Smith & Wesson Back To Old Self

pikeal1 · March 2002

from the NAHC email alert. not sure what this means, Can I start looking at S&W again? When Saf-T-Hammer purchased Smith & Wesson (S&W) in May 2001, from the British conglomerate Tomkins PLC for $15 million, it was beset by slumping sales, a negative image with firearms dealers and consumers and a regulatory environment pushing for major safety constraints. The shareholders of Saf-T-Hammer recently voted to change the company's name to Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., capitalizing on the venerable 150-year-old S&W name. It was a name that some perceived as tarnished by the company's willingness to capitulate to anti-gun sentiment in the face of lawsuits. But recently S&W President Bob Scott was nominated for the National Shooting Sports Foundation's "Man of the Year" award. Scott also received a standing ovation during the National Rifle Association's annual convention for bringing S&W back to American soil. S&W has been experiencing a strong financial turn around lately, which has led equity research firm ManageSource to rate S&W's stock a "strong buy." S&W Chairman and CEO Mitchell Saltz attributes the company's turn around to both internal measures and external factors. "Once we took over, we had to right-size the company," he said, referring to the cutting of 43 administrative positions. "There was a decrease in sales, and they had never made the proper adjustments." But a bigger boon to business has been a decision by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to back off an agreement inked by the Clinton administration during March 2000, that required S&W to increase its gun-safety efforts. The deal was made in exchange for cooperation in dealing with pending lawsuits filed by cities and counties against gun makers such as S&W related to gun violence. S&W was required to provide locking devices and to develop child-proof guns, as well as to more closely monitor dealers who sold its products. "From a dealer standpoint, a lot of people were angry and dropped the S&W line," said Scott Hanson, general manager of the Arizona Sportsman stores. "From a customer standpoint, it was vicious for a while. But that's changed, and they've taken a different attitude with the new company; they're back to the principle that no one can restrict what we do."

S&W Man · March 2002

With the new ownership and management they are definately back on the right track.

The second admendment GUARANTEES the other nine and the Constitution!

Pelican · March 2002

They have got to get the quality back before they will gain any respect in the marketplace. They get it up to the level of pre-Punta it'll be OK.

The Almighty Himself Entrusted the Future of All Living Creatures to a Wooden Boat.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"Audemus jura nostra defendere"

Evil ATF · March 2002

What Saxon and LTS said. Public's looking at them better now, my *.Wishful thinking, gentlemen.

Stand And Be Counted

pikeal1 · March 2002

thats what I thought. guess i'll have to keep my eyes off the S&W case at the gun shop. Not much there anyway.

ref44 · March 2002

Why punish the employees of a company for the deeds of one man who is now gone?To those who will hold the grudge forever, I wonder if they have ever written a Congressman or made a phone call about a vote? Like yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee vote? It has been my experience at the range and gun shows that the biggest talkers are the least doers.

.250Savage · March 2002

The new owners are doing their best to get out of agreements signed with the goobermint by the previous management. Give 'em a break; they're trying. At this point, I would buy a new S&W, and I'm an NRA Lifer and GOC member.

Submariner . · March 2002

IVE NOT SEEN ANY ARTICLE OR INTERVIEW WHERE S&W COMES OUT AND SAYS THAT THEY ARE BACKING OUT OF THEIR HUD AGREEMENT.UNTIL I SEE S&W OPENLY WITHOUT RESERVATION STATE THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT THE FORMER C.E.O. MADE,HANDS OFF.IT SEEMS THEY WANT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE HUD AGREEMENT BUT DO NOT WANT TO SUFFER THE RETRIBUTION FROM THE CONSUMER.CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

Truck Driver,Submarine Veteran,Rusty Wallace fan,and piss poor typist

idsman75 · March 2002

When a company is purchased, the purchasers are often bound by previous contracts and agreements signed by the company before it took ownership. This is not an easy fix for S&W's new owners. They can't just "rescind" what the previous ownership signed. Take a look at Ben and Jerry's ice cream. They were owned by a bunch of socialist/liberal/commie morons and then Breyer's bought them out. Breyer's hands are still tied to previous agreements and deals signed by Ben and Jerry's to make regular contributions to the previous commie agendas that Ben and Jerry's had once supported with a portion of their profits.

