the dark side of smith and wesson!

ChuckHawks

Every company of substantial size making products worthy of pride of ownership (Apple is an example, Clorox is not an example) will have people who offer great praise and others who are detractors.
I will say that Chuck Hawks seem to have had access to an very high number of failed products. A high number for virtually any firearms manufacturer. It makes be a bit suspect of the objectivity of the reviewer.
I will say that I have owned a number of S&W products. All functioned perfectly but I will admit that I had one bad out-of-box experience with one model. A Performance Center model no less. When I visited to my FFL to finish my paperwork and retrieve the revolver, I picked it up from the box, held it out at arms length and turned it on its side to examine it whereupon the front sight slid out of the dovetail on to the floor. It was a bit funny though I was not impressed.
Of course S&W sent a return authorization, repaired it and I had it back within a week or so.
But all in all, their work quality has been excellent.
B
 
Interesting. They used to have another article, with exactly the same name. The previous incarnation was mainly a rant from 2000 about the deal between HUD and S&W management.

I suppose they got tired of beating that dead horse and decided to bring new gripes to light.
 
Originally posted by dahermit
The responses to the article amaze me. Central to the author's thesis is that S&W has (or had) quality control issues for which he gives five examples he lists as "examples", and several more in the body of the text. Respondents however, choose to ignore the many examples and either respond with baseless accusations, terse and seeming emotionally based retorts, or in one case took the weakest example (they copy other makers) to attack. None, disputed his examples (poor quality control, problematic products), as being false or outright lies...they just do not like that kind of talk about a product they are fond of, it would seem.

As a person with an advanced degree who has studied the logic required of scholarly writings, I maintain that he made a logical case with examples, his attackers however...

The problem with his "examples" are that he's presented five anecdotes which cannot be verified as evidence that S&W, on the whole, is no good. Now, I think most every gun company would have to admit to having lapses in QC now and again. The Ruger Redhawks with barrels that spontaneously broke off are fairly well known and one of the Mods here has mentioned examining a Colt revolver with no hole in the end of the barrel, but neither of those examples means that Ruger or Colt, on the whole, is a bad company. Honestly, the fact that Hawks could only come up with five "examples" for a company that's been in business for over a century and a half speaks pretty well for S&W.

As to attacking Hawk's claim that S&W "copies" other makers' products because it was the "weakest" part of his argument, I'm sorry but other than his anecdotes that's pretty much all of his argument and it's a specious one at that. Allow me, if I may, to address his claims point-by-point:

He claims that their I-Bolt rifle was a knockoff of the Remington 700. What he ignores is that there's really only so many ways to make a bolt action rifle. The S&W I-Bolt is no more a "knockoff" of the Remington 700 than the Remington 700, Winchester Model 70, Ruger M77, or Savage 110 is of the Mauser 98.

He claims that the Combat Magnum was a poorly executed product because it could not stand up to a steady diet of .357 Magnum ammunition and cites a "recommendation" that .357 ammo be used sparingly as proof of this. The problem herin lies that I've never been able to find the original source of this "recommendation," only second and third hand accounts of which many are attributed to Bill Jordan. The fact of the matter is that the primary culprit of durability issues with K-Frame Magnums was 125 gr and 110 gr .357 ammunition. This ammunition did not exist in the 1950's when the Combat Magnum made its debut. I find it a bit unfair to judge a gun on its ability to digest ammunition for which it was never designed.

He cites the L-Frame as a "knockoff" of the Colt Python, yet anyone familiar with the lockwork of S&W and Colt revolvers knows that, internally, they are very different. He says that the L-Frame's full underlug was a copy of Colt's styling cues but ignores that until the introduction of the Python, Colts had no underlug at all while S&W had introduced that feature in 1908.

He touts Glock's lawsuit against S&W over the Sigma as an example of a "cheap knockoff" but ignores that nearly every feature of the Glock pistol from the polymer frame to polygonal rifling to the trigger dingus was lifted from someone else's previous design.

