"I will NEVER buy an S&W"

[Mass-diver]

So, I was at a party today speaking with a friend of mine's husband. After I got over the shock of the fact that he really into guns, we starting talking about different model/makes/etc. When the subject of S&W came up, he commented that he would never buy an S&W because of how they folded to Clinton in the 90s.

While I'm familiar with what happened, I wasn't that active with shooting at the time (I was still in HS and while I shot regularly at my local club, I didn't know much about the politics of gun ownership). I've read a lot of comments on the internet, but mostly from people outside MA.

I was just curious as to how some of you guys feel about the issue. Have you 'forgiven' S&W?

 

[Bob P]

It's an entirly different company now. The executive group has completely changed.

 

[Garys]

Totally different ownership back then. The company has been sold at least once since then. I'm pretty sure that the deal with Clinton is long since gone.

 

[economist]

They sold out to Clinton, but so did Ruger. Colt literally sold out part of its operations to the state of Connecticut and intentionally bastardized the AR-15 for civilian sales (e.g., the famous sear block, among other things). That's just from memory. Bottom line is S&W has new ownership, as noted above. Bill Ruger is dead. As for Colt, well at least they were making ARs for commoners back before the ban. So, my view is to buy products you like and save the animosity for Clinton, Bloomberg, and the rest of the anti-gun crowd.

 

[Franco]

i think Ruger was way worse? Ruger egged on the whole AWB back then. they were fighting againist the whole black rifle crowd. also while trying to boost sales on the mini-14

you cant be angry at S&W they make some of the best revolvers period!

 

[vellnueve]

At the time I was furious at S&W. The entire thing made me sick.

I now have nine S&W handguns and two rifles built on M&P receivers in my safe.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Supermoto]

Lets not forget about Glock and their support of ballistic fingerprinting

 

[Mass-diver]

At the time I was furious at S&W. The entire thing made me sick.

I now have nine S&W handguns and two rifles built on M&P receivers in my safe.

Does that answer your question?

Makes me a feel a little better. I own a bunch of S&Ws too.

 

[Cuz]

S&W makes the best Revolvers on the planet. Since I like shooting Revos, I've forgiven them.

And Supermoto, I was unaware of Glocks support of ballistic fingerprinting but I forgive them too because they make the best semi-auto on the planet (IMHO).

-Cuz.

 

[Gammon]

The company (S&W) was owned by a bunch on Limeys at the time, and they predictably rolled over for Clinton. Look at the UK's gun laws, what would you expect?

S&W is now back in the hands of US citizens, so no apology is necessary. You can't hold the current management responsible for the actions of some turncoat foreigners. The Brits amaze me. The only reason they aren't speaking German today is because a lot of brave men with those nasty guns stopped the Third Reich dead in its tracks.

 

[Zappa]

S&W makes the best Revolvers on the planet.

Guess you've never heard of Freedom Arms or Korth.

 

[Jose]

For every gun he won't buy, I will.

 

[Taipan01]

I've forgiven them six times since that episode.

 

[Moderator]

I love how people here one thing (maybe true or not) and then they make up their mind to boycott a company without doing the research.

 

[andrew]

If I held a grudge against every gun company that "sold out", I would only buy Barrett. Have you ever tried to conceal a Barrett?

 

[Woodstock]

The boycott almost killed S&W

As was said earlier, the Brits that owned the company signed a deal with the Clintonistas (written by Andrew Cuomo, then in the Justice Dept), and they thought the other gun companies would fall into line. S&W sales went to practically zero. A lot of good people got laid off, and the company was close to bankruptcy.
Fortunately some American investors bought out the Brits, cancelled the deal with the Feds, and brought S&W back from the grave. S&W is now run by pro-gun folks, and they support a lot of our causes and activities, like NRA, GOAL, Friends of NRA banquets, IDPA, etc., etc. Their guns are great, their service is excellent, and they employ hundreds of American workers, many of them shooters.
Last thing we need is for the biggest, oldest handgun maker in the U.S. to get shut down because of one stupid political decision. They've learned their lesson, and I think a lot of other companies did, too. Mess with our rights, pay a big price.

 

[Will Brink]

So, I was at a party today speaking with a friend of mine's husband. After I got over the shock of the fact that he really into guns, we starting talking about different model/makes/etc. When the subject of S&W came up, he commented that he would never buy an S&W because of how they folded to Clinton in the 90s.

While I'm familiar with what happened, I wasn't that active with shooting at the time (I was still in HS and while I shot regularly at my local club, I didn't know much about the politics of gun ownership). I've read a lot of comments on the internet, but mostly from people outside MA.

I was just curious as to how some of you guys feel about the issue. Have you 'forgiven' S&W?

Nothing to forgive. It's been under different ownership for a long time, and they have done a fantastic job with the company getting it back on track.

 

[jaypap]

If I held a grudge against every gun company that "sold out", I would only buy Barrett. Have you ever tried to conceal a Barrett?