BlueTic · March 2002

I'm with Sub-man..... Untill they publicly announce to the liberal press that they have no intention of honoring this agreement - we should not buy from them. There are a few handguns I would like to have from Smith, but I will not help their wishywashy doubletalkin business untill they do their part....

IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY RIGHTS - GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY (this includes politicians)

.250Savage · March 2002

So we boycott them out of buisness, and close the doors of our premier handgun manufacturer? Boy, that'll sure show HCI, Chuckie Schumer and Hitlery who's boss!

JudgeColt · March 2002

Idsman 75 is right. As I understand it, the agreements are legally binding on the successor owner, but the Bush adminsitration is not taking any action on them. They are just being left alone. An unenforced agreement is almost as good as no agreement. To actually rescind the agreements right now would generate a firestorm and cost Bush political capital that he thinks is better spent somewhere else. While we all wish none of this had happened, the old S&W management team was black-mailed into signing the agreements. Looking back, it was the wrong thing to do, but, at the time, management thought it was the only way for the company to survive. I wonder how the management team could have been so naive as to think signing would protect S&W from more lawsuits when not all the parties suing even at that time were parties to the agreement? I assume the Klinton administration lied to them and told them that the Klintonions would make the suits go away, and stop more from being filed. (After all, all the plaintiffs were Democrat-controlled bodies.) Stupid to believe a proven lier like Slick.As far as Smith quality, I think it is as good now as any current mass-production firearm brand, and far better than most. The Pre-War quality is gone forever, but new Smiths are still superb. Look at a new one and check it out. Fit and finish are great. Of course, do not confuse design changes with quality. I hate the new locks, but they are going to be a fact of life on all guns from here on. To me, the new, unobtrusive locks are not as bad as the cross-bolt safeties on Winchester and Marlin levers. Ugh!When one of our kind looses the way, we need help the lost one back into the fold, rather than lock the door so the lost one can never return home. Boycotting S&W until it fails will be helping the antis and hurting ourselves. Stop it if you are doing it. It hurts us far more than it hurts the antis.[This message has been edited by JudgeColt (edited 03-16-2002).]

JudgeColt · March 2002

LTS, do you understand that the new owners had NOTHING to do with the agreements? The British owners directed previous management to enter the agreements in an effort to avoid more lawsuits. The carrot you mention was held in front as an inducement to sign, but the club was behind the head. They signed.The current owners had nothing to do with the agreements. It makes NO sense to punish the new owners, even if you thought it did to punish the old owners. Sarah Brady would support driving Smith & Wesson out of business too. It is illogical to me for us to help her.

Submariner . · March 2002

"THE"PREMIER GUN MANUFACTURER?LEST WE FORGET SIG,HK,GLOCK,BERETTA,RUGER ETC....ALL OF WHOM WERE OFFERED THE SAME DEAL AND HAD THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE TO TO TELL CLINTON TO POUND SAND.IF THEY WOULD VIOLATE THE AGREEMENT THEY MADE I WOULD BYE AN S&W JUST TO HELP THEM PAY THE BILL,HELL IF THEY DID IT OUTRIGHT IN THE OPEN I WOULD DONATE MONEY TO HELP COVER THE LEGAL EXPENSES.UNTIL THEY DO HANDS OFF.AND IF THEY DO GO OUT OF BUSINESS,ISNT THAT A HELL OF A MESSAGE TO THE REST OF THEM,THAT LAW BIDING GUN OWNERS WILL NOT TOLERATE THE BETRAYAL OF OUR PRINCIPALS OR BELIEFS?JUST MY OPINION I GUESS.I DONT EXPECT TO HAVE EVERYONE AGREE WITH ME,(BEEN POSTING ON THIS BOARD WAY TO LONG TO THINK THAT HA HA)JUST UNDERSTAND WHY I THINK THAT WAY I GUESS

Truck Driver,Submarine Veteran,Rusty Wallace fan,and piss poor typist E-MAIL WNUNLEY@USIT.NET