He says that their .22 semi-autos were "cheesy High Standard clones" but fails to mention that, like a bolt-action rifle, there's really only so many ways to make a blowback .22 autoloader.

He says that the Chief's special was a "low cost knockoff" of the Colt Detective Special and that's probably one of his biggest stretches of logic. Besides the fact that the workings of a Colt D-Frame and S&W J-Frame are completely different, he ignores the fact that the J-Frame Chief's Special was nothing more than a redesign of the I-Frame Terrier which had been in production since 1936. He also ignores the fact that the Chief's Special was not the first or only .38 Special snub that S&W ever produced, the .38 M&P (later the Model 10) was available with a 2" barrel since the 1940's. He further ignores that the Detective Special wasn't all that innovative on Colt's part: they simply shortened the barrel of the Police Positive Special.

His "proof" that the Chief's Special was a substandard design is that S&W wouldn't rate them for +P ammunition until the 1990's. Never mind that many of today's premier gunsmiths recommend against +P ammunition in Colt D-Frames and that, even though Colt rated them for +P (albeit in limited amounts), they won't service any DA revolver for any reason these days. It says a lot to me that S&W J-Frames are still in production and selling well (they're some of S&W's best sellers) while Colt D-Frames have gone the way of the Do-Do.

Hawk's cites S&W's 1911 as a Colt "ripoff" but chooses to ignore Springfield, Para Ordinance, Kimber, and many other companies who's business has based largely, if not entirely on making 1911's since long before S&W introduced theirs.

Almost predictably, Hawks dredges up the tired old bantering about the S&W/Clinton agreement. While he does manage to mention that S&W's management changed after this agreement, he conveniently omits the fact that the owners who entered into the agreement took a huge financial loss, the new owners almost immediately disavowed the whole thing, and that S&W has never honored their end of the bargain. I also find it interesting that Hawk's doesn't decry Ruger in spite of Bill Ruger's infamous "no honest man needs more than ten rounds" comment or Colt over their nearly complete abandonment of the civilian market due in no small part to the same political pressure that caused the S&W/Clinton agreement.

He cites the "widely-known" unreliability of S&W semi-autos but then attempts to make that claim irrefutable by saying it's seldom mentioned in the press (apparently only enlightened gun magi like himself discussed it in riddles and secret handshakes among themselves :rolleyes:). What's funny is that S&W 3rd generation semi-autos have become quite sought after and are regarded by many outside the press (including many on this very forum) as extremely reliable.

Finally, he cites the recall of the S&W-made Walther PPK "knockoff" (despite the fact that they're made under license from Walther because PPK's aren't importable under the 1968 GCA) as his final example of S&W's failings. He conveniently omits that the condition which prompted the recall was the pistol being able to fire when the hammer was lowered with the safety disengaged and that this practice is not the manner in which the pistol was designed to be manipulated. He also ignores that, in today's litigous society, even a very remote possibility of a gun malfunctioning is sufficient to prompt a recall.

Basically, it's pretty obvious to me that Hawks has some sort of axe to grind with S&W. Pretty much every "failing" that he accuses them of applies equally to many other companies whose products he speaks favorably of. The half-truths, convenient omissions, and unsubstantiated accusations he makes in this article and a couple others published on his site have lead me to take pretty much anything Chuck Hawks says with a large grain of salt.
 
Originally posted by BingoFuel
Does anyone know why he/the site has such an axe to grind?

I could guess, but it would just be speculation. I've not been able to find much information about Chuck Hawks beyond what's available on his website.
 
" the new owners almost immediately disavowed the whole thing"

Yeah.... no, they didn't.

They chose to ignore it.

The way the agreement was written means that it's dormant, not dead.



I've often expressed my dissatisfaction with S&W over the years for their record of spotty QC and allowing guns and associated products out of the factory with easily seen issues.