Now your talking. When Glock was told thier guns were not fit for law biding citizens in MA they should have pulled them all from the state agencies in MA.

Barret says if you ban his guns from regular Joe's he won't support the police guns in your State.

I wonder if you were shot by a cop in MA with a Glock if a sleazy lawyer could use the AG's consumer protection act against him.

I mean the Attorney General already said there weren't enough safeties on the gun. S&W was targeted by Clinton because they were big as was Ruger. Tompkins PLC was the owner a British based company who could care less about our Second Ammendment.

They owned the company to make money not to lose it during law suits.

The best interview during this period came from Bill Ruger when asked on 60 Minutes about flooding the markets where gun laws were laxed he said " I never sold a gun to anyone who didn't want to buy one".

When the government singles out your bussiness it's hard to fight them look at G.M. Obama had the C.E.O. fired.

It's only a matter of time before Obama comes after us, together we stand divided we fall.

 

[mikem317]

Manufacturers like S&W, Glock and Ruger, etc. get put over a barrel by the government.

If they refuse to comply then they just don't get the contract and government contracts are a good portion of their respective top lines.

 

[cekim]

Manufacturers like S&W, Glock and Ruger, etc. get put over a barrel by the government.

If they refuse to comply then they just don't get the contract and government contracts are a good portion of their respective top lines.

Yeah, I have to agree...

Did they make a deal with the devil? Yes... They had to... Other than start shooting, they had little choice and in the end it cost them their ownership of the company anyway...

If you want to make a political statement today given where we stand, you are better off buying good quality American guns - as many as you can afford...

It isn't terribly productive to continue punishing them for the prior owner's solution to a lousy hand of cards under comrade Clinton...

 

[K-DUB]

The whole Clinton thing was before my adulthood, so I don't hold a grudge for that. I really like their revolvers & 1911's.

 

[KMaurer]

I wonder if you were shot by a cop in MA with a Glock if a sleazy lawyer could use the AG's consumer protection act against him.

What's sleazy about it? I've been saying for a long time that I'm just waiting for the first suit against some officer or department based on somebody getting shot by a police gun not on the EOPS list or by the AG's office. I'd love to see the attorney subpoena the AG and forcing them to testify that they've gone after dealers for selling the same gun because they consider it "unsafe".

Ken

 

[Mass-diver]

What's sleazy about it? I've been saying for a long time that I'm just waiting for the first suit against some officer or department based on somebody getting shot by a police gun not on the EOPS list or by the AG's office. I'd love to see the attorney subpoena the AG and forcing them to testify that they've gone after dealers for selling the same gun because they consider it "unsafe".

Ken

But the police have special training

 

[cekim]

But the police have special training

True, but it doesn't focus much on firearm safety or proficiency

Those are skills they generally need to develop on their own time/dime... (not invariably, but frequently).

 

[Erebus]

But the police have special training

True, but it doesn't focus much on firearm safety or proficiency

Those are skills they generally need to develop on their own time/dime... (not invariably, but frequently).

They way some people talk about police training you would think that the academy turns them into Jedi.

Oh and too keep this post on topic, I don't hold the current owners responsible for what the previous owners did.

 

[Zappa]

Here's an article from 2001 about the sale of S&W to Saf-T-Hammer.

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2001/05/14/daily1.html

I'm surprised that the original Saf-T-Hammer device never made its way onto the S&W 1911's. It allows "Cocked & Locked" carry with the hammer DOWN. Sounds strange, but that's how it works. When the safety is released, the hammer snaps back into firing position.

 

[jaypap]

What's sleazy about it? I've been saying for a long time that I'm just waiting for the first suit against some officer or department based on somebody getting shot by a police gun not on the EOPS list or by the AG's office. I'd love to see the attorney subpoena the AG and forcing them to testify that they've gone after dealers for selling the same gun because they consider it "unsafe".

Ken

Ken, I think its a great idea thats why I wrote it.

Sorry if I lumped all lawyers in one pile, just never been a big fan of attorneys.

 

[buketduder]

Before my time too....but S&W comes to Hartford every year to speak against new proposed gun laws at the Public Hearings..Them, along with Colt, Ruger, Marlin and Mossberg and I prob missed some..maybe Stag too and any other CT Company's....They should come to Mass too...

 

[Mark from MA]

I remember it well, when they pulled that Clinton BS, I was part of the S&W and Ruger boycott, and I believe the market spoke and nearly bankrupt S&W......the new ownership learned fast that if they want to sell guns they need to be with the american gun owner and not on the side of the facist regimes.

As it should be, S&W learned their lesson and did their time....I'm OK with them now. Although, I still beleive they patronize the MA asshat's too much, with the 100# trigger's on their M&P's, their plant is here, so they have to play the game. I just won't buy an M&P......

They do have a lot of compliant rifle setups, so I'll tip the hat to them for that......

 

[vellnueve]

Although, I still beleive they patronize the MA asshat's too much, with the 100# trigger's on their M&P's, their plant is here, so they have to play the game.

So, what exactly should they be doing?