Mr. Lobo · March 2002

I agree with .250Savage in that it would be a shame to loose any gun manufacturer. I also agree with the other posts that it is time to hold off for awhile to see how the new management runs the company. I purchased a Model 29 20 years ago. It is a fine piece of craftsmanship and if S&W steps back up to the plate I will go there again. On the same note I wish the new colts were as nice as the older ones. JMTCWJim

dheffley · March 2002

I know it's going to bring some heat, but I still like and buy S&W guns. I did greatly reduce purchases during the previous management, but I'm not going to hold the current management or employees responcible for the actions of a few greedy idiots. It's been long enough, and the statement has been made to all of the manufactures, that we are not going to stand by and let them sell out our rights. I see a lot less vengence towards Colt and their anti-individual owner rights. Smith is under new management and ownership. I would like to see them have the chance to survive. If they have some cash flow, maybe they will fight to abolish the agreement. Let's be a little patient and see.

Save, research, then buy the best.Join the NRA, NOW!Teach them young, teach them safe, teach them forever, but most of all, teach them to VOTE!

Rembrandt · March 2002

...As for me, I'll buy their product again.....Perhaps this report will shed some light on why current owners of S&W cannot do what most would like.... 2002 SHOT Show, the second day General info: SMITH & WESSON - I want to hit this one first because of the way that I feel about S&W, the `agreement', and actions that I have taken that have been a result of those feelings. I don't think that it is a secret to anyone that I have fully supported the boycott of S&W. I have not purchased any new S&W products since April of 2000 and have strongly urged others to follow suit. The boycott has been nothing short of a total and complete success. For me the boycott is over and I can now urge everyone else to do the same, this is why: I had a LONG discussion today with Paul Pluff of S&W. Paul has been the liaison between S&W and the lawyers for S&W throughout this process. He has learned much and how things worked. Basically what Ed Schultz did was a HUGE mistake. (DUH Jeff, you are suppose to give us NEW information) As we all know, the boycott was so successful that the British owners had to sell S&W for a huge loss. Unfortunately the deal had been done. Now this is what S&W has done. What we know as `the agreement' was in reality an `agreement to agree'. It was never finalized as it needed a signature from a judge for a `consent decree'. S&W would not agree to the consent decree. They went to AG Ashcroft to inform him of their opinion, Ashcroft agreed and would not ask a judge to sign it. The AG's office even released a statement and it was carried in the WSJ. S&W DID go to the AG, did ask to be released from the agreement, the AG issued a statement saying that they would not enforce it nor seek a judges signature to force enforcement. Unfortunately, due to the actions of Ed Schultz, S&W cannot now use this information in any ad campaign, as much as they would like to, because it would work against them. S&W has completed the discovery phase of other cases and have even more pending. One of these is the famous agreement with the city of Boston, and there are about 10 others. Were S&W to start jumping for joy about getting out of the deal with the feds, then the anti-gunners in the dozen other still pending cases could use that action to illustrate in court that S&W had the opportunity to `do the right thing', but backed out of it knowing that it was the right thing to do. It must be shown in all the remaining cases that S&W is doing the right thing and that the things that the anti's are asking for in these cases are completely unreasonable and could easily lead the company to collapse either due to financial upset or by requiring things to be done that are beyond the limits of current technology. These lawsuits have actually had a tremendously positive effect for our side on many of the lawmakers around the country. The reason for this is that our side gets to tell its' side of the story. Too many times all we see or hear are a bunch of anti's screaming how bad guns are. The politicians watch the same TV news we do, but these suits have forced them to hear the opposing viewpoint, OURS. As a result many of them have been swayed to our way of thinking. This has been a great educational experience for them. The fact that the court cases have been overwhelmingly come down in our favor had not hurt our position either. If the judges are throwing out cases against the gun industry, then there just might be something to the argument that they have been hearing. Another thing that has helped were the events of 9/11 last year. As tragic as it was, it has helped the general publics perception of gun owners simply because there have been so many first time buyers since then. The ranks of gun owners have swelled and they have gained an understanding of what we have known for a long time. S&W knows it was a mistake and they are actively seeking to have the agreements dismantled, without giving the other side ammunition. You will probably see more information on this topic over the course of this year as S&W battles on. There is more specific information that I have, but I cannot go into detail as it could damage some of the work that is currently going on in this area and I sure don't want to be the cause of that. What you do is up to you, but knowing this I will happily support S&W and urge everyone else to do the same.

