What is with SIG these days? They have added zilch to the roster in several years (Mosquito was the last I recall). It would seem there is a huge unmet demand for some of their higher end offerings (Carry, Carry Elite Stainless models) but zero motivation to get them on the roster. Very frustrating.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Is SIG abandoning MA?
- Thread starter WillyJP
- Start date
Unless and until Massachusetts returns to the rule of law, you can't expect any better.
I'm frankly surprised that they offer so many of their models here at all.
The "huge demand for some of their higher end offerings" doesn't amount to a yellow hole in the snow, compared to the real market in the free states.
Jack
I'm frankly surprised that they offer so many of their models here at all.
The "huge demand for some of their higher end offerings" doesn't amount to a yellow hole in the snow, compared to the real market in the free states.
Jack
Several of SIG's products seem shoo-ins for the Target Roster. The 220 Match and Super Match, the X-Five Open and Competition, the X-Six PPC and the 1911 Target could easily be made available in MA.
Assuming, of course, SIG made the minimal effort necessary to do so.
Assuming, of course, SIG made the minimal effort necessary to do so.
Funny, I had it on good authority that one of the NES attorneys was working on getting the two USPSA Elite models added to the target roster.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,530
- Likes
- 33,561
The good authority was correct. The director of marketing of SIG told me he would be glad to work with the attorney and agreed to an acceptable payment but, as I understand it, getting the required paperwork to the attorney has not been a big priority.
Yep, the fact that just about every standard model they build is MA compliant is clearly abandonment.
I was thinking the same thing..
what??
its all about making money, if a company is going to loose money making mass compliant guns then they aren't going to make them. smith has a lot invested in "Ma compliant guns. its only benefiting them to hold most of the market in mass
My understanding is that the certification process for each individual model is too expensive and too encumbersome. What is it now, 95% of the guns that can be bought in other states cannot be bought here? There are rumors that the certification process is nothing more than a bunch of kickbacks. I do understand the need for every gun manufactured after X date should have certain safeties, including a drop safety. That certainly makes sense. However, the consumer protection agency in MA is going too far. Take for example the Springfield XD. Probably one of the safest lines of guns in the country. But Springfield won't bow down to the titans of MA government and corruption, so the gun remains illegal. Sig is probably in the same position. I loved the idea of the P250, with all the interchangeable parts. How much would not just the model, but all the modifications cost to certify. It's just another avenue that MA is using to restrict the guns in MA.
Well, you just require them to provide a letter stating that their guns have the proper safeties. If they're lying, you can always sue them later. Make it like a $200k fine for lying.
No, I mean it's slippery because while that's a good idea, it doesn't need to be codified into law. The government has no business telling people how or when they can bear arms.
A Jennings or Lorcin won't pass rigorous safety testing, but the difference in a $50 gun or a $500 gun is a hell of a lot of grocery money for a single mom.
That's why I said after X date. Prior to that date, all bets are off. You can't hold a manufacturer responsible for not meeting standards in the past. That's like going back to a classic car and saying you can't own it because it doesn't have air bags.
Internal and drop safeties are a good idea going forward. Times change and so does technology.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,530
- Likes
- 33,561
There are two certification processes:
1. Lab tested (drop test), as well as compliance with a feature list
2. Target certified - certification obtained by paperwork only, including all marketing literature for the gun for several years showing is was marketed exclusively for formal target shooting competition only.
I am sufficiently familiar with the process to be able to say with certainty there is no "kickback" required. I recruited legal counsel for a manufacturer to handle this issue and I would definitely have heard if anyone int the state attempted to indulge in such cretinous mendacity. Any rumors to that effect are simply wrong. Also, unlike CA, there is no application of certification fee to the state and the manufacturer does not have to forfeit a sample of the gun to the crown.
The expenses include the lab test (an independent lab must be used; the manufacturer can't set up their own) and the cost of the staff time and/or legal counsel time if the manufacturer chooses to use counsel. The later can be quite reasonable, as I know of several qualified attorneys who will do a job of this scale in return for a sample of he gun being certified.
The biggest obstacle is the AG regulations. Manufacturers realize that they can have their gun accepted as passing the lab test, put it on the market, and find out later that the AG considers it non-compliant (for example, but refusing to accept that the term "effective" applies to the loaded chamber indicator as they did with Glock). Many choose not to play in this arena for what is a tiny percentage of the US market share.
Last edited:
The cost versus return aside, (I think it's minimal compared to ultimate profit), I have respect for those companies who do not bother. People with little-to-no knowledge of the firearms industry woke up one day and declared themselves God. The apathetic in Massachusetts rolled over and took it. Kudos to those companies who refuse to buckle to Massachusetts bullshit...
Yep, the fact that just about every standard model they build is MA compliant is clearly abandonment.
He's pissed he can't get an M&P Pro or 9L.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Deleted.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
These safety characteristics are standard across the industry and have been for years. The problem with MA is the law doesn't call out for the presence of the characteristics, it calls out for a bunch of tests and then the personal whims of the MA AGs office as to what constitutes x characteristic. In MA, this is about control and not safety.
The vast majority of guns on the market today meet the physical characteristics for sale in MA. They aren't sold for very different reasons.
The problem with this statement is you somehow believe that there's actually a significant difference in safety between most handguns currently manufactured- news flash- there isn't. Safety is dependent on the training and habits of the user more than anything else.
These regulations exist soley to piss off gun owners and reduce the sales of handguns in the commonwealth. The "safety" thing is the biggest canard
ever invented here. It's pure BS.
-Mike
Have you actually bothered to look at the commonality of safety features across most current handguns? Probably not, otherwise you wouldn't be
making this statement.
Further, what you are suggesting is inherently dangerous to our rights- to allow the government to define what is "safe" you have given them a weapon to impose any gun control they want on the public.
This isn't about a "car" it's about a RIGHT.
-Mike
Well, says you. Reasonable people can have different opinions. Some (including rabid anti-gunners) tout the "safety" of a magazine disconnect, when I wouldn't own any gun that had one. I have no interest in "smart gun" technology, although the Brady Bunch and the VPC ("Victim" Policy Center) would have you believe they make guns so "safe" no one ever gets shot with them (which is, frankly, my concern with them). I'm with GSG here. I don't want more of Gov't legislating my choice of personal defense weapon under the whim of safety. They already do enough of that already.
He also makes a valid point that self-defense is not the sole provenance of the well-to-do.
ETA: BTW, the analogy to airbags and seat belts is specious, without even getting into the car vs right issue. Neither airbags nor seat belts make a car safer. They make them more survivable. You are no less likely to have an accident because your car has an airbag or seatbelt.
Last edited:
I wonder if there is a business model for some group of individuals to set up a standard, for profit, business that could standardize all the test requirements and perform them as a service to the gun manufacturers for a fee but less than each could do alone. Like Underwriters Labs.
You don't get it. MA would not care about these standards, because it wouldn't allow them to restrict firearms ownership.
Further, testing alone will not get the guns past the AG's regulations- which are completely subjective and can't really be "tested" on.
-Mike
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
The problem isn't the testing per se, it is the requirements to test every single variant. Usually they can forgo testing finish variants with a paperwork change, but a company like H&K who has 7 or 8 variants of the same gun would have to test way too many safety mechanism combinations. There is no mechanism for saying one gun's variations all meet the standard based on one test.
By variation I mean the safety variants. Not finish, grips, etc which there is a bypass mechanism for.
