"The S&W Agreement", Part MCMLXVII

P

peacemaker

Inactive
you know.....the BIG one



kidding. I'm not sure what the date was exactly, but I know that S&W submitted to gun control through the crap cases in which firearms industries were sued for making "dangerous" products, and blaming criminals on the gun companies. For instance, they agreed, "to support legislative efforts to reduce firearm misuse." etc.
does that help at all?
 
At one time Smith & Wesson made an agreement with the Clinton Administration in which they, in my honest opinion, turned their back on rightful gun owners. I have a Taurus Model 80 .38 that has 40,000 rds through it and outperforms Kimber 45's. For me to trust S&W again would be to trust an adulterous ex-wife drunk in a male strip club.
 
Lacking any signed paperwork between the Fed. Gov't. and Smith & Wesson releasing the company from obligations under the HUD agreement of March 2000, the agreement is NOT dead. It's dormant.

As for Smith & Wesson quality, that started becoming a more serious issue starting in the early to mid 1990s when I began noticing more and more disturbing problems that never should have been creeping into the production guns.

But, then again, what does it really matter if the barrel is screwed on crooked, or it's screwed into the frame so tightly that there's an obvious pressure ring in the bore, or if the action has several distinct hitches, drags, and stops?
 
A Gun-Control Argument, Isn't It?

Matthew posted:
For me to trust S&W again would be to trust an adulterous ex-wife drunk in a male strip club.
Click to expand...

I have to respectfully dispute this opinion, on the basis that it is essentially the same fallacious argument that gun-grabbers have been using against firearms owners for as long as I can recall. They insist on blaming the gun for the (sometimes) criminal and despicable actions of it's owner. The infamous S&W HUD agreement was the action of the British corporation that owned S&W at the time. Fortunately, this great American firearms manufacturer has since changed ownership, and is currently being run by Americans who have made substantial, sincere efforts to win back the alienated U.S. gun market, both through their legal maneuverings regarding the HUD agreement, and through their renewed dedication to the kind of innovative product development for which the company has become legendary. Yes, some of this has involved lawyer-proof locks and cost-reducing manufacturing practices, and us old-timers just have to sigh a little over changing times. But they don't make decent rock-'n-roll anymore, and a pickup truck is more yuppie-mobile than honest-to-god truck these days, and, and, and... Things change. There's a whole new generation of shooters out there, fortunately, and they like newer and different and they want to be able to afford it, so S&W, under it's new leadership, is making substantial efforts to meet their needs, sell more guns, and make enough money in the process to be able to continue doing so. Hell, I don't much care for the new Smiths (except maybe I gotta have a 1911, if they'll bright blue one for me), but I love having the company back.

Holding a grudge against Smith & Wesson for the deplorable actions of it's previous owners, isn't a whole lot different than holding a gun responsible for a crime committed by it's owner. We say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," and we are absolutely right. We can also say, "Gun companies don't commit treacherous political acts, but company owners can," and we'd be just as right.

Please, everybody, let's remember the wrongs of the past, be glad for the changes of the present, and be hopeful for the direction of the future.

Okay, that's just about enough out of me....

OutAtTheEdge
 
Holding a grudge against Smith & Wesson for the deplorable actions of it's previous owners, isn't a whole lot different than holding a gun responsible for a crime committed by it's owner.
Click to expand...

I may have to reconsider my position on S&W knowing they are no longer owned by the Brits who tried to sell out to the Clinton Administration.

Please, everybody, let's remember the wrongs of the past, be glad for the changes of the present, and be hopeful for the direction of the future.
Click to expand...

Couldnt agree more, well said IMO.

I have always liked the S&W never owned one because of the government ass kissing that was going on but knowing now that the company is no longer owned by those ignorant morons that would have rolled over on there backs for the Clinton Administration makes me feel a whole better and I may actually consider buying there products now. Glad to see that one of the oldest American firearms companys is back where it belongs. And if anyone from Colt is reading this take initative to not let your customers feel the same way about your company :rolleyes:
 
I'm one who likes the "old" Smiths. High on my want list is an M10 pencil barrel, and a 3in M13.

Considering ownership, there are still shooters who haven't forgiven Smith & Wesson for the QC problems during the years of Bangor Punta ownership (wasn't Bangor Punta another British company?).

It's a sad fact that gun owners are some of the most unforgiving, long-memoried people on the planet. Is there any gun-related company that hasn't been trashed at some time?
 
"Please, everybody, let's remember the wrongs of the past, be glad for the changes of the present, and be hopeful for the direction of the future."

WHAT changes of the present?

Smith & Wesson's new American owners have done not thing one to rectify the "wrongs of the past."