Doesn't keep me from having nearly 20 S&W handguns in my safe, though (all made prior to 2000 when, as far as I'm concerned, the company went out of business).
 
I tried to read the article posted by the op. My eyes started drooping shut after the 3rd paragraph. I really don't mind if someone is going to write an article bashing a gun company (if that is what the article was about). However, if someone is going to create a blog dedicated to a problem with Smith and Wesson, you would think the very first sentence would state what his/her beef is with that company. Even though I know the history of S&W, I couldn't figure out where this blogger was going with his rant.
 
The way the agreement was written means that it's dormant, not dead.
Are you sure? Jeff Snyder once commented that it lacked the standard provision making an agreement binding on successors and assigns. S&W stated at one point that their legal team didn't consider it legally binding on the new ownership.

It does still exist. They even petitioned President Bush to rescind it, but he refused. Whether or not it could be reinvoked, I'm not sure.

The interesting thing about the agreement was the enforcement mechanism. It wasn't to be run by the DOJ, but by HUD. One of the touted features of last year's failed "universal background check" bill was that it supposedly prohibited establishment of a registry. In reality, it only prohibited the DOJ from implementing a registry. There was nothing to stop another agency from doing so.
 
"Are you sure?"

Yeah....

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/sw-hud.html

Section VIII.

The Agreement will be entered and is enforceable as a Court order and as a contract.


Unless otherwise negotiated, contracts pass whole when a company changes hands. The same with court orders.

While I'm not an attorney, that means to me that barring a judicial finding to the contrary, or signed paperwork from both parties rescinding it, the agreement is binding in perpetuity on all parties, no matter whether they're actively follwing it at the moment or not.

"S&W stated at one point that their legal team didn't consider it legally binding on the new ownership."

And the previous owner's legal team thought that signing the agreement would be a good thing for the company. That worked out just dandy for them.



"They even petitioned President Bush to rescind it, but he refused."

Well, they claim they did, but it's never been clearly stated as to how they petitioned for such a action, but it certainly doesn't appear to have been done officially, through official channels...

Which means, in effect, that they never petitioned the Bush administration to rescind the agreement.

But, if they did make such a petition, that can be taken as an affirmation that they KNOW that the agreement is binding and enforceable even if it isn't being enforced and that they know that are willfully violating both a contract and a court order.

Read this...

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/sw-hud+3.html

I do not, however, agree with Rob Fiorriolo's assessment of the situation. It would likely require a lengthy and expensive series of legal actions to determine if the government could, at some future point, dust off the agreement and take action against S&W.

And if it were found that they could? S&W's intransigence and inaction could prove to be devastating to gun owners, gun shops, and S&W.
 
I have heard of the "The Deal" but have never read it. Thanks for the links.

IMO, If the current administration thought it could enforce this deal it would have already done so.
 
"Where is the OP? He makes one post in this thread like he has a point to be made and then disappears? Sure sounds like a drive by to me."

Busy?

Traveling?

Sick with the flu?

Repelling Neptunian invaders from the south 40?

Watching and weighing all of the replies so far?


If you have a concern about the OP's intentions, how about you not broadcast it, and instead either reach out to a moderator or click the report post button?
 
"IMO, If the current administration thought it could enforce this deal it would have already done so."

What about the next not-so-friendly administration?

Or the one after that?

There's no lack of historic precedence for administrations dusting off forgotten, decades-old laws or court decisions to support something that they're wanting to do.
 
I dont like getting into the "political" side of things. But by the looks of it most everyone loves their smiths including me. I only own 1 at the moment but im sure i will get atleast one more. I really like the model 29 with a 4 inch barrel and wood grips.

Anyway for those who took the time and read the link thanks. Like i said in the op i have nothing against sw i own one and i love it.
 
Chuck Hawks is not high on my list of respected authorities.

Kinda reminds me of Jon Stewart - has a nice big audience, but his opinions and views aren't always accurate............ (I wish there a BIG yawn emoticon)
 
That article almost reads like a parody of a takedown piece. Good grief. Been a while since I had seen it posted.