JudgeColt · March 2002

I still cannot understand the boycott mentality. JNA II's logic escapes me.Of course S&W was bought with the agreement in place. It is part of the whole. If you are buying a house with a leaking roof, you cannot say, I will take everything except the roof. If the house is otherwise a good house, the leaking roof will just have to be dealt with as necessary, and the purchase price adjusted to reflect that shortcoming.I believe I am correct that S&W is still the largest handgun manufacturer in the world, unless it has slipped to second due to the boycot. I think it is the only one located in Massachusetts, the most anti-gun state in the Union. The fact that management of other gun companies did not enter the agreement is irrelevant. S&W management did. That is fact. It cannot be changed.However, as explained by the long post above, the agreement has no effect as it now stands. Sure, there is a possibility that if too many gunowners think Bush43 is not pro-gun enough and vote for a pro-gun third-party candidate in 2004, thus electing a Democrat (Hillary or AlGore?) like happened in 1992, the agreement could be revived. That will not happen if gunowners vote Republican en mass.The comment about someone buying the S&W handgun designs and physical plant at a bankruptcy sale after the boycot has destroyed the company seems a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face. If that were to happen, I doubt that we would ever see S&W again as we know if, if there were even a buyer. Who could get financing to rebuild a manufacturing and distribution system in a shrinking market constantly threatened with extinction? Colt went through what is suggested and it is a mere shell of its former self. Likewise Ithaca and countless others. It seems illogical to cut off a toe to save a foot if the toe can be saved too if enough effort is expended. What K-Mart stock has to do with this, I do not know. No one should buy stock just because it is inexpensive. Stock should be bought based on growth and income potential.Our side cannot afford to lose any gunmaker. Anything we do that increases that risk helps the antis and not our side. Buy Smith & Wesson.

idsman75 · March 2002

Aside from a cheap plinker, my next gun will probably be another S&W revolver which I intend to purchase this fall. We spanked the original owners pretty good with that boycot and sent a very strong message to all firearms manufacturers. I believe that the boycott has fulfilled it's initial purpose. The quality that you get for the price you pay for a S&W revolver seems unparalleled in my mind. We need to support the new ownership and show them that we are a critical part of the market share for revolvers. My most recent S&W purchase was a used 686. I love the gun. My next purchase from S&W will be a new gun. For every new S&W that I purchase I will mail them a letter informing them that it will be my last S&W firearm purchase if they ever act in a manner similar to their predecessors. Their hands are tied by the previous agreement. Let's not lose a good thing over something the current ownership can't help.

idsman75 · March 2002

Aside from a cheap plinker, my next gun will probably be another S&W revolver which I intend to purchase this fall. We spanked the original owners pretty good with that boycot and sent a very strong message to all firearms manufacturers. I believe that the boycott has fulfilled it's initial purpose. The quality that you get for the price you pay for a S&W revolver seems unparalleled in my mind. We need to support the new ownership and show them that we are a critical part of the market share for revolvers. My most recent S&W purchase was a used 686. I love the gun. My next purchase from S&W will be a new gun. For every new S&W that I purchase I will mail them a letter informing them that it will be my last S&W firearm purchase if they ever act in a manner similar to their predecessors. Their hands are tied by the previous agreement. Let's not lose a good thing over something the current ownership can't help.

salzo · March 2002

No offense to any of you who think it is appropriate to now buy a S and W, but I personally think it is dispicable to throw your business to ANYONE who contributes to the demise of our gun rights, especially a GUN COMPANY that is doing so.I have read all of these arguments about how boycotting them is no longer necessary, how we have gotten the wanted results, how we are hurting the workers(always the cry of the socialists), how we should give the new owners a chance. I think all of these excuses are BS. Whether or not the new owners can get out of the agreement made by the former owners does not matter. The agreement is still being honored, therefore they should be avoided like the plague. It has to be a long term boycott, in order for the company to feel long term effects.If and when Smith and Wesson goes under, there will be plenty of gun companies that you can get a quality gun from.And the fact that S and W might go under, will certainly be an incentive for any other gun company to do the right thing. And I just assume give them my business now(anyone but Smith), as an incentive to stay clear of any government "deals". And since they are not honoring any "deals" and have to face the music of the frivolous law suits(everyone but Smith), I just assume give them my money, which will help to defend themselves in the courts.

