What is going on at S&W?

H

hjm

New member
I have heard numerous statements about S&W and how they were bought by a U.S. company.

I was told the infamous "agreement" with the govt. is now null and void. Is this true?

If so, are there any reasons we should not buy a S&W?

I am new to guns, so I am somewhat in the dark.

Thanks,

hjm
 
I know they are now U.S. owned, but, good question, what about the 'evil agreement'?

I still wouldn't buy an S&W until they apologize, though. ;)
 
this topic is discussed and cussed every month or so. Use the search function at the top of the page to find most recent threads.
 
They have not lifted a finger to fight the agreement. Their press releases sound like they support the agreement.

Two and two makes Smith a bad bet. They seem to be waiting for us to resume buying their product so they can simultaniously rob us of our rights to purchase in a free market. :mad:
 
I believe they stated that they will stick to all agreements made by their former owners.
 
I believe they stated that they will stick to all agreements made by their former owners.
Click to expand...

Well, then forget 'em.

"S&W" now stands for "Suckers & Weenies."

I can't wait 'til they file bankruptcy.
 
Do a search on S&W and Agreement.

There have been a LOT of very interesting threads on this topic.

Lots of passion on both sides of the coin.
 
I read an article in a local gun shop/range that had been cut out of a Wall Street Journal that said the Bush administration sees the deal with S&W as a "memorandum" and not a legally binding contract. Can't remember specifics. I won't buy a new S&W until the agreement is publically announced by all parties to be null & void though. If it still exists, it's still possible for the next administration to try and enforce it, plain and simple. As long as it isn't legally nullified, it is still a danger.

We can't allow this agreement to end up like so many of the stupid laws on the books. Potentially enforceable but not enforced. As long as it exists, it MAY be used against us sooner or later. Not acceptable!

R6
 
Memorandum my ear !

"VIII. Enforcement
The Agreement will be entered and is enforceable as a Court order and as a contract. ..." From the first agreement.

The first agreement in its entirety http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=31&1=View

They have been promulgating disinformation since prior to the Safe-T-Hammer deal. Classic example was the sanitized version of the first agreement that was on Smith's website for a while.

Sam
 
C.R. Sam,

Have you seen the article I am referring to? Or, for that matter, has anyone else seen it? I've seen it posted in two diferent shops. One was an actual cut out article, the other was a Xerox copy of the same article. I thought it was BS when I read it. Just curious as to whether or not anyone else has seen it.

It is a threat until it is legally nullified, as I said in my previous post. Sounds like some biased press personnel trying to smooth it over and let it lay in snare! Beware, the trap is set. Let your guard down now and we all stand to get caught when it snaps.

R6
 
Agreement or not. I will not buy a new smith if the company puts the frame mounted safety on the guns. I love Smith's, but can see a remarkable difference in quality between my aunts late 70's Mod 19 and my early 90's Mod 65. Quality has been going down at Smith for a while now. Keeping the agreement ensures that I won't buy new. There are plenty of better quality used Smiths to go around.

-Wheelgun
 
I read the agreement. I cannot believe they agreed to that crap. I feel slimy just owning one of the guns. I would be embarrassed to bring it out in public, and buying a new one is entirely out of the question.
 
R-6, no, I haven't seen the WS article.

The way I read the agreement, it would require rescinding the court order to void the contract between Smith and the numerous parties.

Sam
 
Well, I went and confronted my mayor at one of our bi-weekly, televised City Council meetings last year when I found out that this clueless idiot had signed the agreement. I put him on the spot and he actually said that he thought the 'agreement' was merely about 'child safety'. Sheez.

I've had a long time to think about this. I haven't purchased any S&W products during that time. I've also advised others not to, either.

Like I said, I've had a long time to think. True, former CEO Shultz signed the agreement. It was a despicable thing to do. I'm still angry. I'm angry at his actions. I can't forgive him

For whatever reason, he signed it. He's gone. Thompkins is gone, but the problems remain.

S&W is still shelling out a lot of money defending itself against frivilous lawsuits from various municipalities, yet we continue to sit back, ignore these lawsuits, and allow our cities to continue on this path. S&W and the other manufactures have to pay, whether they win or lose.

We allow our cities to use our money to attack legitimate businesses due to the direction of our previous lying, disbarred, dishonest president. Due to a definite cutback in our buying habits, S&W has also laid off a lot of its workforce. These people are American gun manufacturing workers. They're also our neighbors, friends, and fellow pro-gun people.

I don't know what it would take for their new owners to 'apologize' or attempt to get the agreement nullified. I' don't know this. I'm not a lawyer. I do know, however, that this agreement isn't one that is going to be enforced. I also know that I like seeing Americans making fine handguns, and I don't like to see them out of work.

S&W is an innovative company that manufactures some of the best handguns around. Their wheelguns are great, and I don't want to lose this part of Americana. I want this company in existance for my kids and grandkids. I don't want to see them squashed out of existance because cities are suing them on one hand(which we ignore and allow), and we're not purchasing with the other.

There. My opinions are worth what you paid for them. This is what I think, and I've been thinking about this a lot. I've admitted that I was adamantly opposed to purchasing in the past, but I'm not, anymore. I will be purchasing a new S&W product in the near future.

Go ahead. Start typing. Tell me how I'm now part of the problem, too. Maybe somehow I'm no longer 'pro-gun' enough. My flame suit is on.

straightShot
 
Agree with most of what you said Straight, but the fact that it's wrong that S&W has to face frivilous lawsuits does not give them the right to attack my rights to own firearms and other companies rights to exist.

They bent over mainly to gain goverment contracts to take sales away from thier competition who did not whither to the the will of Janet Reno and Clinton. I won't be buying any new SW's but won't sell my old ones.
 
"....I do know, however, that this agreement isn't one that is going to be enforced...."

How do you KNOW that ? Though the agreements (plural) made between Smith and others are not at this time being enforced in their entirety; with a hiccup in our present administration or a change in the white house the whole onerous thing could become a screaming reality overnight. Directly and adversly affecting dealers, distributors and buyers of other brands.

Some major retail car dealors employ as many people as Smith. A good machinest can find work without SnW. Especially with the military buildup.

From the appearance of some of the product coming down the line, appears that at least some of their smiths, machinests and QC people aren't all that good anyway.

Buy smith, give funding and other support to the gun grabbers.

Sam
 
I know I should have done it sooner, but I just read the agreement, in full, in CR Sam's link. My question is "What is so bad about it?"

I don't agree with the "assault weapons" ban, and the part about minimum barrel lengths and gun sizes unless accuracy falls within certain parameters is unexplainable by me. My biggest problem is the 10 round magazine thing, which I understand was Ruger's fault, not S&W's.

Most of what is in the agreement is a good idea. Drop tests, background checks, safeties, record keeping, etc. I understand that most of us (including me) feel that an external safety on a revolver makes the gun not as pretty as it might be without one, but what's the big deal?

Would someone tell me what's so bad about this agreement? Did I read the wrong one? I'm considering picking up a new 686, so tell me why I shouldn't.
 
<Gritting teeth and slapping hand away from the keyboard>

I ain't gonna respond, Branrot. Do a search and take a look at the numerous threads where the merits of the "agreement" are cussed and discussed.

<Breathing deeply, counting to 10, going to my safeplace. I'm ok now.>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top