They've ignored the existence of the agreement, and have done absolutely nothing to work with the Bush administration to have the agreement nullified formally and legally. How does that make them any better than the previous owners?

Oh, silly me. They're AMERICANS, right? And everyone knows that AMERICANS are so much better than anyone else, and that AMERICANS would never take a position that would jeopardize our firearms rights.

I guess that would make Ted Kennedy a martian, then.
 
I have to agree with Mike Irwin on the HUD agreement. It may not be enforced, but its still there. The next anti-gun president could drag it out of mothballs and start a real mess. :mad:
I also agree that the "new" American owners have done nothing to make S&W better. In fact they've made the products worse by focusing on cost control measures instead of quality control. :mad:
I haven't bought a new S&W since the early 90s. However, I'm always checking out gun shows and internet auction sites for those great older guns. Fortunately, there's still a good supply of them.
Politics plays only a small part in my decision to foresake current S&W products. The simple sad fact is that they don't make 'em like they useta. :(
 
Politics and public relations. Ignoring the agreement works while publically breaking it brings attention from anti-gun politicians, press and groups. Sure, we'd prefer if S&W stood up and shouted "we have no intention of maintaining this deal" but that would draw too much fire from too many sides and we have to remember that above all else S&W is a business, not a political lobbyist, and they want to sell products and make a profit not fight political battles.

As for the preference for older guns, most people agree that fit, finish, and workmanship was generally superior back in the good old days. Today's guns are testements to manufacturing shortcuts. Jeff Cooper once noted that guns used to be built by artisans, now they're made by manufacturers.
 
Politics and public relations. Ignoring the agreement works while publically breaking it brings attention from anti-gun politicians, press and groups. Sure, we'd prefer if S&W stood up and shouted "we have no intention of maintaining this deal" but that would draw too much fire from too many sides and we have to remember that above all else S&W is a business, not a political lobbyist, and they want to sell products and make a profit not fight political battles.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. Its very easy to sit from behind a computer and say what you think the management of S&W should have done to further gun rights when its not going to cost you your job, lawsuits, and bankruptcy. As Too Far Gone has pointed out S&W is a business. Their primary goal is to earn a profit for their shareholders and the management has a duty not to drive the business into the ground just to make a political statement. Ever hear of a shareholder derivative lawsuit?

S&W was a primary target of the Clinton administration and they chose to sign an agreement which would allow them to continue to operate without the Damocles Sword of litigation hanging over their head. Not only could the legal fees be enormous (possibly millions of dollars), but a loss could have jeopardized their very existance as a company. Additionally, had they not signed off on the deal, their creditors would likely treat the value of the pending lawsuit as a liability which would impact their credit and jeopardize S&W's ability to finance materials, machinery, etc.

That said, I've never been a huge fan of S&W products and don't currently own any, but my opinion of their products is a whole different issue.
 
Politics and public relations. Ignoring the agreement works while publically breaking it brings attention from anti-gun politicians, press and groups. Sure, we'd prefer if S&W stood up and shouted "we have no intention of maintaining this deal" but that would draw too much fire from too many sides and we have to remember that above all else S&W is a business, not a political lobbyist, and they want to sell products and make a profit not fight political battles.
Click to expand...

Well said if I do say so myself :D Too Far Gone
 
and is currently being run by Americans who have made substantial, sincere efforts to win back the alienated U.S. gun market, both through their legal maneuverings regarding the HUD agreement,
Click to expand...

No, it's currently run by Americans who have made substantial efforts at smoke and mirrors to win back the alienated U.S. gun market, through deception and slight of hand, regarding the HUD agreement, when in actuality, NOTHING of substance has happened. Like Mike said, it is DORMANT, *not* DEAD, or formally repudiated. It can spring to life at any time. There is a REASON that the current AMERICAN owners chose this course of action over formally repudiating. That reason is, they want to be able to whip it out, comply with it, to protect themselves once again, should the next prez admin not be amenable to the status quo, and leave the rest of the industry twisting in the wind should it become expedient to their bottom line. Otherwise, do tell, what is the REASON for not putting a formal stake in its heart??????????????????????

Its very easy to sit from behind a computer and say what you think the management of S&W should have done to further gun rights when its not going to cost you your job, lawsuits, and bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

OMG, shaggy, that is the whole point. Of course they're saving theirselves from legal liability by staying in the agreement (should the lawsuit ever resume). That is precisely the point. By doing so, they screw over the rest of the industry that stands side by side in defense of a BOGUS, baseless lawsuit. And S&W is one of the bigger ones, with strong sales. So of course we have to raise the COSTS to them to more than what the alternative costs are - only way to do that is with a boycott. But since the vast majority of folks have been fooled by their smoke and mirrors, we haven't successfully raised their costs to more than staying in the agreement. Thus they will of course stay in. They're grinning from ear to ear, doubtless. And it wouldn't make them bankrupt to stand side by side with the rest of the industry, and chip in some legal fees to defend the bogus stuff. They just wanted to boost their profits, and they thought no one would notice. But the SHTF when their hand was in the cookie jar, so they launched a major PR campaign after ownership changed, and it was easy to sell this bill of goods to the public, since the prez admin had changed and the lawsuit (temporarily) dropped.
 