Happiness is a warm gun[This message has been edited by salzo (edited 03-18-2002).]

Gordian Blade · March 2002

JNA II, you must have your computer on full auto!

dheffley · March 2002

Salzo,You've got real issues. Every thought of a free thinker that differs from yours is not socialist. I don't think you've ever lived in a socialist society. I have. You know not of what you speak.

Save, research, then buy the best.Join the NRA, NOW!Teach them young, teach them safe, teach them forever, but most of all, teach them to VOTE!

salzo · March 2002

DHEFLY- I know what it is like to live in a socialist country-I live in one right now. It is called the USA.You look at the present day USA, and tell me, does it have more in common with the constitution, or the MANIFESTO. I say the manifesto.

Happiness is a warm gun

dheffley · March 2002

Proof, he knows not of what he speaks. No salzo, America is not perfect, nor will it ever be. Should we fight for our freedoms and refuse to let big government take over. Of course. But somewhere in that fight is a demiliterized zone. You can either focus on each and every short fall, throwing fits of rage, hate and discontent, or, look at the bigger picture and send your resources to the front lines. You seem to want to beat the dead dog, while the bear eats your *. You may not beleive it, but there comes a time when you don't hold everyone else responsible for what you as an individual see as fault. To focus on S&W's former managements errors, (as big as they may be) then sacrafice the employees who had little or nothing to do with it, is at least, shallow thinking. There comes a time when the battle is won. (not the war) If you continue to fight the same battle over and over, you will not win the war. It is time to look past S&W and defend the front lines. The antigunners would rather you run S&W out of business so they don't have too. Meanwhile, they are working elsewhere, and you don't see it. To a degree, we lost the battle when S&W caved in. But, we have a chance to salvage some of the fight by giving them a chance to recover and fight back for us. We need to encourage S&W to fight to reverse the agreement, then stand behind them if they do. They also need to understand, if they don't fight it, we will continue our boycott. I see your attitude as, "your great grandpa' owned slaves, so you owe me money now". These guys didn't do the dirty. Their predecessors did. It isn't smart to spit on a stranger. He might be a friend.

Save, research, then buy the best.Join the NRA, NOW!Teach them young, teach them safe, teach them forever, but most of all, teach them to VOTE!

salzo · March 2002

Dheffly- That has to be the dumbest, most nonsensical post I have ever read on this BB. You have issues my good socialist friend.

Happiness is a warm gun

smokey1 · March 2002

LIKETOSHOOT,What are these "new and enhanced rules" specifically? Do you have a link to this reference or a quote?

aglore · March 2002

Wonder why we have so many Ruger fans here after Bill Ruger sold out on the Magazine capacity issue, but yet nobody wants to buy a S&W when they are now back on the right track. I'll buy a S&W as soon as I can convince Erik in the Custom Shop that they need to make me a 5 shooter in 480 Ruger.

AlleninAlaska

dheffley · March 2002

Salzo,No offence intended, but you go ahead and keep you lazer focus on this issue, and you will never see the truck that's going to run you down. My friend, we are all in this together. You need your eyes wide open. If that's nonsensical or dumb in your eyes, so be it. I have the bullet wounds to prove I am not a socialist. You can't see the forest for the trees.

Save, research, then buy the best.Join the NRA, NOW!Teach them young, teach them safe, teach them forever, but most of all, teach them to VOTE!

salzo · March 2002

DHEFFLY- That last post of yours tops your previous post as the dumbest, most nonsensical post I have ever read on this BB. Keep it up. Your blithering is comical.

