You have a short memory. S&W was hurt significantly by the boycott.
Nothing wrong with my memory. I haven't purchased a current model/new S&W since 1975. All of my collection are P&R except a M17 prelock, but even it's recessed. I simply didn't pay attention to the lock models. I wouldn't have anyway as they weren't P&R.
But concerning your conclusion. IMO, the "boycott" didn't hurt them as much as their inferior products. On the old Smith and Wesson forum ........
http://smith-wessonforum.com/forum.php
... when it was still owned by the current owner of the Sigforum (owner's name "Parabellum"), there was a sticky of actual owners of S&W where the locks failed and locked up the guns during operation. Many of them provided pictures, etc.
The new owner (goes by the screen name "handejector") conveniently lost that sticky and we lost a tremendous source of verified data concerning the utter unreliability of the locks on the S&W guns.
That sticky was a microcosm of gun owners and that era of guns were horrible. Barrels failing, shrouds dislodging, gaps in the metal, etc. They were producing crap. And people knew about it and weren't buying them.
S&W's producing that junk hurt them worse than any perceived boycott.
And your link?
http://www.actionamerica.org/guns/swbetray.html
..offers no evidence that S&W sales suffered because of the boycott. S&W sales slumped, true. But no one can demonstrate why. Your linked article was dated in 2000 and simply underscores a
call to arms, so to speak. Nothing about verifiable results.
The link is from 2000. In 2001 we got a pro gun president and the climate was better. By then S&W guns were clearly junk. A boycott was also announced. But nobody can say which of these had the greatest, if any, impact.
One of my degrees is in business with an accounting major. In an advanced accounting class I did a paper on S&W's financials. Of particular interest is their 10K report of 2011. Page 20, item 1A filed on 6/30/2011 noted that S&W had enjoyed unprecedented sales and they issued this statement: “Political and other factors also can affect our performance. For example, we experienced strong consumer demand for our handguns and modern sporting rifle products beginning in our third fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2009, following a new administration taking office in Washington, D.C., speculation surrounding increased gun control…….”
No boycott there, obviously, and their financial situation was no different than a lot of gun manufacturers in that era. Several companies had fallen on hard times and boycotts had nothing to do with it. But again, with the change in the political climate, most/many companies were doing banner business. Boycotts, or the lack thereof, had nothing to do with it.
I also analyzed S&W's balance sheets from 2006 through 2010, inclusive. A good barometer of their liquidity is their cash and cash equivalents. In 2006 C&CE totaled $731,000. That’s not good for a corporation the size of S&W. Heading into the election in 2007, the panic was already starting and their C&CE jumped to $4,065,000. 2008 it’s still increasing to $4,359,000. In 2009,
C&CE skyrocketed to $39,822,000. The figure remained roughly the same for 2010. Obviously, they weren’t being hurt by any perceived “boycott.”
But, we're off topic of the thread. I'm simply agreeing with the poster of my earlier post, viz. ".. I’ve seen so many of these “boycotts” by gun owners go nowhere.." Benchmade will be no different. JMO.
S&W is going strong today because the new owners rescinded the Clinton agreement,
Huh? No they didn't. The lock is still there.
barf: ).