FirstFreedom

S&W is not in the business of protecting the entire gun industry - they are a profit driven business. And as a business their primary responsibility is to their bottom line for the benefit of their stockholders, creditors, and employees. Do you have any idea of what that kind of litigation can cost? We're not talking about a measley million or two here, there's a lot more at stake. I don't know who S&W used for counsel or what their legal bills are but as I write this, I'm working on a case brought by several states against my firm's client. A different matter, but similar in size, scope, and financial impact. Our burn rate is approximately $1M per month. Thats approximately $12 million a year for as long as the litigation is active. Imagine how an unexpected legal bill of something like $12million/year would impact a company like S&W and their ability to continue to conduct business. And thats just the legal fees - a loss in court could easily make that $12M look like pocket change.

So where would S&W pull several million dollars a year for just legal fees? Certainly not their bank as no lending institution is going to ignore the potential financial impact of a loss. The potential legal fees and the potential amount at stake on a loss in court would be held against S&W's credit. In the case HUD would have brought, it could have completely shut down S&W's ability to acquire long or short term financing for any purpose whatsoever. So tell me, if S&W were to fight the suit, how do they continue to operate without credit or ability to secure any financing for materials, legal bills, make up for occasional or cyclic shortfalls in revenue?

No offense, FF, but its just too simplistic to blame S&W for not sticking up for the entire gun industry. There was far too much money at stake. Boycott S&W to hurt them for chosing the path which would allow them to continue to operate? Thats a great idea - if the government won't put them out of business, we gun owners can do it for them because they wouldn't let the government put them out of business.

Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:
 
You know shaggy when you look at something you must see a totally different picture than I do or something :p But I do say I have to agree with you on this, as it completely makes sense to me. I just have one question though wouldnt it be easier to just take this thing head on and get it over with rather than having to constantly be looking over their shoulders waiting for the Feds to rekindle the pursuit of this insane lawsuit. If they did in fact do this I think support for S & W would go thru the roof, even if a person had to pay a little more for one of there guns, to help offset the legal costs. I think most people would still buy their products just because they stood up and did the right thing.
 
"The Agreement" that everyone is so anxious to see go away.
- No one seems to comprehend that an agreement once signed is a binding legal document. You can't just simply say "Oh wait, I changed my mind!" and nullify it.
 
1. Yes, S&W changed hands. The new owners have since agreed to abide by all agreements, including the one with HUD.

2. As stated above, the agreement with HUD is currently dormant, not dead.

3. People forget that along with legal protection, the agreement also illegally gave S&W preferential treatment in bids for gov't weapons. The agreement wasn't so much about preserving S&W as it was giving S&W a leg up on other gov't contracts.
 
buzz_knox,

3. People forget that along with legal protection, the agreement also illegally gave S&W preferential treatment in bids for gov't weapons.
Click to expand...

A condition of the agreement that was immediately violated by the .gov even before the ink was dry on the paper (as was the "protection from lawsuits" part.) Honestly curious: does the fact that both signatories are vigorously flouting its terms hurt the viability of a contract?
 
No, Tam, it doesn't. Because the feds didn't violate their part of the bargain. Federal contracts are subject to the will of Congress, and Congress can impede their performance through legislative action. That doesn't void the contract, just makes that particular aspect economically troublesom, if other portions of the contract can continue in place.

As for protection from lawsuits, HUD hasn't sued S&W so the agreement so HUD didn't violate it. The other signatories to the agreement dropped their suits so they didn't violate it. Those that continued their suits had backed out before signing.
 
Wow - it's been a long time since I've been here - & it's good to see that some of us are still keeping an eye on S&W!!

I can't trust them - I simply can not.
 
Modern Marvels on the History Channel was talking about smart guns Friday. Smart guns are pistols only the owner can fire. The owner would have to wear a special wrist tag sending signals to a computer chip in the pistol.
Colt is the frontrunner designing these. Their spokesperson said on the program they owe it to the safety of their consumers to develop smart guns so people can't misuse them.
People jump on S&W, yet Colt is pulling this garbage and people will stick by them. I for one will NEVER own a Colt of any kind after hearing them spew their garbage Friday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top