Happiness is a warm gun

Submariner . · March 2002

DHEFFLEY,IM NOT ATTACKING YOU BUT I THINK WHAT WAS BEING SAID IS THAT S&W HAS NOT SHOWN TO US THAT THEY ARE TRULY REFORMED FROM THEIR ANTI-WAYS.TO USE A NAVAL ANALOGY IF THE CAPTAIN OF A SHIP SCREWS UP THEN THE REST OF THE CREW SUFFERS.IF S&W HAS SIGNED AGREEMENT SINCE THE NEW MANAGEMENT TOOK OVER THEN THEY ARE DESERVING OF NIETHER OUR SUPPORT NOR OUR FUNDS.I THINK THAT IS WHAT SALZO WAS TRYING TO RELAY.(I AINT GOT A DOG IN THAT HUNT)

Truck Driver,Submarine Veteran,Rusty Wallace fan,and piss poor typist E-MAIL WNUNLEY@USIT.NET

dheffley · March 2002

Salzo and Sub,I agree with your basis, but what I'm trying to say is, S&W is one of the premier gun makers. No one has a argument with the original company. It was only after the british bought it, signed the agreement, and then kissed up to the Kennedy clan that folks had an issue. I was as hard on them as anyone during that time. What do the Anti's want? They want S&W out of business. They didn't have the means to do it by themselves, so they employeed the Klinton administration to do it. Gun owners fought back and nearly put them under. They sold out and went back to England. Then, the new owners expressed a desire to turn the company around. If we can keep pressure on them to desolve the agreement, we're better off. If "WE" run them out of business, we have done the work for the Anti's, and free up their resources so they can attack another front.I think we need to give them a chance. We need to keep e-mailing our desires for them to get the agreement desolved, then we will support them. If they do nothing, we need to not buy their product. Put the ball in their court, and see what happens. I just can't bring myself to assist in running a gun manufacturer out of business for the other side.Unlike Salzo, I do not consider it "socialist" to care about the inocent workers. He wouldn't either if it were his job.Unlike Salzo, I don't want to throw George Bush out of office and risk a Democrate just because he has done everything I wanted.Unlike Salzo, It's not a personal attack I'm trying to serve on someone who also supports the second amendment.The new management "DID NOT" sign the agreement. It was signed by the former management. If the current management does nothing to abolish or overturn the agreement, I will be the one handing Salzo the rocks to throw. But, if they do, I will defend and support them again. My issue is, instead of us arguing this matter here, we need to to be on a letter writting campaign telling them either start the legal process to desolve the agreement, or we will continue the boycott. If I read Salzo correctly, he wants to shut them down now. God love him for his commitment, but I respectfully disagree. I think the loss to us would be greater than the gain.On a personal note, Salzo, If you think I'm dumb, I can't do anything about that. I don't think you realize we're on the same side. I did not wish to offend you, nor is it anything personal. I just disagree with your method. E-mail me and I'll send you my phone number. You can call me collect, and maybe I can explain my opinion better in person. I think maybe you are young and passionate in your beliefs. I say that because I once was the same way. In my elder years, I've learned that emotion sometimes gives away to errors in judgement. I think the world would be better off with a S&W and no agreement. I also think the means to achieve that are at hand.dheffley@gte.net

Save, research, then buy the best.Join the NRA, NOW!Teach them young, teach them safe, teach them forever, but most of all, teach them to VOTE!

dheffley · March 2002

"biometric identification system", "Authorized-User-Only". Sounds too complicated for me. I guess that's "smart guns". I'm all for them building them for those who want them, as long as they keep building the "dumb guns" for me.What happens when a dumb gun meets a smart gun? Y'all can have some fun with that one!

Save, research, then buy the best.Join the NRA, NOW!Teach them young, teach them safe, teach them forever, but most of all, teach them to VOTE!

Iconoclast · March 2002

When the new models have been, voluntarily or otherwise, equipped with biometric smart technology, the price of all will surge upward dramatically, driving buyers, especially new ones, out of the market. The cost of a new weapon will be much higher, the demand for 'dumb guns' will increase. Bottom line, the gunphobes come out ahead. I love S&W revolvers & wouldn't buy another brand if given the choice, but I will not buy one as long as they continue to chip away at our freedoms. And what about Remington, people? They are in the prototype stage of this on their rifles. What possible advantage does this offer the *buyer?* Anyone? No one can give voice to such an advantage? Gee, I'm really amazed. Well, it does ensure that any transfer will require re-programming, undoubtedly through some organization where records will be kept. And if it saves even one life . . . . NO thanks, mate.

salzo · March 2002

Iconoclast- Hey man, dont go stealing my lines(LOL)

Happiness is a warm gun

Smith & Wesson Back To Old Self

Comments