And I say that as someone who has almost no interest in any revolver S&W has produced since 1980 (only plan to pick up a 586 and 686, sans dash, at some point) nor in any semi-auto they've produced since the '90s, except for the exceptional semi-autos the Performance Center turned out (952 versions, 845, 945, PPC 9, Super 9, etc.) back when the PC designation actually had substantive significance.
 
I have only my own, anecdotal experience with S&W to offer. I own a Model 629 made in the 1980s and it is an excellent performer at the range and in the field. No complaints. It is actually more accurate than the Colt Anaconda I owned, which was sold for that reason. I owned a Model 19, 2.5" made in the 1970s and it was excellent. It never shot itself loose, it was accurate way beyond my expectations for a snubby, and it was beautiful to behold. I regretfully sold it (times were bad). Times changed, and I was able to replace it with a new Model 686+, also a 2.5" snubby. It had a horrible action, it didn't even sound good when I dry fired it. It was not nearly as accurate as my Model 19 was. I gleefully sold it. Still wanting a snub nose .357 revolver, I next bought a Model 386 Sc/S. Scandium frame, titanium cylinder, steel barrel liner, 7 shot cylinder, the latest in high tech, and very, very expensive. The double action trigger is very heavy, the light weight makes it controllable only with .38 Special +P ammo, and it is not nearly as accurate as my Model 19 was. I will happily sell it. My next S&W magnum snubby, if there is one, will be about 30-40 years old and not a day newer.

Odds are I will buy a Ruger Security Six snubby instead. Why not a 3" inch GP100? or a SP101? Fixed sights, that's why. If Ruger made a GP100 with a 2.5" barrel and adjustable sights, I'd buy it. If they made it with a 7 chambered cylinder, I'd buy 2 or 3 of them. (Times are good again)
 
Originally posted by Mike Irwin
" the new owners almost immediately disavowed the whole thing"

Yeah.... no, they didn't.

They chose to ignore it.

The way the agreement was written means that it's dormant, not dead.

They made no effort to comply with the terms of the agreement and publicly stated that they consider it null and void. Short of burning the agreement and spitting on the ashes in the public square, I don't see how you can get any more "disavowed".

"IMO, If the current administration thought it could enforce this deal it would have already done so."

What about the next not-so-friendly administration?

Or the one after that?

There's no lack of historic precedence for administrations dusting off forgotten, decades-old laws or court decisions to support something that they're wanting to do.

Even if the agreement was legally binding to subsequent owners of S&W (it's changed owners at least twice that I know of since 2000), it is unlikely that the current administration or any subsequent one could enforce it due to the statute of limitations (S&W's failure to comply would have to be considered breach of contract). I believe, and the members who are lawyers can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that the statute of limitations for a civil suit in federal court is five years.

Even if S&W was sued for breach of contract in state court, it would likely have to be in Washington D.C., Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Georgia, New Jersey, Michigan, Indiana, Florida, or Missouri because those states are where the entities party to the agreement are/were located. Of those states, Indiana has the longest statute of limitations for breach of written contract at 10 years.

Now, according to the terms of the agreement, certain requirements were supposed to be implemented within a specified period of time. Specifically, the internal locking device requirement, which was never implemented (S&W's key lock is not unique to each gun as specified), was to have been implemented within 24 months and the child safety requirement, which was also never implemented, was supposed to be implemented within 12 months. Because the agreement was signed March 17, 2000, S&W technically breached the contract almost 14 years ago (the child safety requirement should have been implemented by March 17, 2001) which is well beyond the statute of limitations for any jurisdiction that suit could be brought in.

So, as I understand it, even if the agreement is still legally binding and in force, the parties involved have waited so long to address S&W's breach of contract that the whole thing is now unenforceable. For any practical purpose, the agreement is dead.
 
Back
Top