this agreement around to other firearms manufacturers including, from what I've heard, Sig, Beretta, Taurus, and Remington.

To date, those companies have told the government to get jammed.

The spontaneous, grassroots boycott against Smith & Wesson has, in fact, sent a VERY CLEAR message to other manufacturers -- that if the company agrees to the government's extortion, they'll lose BIG in the consumer markets.

And these companies know that the lion's share of their business doesn't come from the government, it comes from the PRIVATE sector.

So, tell me again how this boycott is worthless if it helps keep another manufacturer from knuckling under?
 
Mike Erwin. The points in the post you just made are spot on and important to keep in mind. The agreement is so lengthy it is hard to remember how onerous some of the details are.
 
Don't forget!

Nice recap, Mike...but don't forget the worst part of the agreement that *&* signed: allowing the government to establish an "oversight committee" to run the company.

Sounds somewhat innocuous until you read the fine print...
the five-member OC will [was to?] be composed of four federal/state/local bureaucrats and one company employee.
Yep...the government would not only regulate the company under its specious BATF authority but would *also* determine how the company is run!

In short, this is fascism...nothing more nor less.

Should such an outrageous precedent be set and the current federal regime regain control, no facet of our lives as Americans would ever be the same.

Fortunately, for the foreseeable future, this will be Bush's America and not Mussolini's Italy.

Now, as to the current state at *&*...

...they have proved yet again that, even though the cavalry is just over the closest ridge, they intend to proceed with the agreement. Jeff reports from New Orleans [thanks!] that the company has actually sent out agreements that dealers will be required to sign in order to stock products.

Predictably, the agreement's provisions aren't being received well. It's just my opinion, but I don't think the company will survive unless it is sold [Tomkins PLC would be thrilled to shed its arms-producing division] to investors who really understand the business and are willing to support American citizens' Rights.

I see the big picture...and I won't be buying any products from the fascists at *&*.
 
Been buying used S&W revolvers

and I'd really like to get on e of their new ones, but not under the current ownership. Once Tompkins sells off S&W (hopefully before the craftsmen move or retire) and new management deals with these agreements and the Ashcroft Justice Dep't, maybe the company can get back on track. I don't want them to go under, but I do want their market share to remain at record lows until the political winds change. Then I might be able to buy one of their new N-frames.
 
Since SW is sending out the contracts to gun stores and that will affect issues OTHER than SW - they can go down the drain.

No company has a right to insight that a private business follow their rules. Screw 'em.

They couldn't even wait till Bush got in or did they even talk to the Bush folks?

I have real problems with Ruger also. Hopefully the ghost of the old coot can be exorcized quickly when need be.

He is clearly anti citizen self defense and concealed carry.

That is stupid business sense. He can make a decent 9mm that sells for $297. Imagine if he made a Kahr sized gun at that price - he'd sweep the business.

Same with the Mini-14. Not having a reasonable hicap mag is bad enough. But if he made 10 rounders, he'd probably drammatically increase gun sales. But no.
 
Simple fact, I won't buy new S&W products. Since I never wanted any of the Ruger products I really couldn't say that I was boycotting them, just wasn't purchasing their products because I didn't like them. (if for no other reason than the simple fact that I like GOOD LOOKING guns, and two or three line "safety warnings" down the side of the barrel don't qualify!). I do own one Ruger firearm, a 10/22 that was purchased in 1969 (before ANY of this stuff started). Since S&W is now sending out their "new" contracts for dealers I predict that it will soon be a moot point. If there aren't any dealers selling your product, how do you stay in the retail business? Both local stocking dealers have already stated that there is no way they could sign that contract and stay in business. If it is a choice of staying in business without S&W or going out of businesss with S&W guess which one they choose.
 
Looks like Mike Irwin turned the lights on.

Obviously few have read the complete agreement. The condensed version on Smith's web site and in the press leaves out some of the stinky parts.

Those manufacturs who have held out against the government on this agreement were/are facing the same suit situation. They had the balls to resist, while the English company (Smith) folded.

Smith deserves our ire and the others deserve our support.

Sam....tween knaps
 
For more on the current S&W agreement see the below:
shotshowreports.com/page3.html
I hope the information posted is incorrect. Interesting reading, though.
 
i read the report. it doesn't change the fact they make the lightest, strongest small frame conceal carry revolvers without a built in gun lock (another sell out).
 
S&W is coming out with a Mountain Gun in .45 Colt.

I'd really like to have one, but I'll just wait and see if Colt will make a 4" Anaconda in that caliber.

If I have to, I'll buy a Redhawk and have the barrel chopped rather than buy a new Smith.
 
I thought one way, but changed my mind; S&W must renege on their deal with the government before I will support them in any fashion whatsoever.

Ruger, after careful study, is NOT the same.
 
Just to clarify: if a company wants to do something detrimental to their own business, that's their problem. Remington's magazine tube dimples, Ruger's 5-rd Mini magazines and Taurus' built-in locks are good examples. It costs them sales, who cares.

S&W's agreement is a little different: they not only cripple their own products but attempt to squeeze out every other manufacturer from the dealers' shelves. THAT is what doomed them. When a company pressures distributors to prohibit others' legal products, that is AFAIK, a violation of the anti-trust act. That they are doing so at the behest of the US government is even more depressing.
 
ruger was at the forefront of mag cap/aussult weapon legislation initiation. their official position is anti-ccw, anti-hicap and ant-aw. there is no g*dd*mn difference. if you boycott one and not the other, you are the pot calling the kettle black.

[Edited by cuerno de chivo on 01-14-2001 at 06:08 PM]
 
Don't see any new Rugers here

Then again, I wonder who won't we boycott. Kahr, Kel-tec, Robinson, Bushmaster, who else? Certainly Norinco isn't kosher, nor Colt not Ruger...

What a lovely dilemma.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top