Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 5/21/2001 12:38:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2001 12:36:54 PM EDT by F4GIB]
Continue the S&W boycott! Found on "GunGames.com": New Smith & Wesson owner inherits marketing dilemma DATE: 5/16/01 BOSTON -- Saf-T-Hammer, the small trigger lock company that bought Smith & Wesson this week, inherits a critical dilemma facing the nation's oldest gun maker: how to fend off potentially crippling lawsuits while regaining the trust of gun owners. Smith & Wesson infuriated many gun owners last year when it agreed with the federal government and the city of Boston to wide-reaching safety measures in exchange for the promise of being dropped from lawsuits against the industry. * * * Sales fell by half, company spokesman Ken Jorgensen said, and 125 people were laid off. The question now is what the new ownership means for the safety agreements, and whether -- or some say when -- Smith & Wesson will try to get back into the good graces of gun owners. Cameron Hopkins, editor in chief of Firearms Marketing Group, [who has been a leading apologist for S&W] thinks it will, and soon. In fact, he predicts that Robert Scott, President of Saf-T-Hammer and a former Smith & Wesson vice president, will appear at this week's National Rifle Association convention in Kansas City, Mo., and beg the forgiveness of gun owners. Mitchell Saltz, founder and chief executive of Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Saf-T-Hammer, said the company is reviewing the obligations it had inherited from former owner Tomkins PLC, which had owned Smith & Wesson since 1987, BUT WILL RESPECT THE AGREEMENTS IT HAS SIGNED. "As long as we signed an agreement, we'll live up to it," he said. "We just want to make sure we understand what's in it." Saltz declined to comment on whether the company plans overtures to gun owners, and referred questions to Scott, who did not return a phone message left by The Associated Press. * * * [Should S&W seek to make peace with gun owners] ... that could backfire too, and other analysts say that while Smith & Wesson must return to gun owners' fold, it can't sacrifice its reputation as "the good gun company." Even if it successfully fends off the lawsuits that remain while building the trust of customers, Smith & Wesson still faces an uphill climb in a flat industry. * * *
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 12:43:24 PM EDT
OK, they bought a dinosouar that is about to go tits up. Crying shame they cant see why the company is up for sale in the first place
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 12:46:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 12:52:08 PM EDT
Quote of a quote - "As long as we signed an agreement, we'll live up to it," he said. "We just want to make sure we understand what's in it." Yeah right. You didn't bother to check or fully understand what the agreement said before you dropped $15 million and assumed $60 million in debt.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 12:56:11 PM EDT
Gee, I wonder where all of those people went who were just on here clamoring to buy a new S&W after the sale of the company?
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 1:00:54 PM EDT
From "thefiringline.com" >>>>> Saf-T-Hammer/Saf-T-Lok is a company that lobbied for mandatory trigger locks in order to increase their own share of business. If they bought S&W and don't plan on backing out of this agreement, I think it would be reasonable to assume that they hope to legislate you into buying their product. <<<<<
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 1:10:17 PM EDT
Mitchell Saltz, founder and chief executive of Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Saf-T-Hammer, said the company is reviewing the obligations it had inherited from former owner Tomkins PLC, which had owned Smith & Wesson since 1987, BUT WILL RESPECT THE AGREEMENTS IT HAS SIGNED. "As long as we signed an agreement, we'll live up to it," he said. "We just want to make sure we understand what's in it."
View Quote
Another perspective.... Saf_t_Hammer hasn't signed any agreement with the gov't. So what agreement does it have to honor????? They bought the companies assets, and assumed its liabilities. They have NO legal requirement to abide by an agreement the companies former owners signed. IF Saf-T-Hammer honors this agreement, it is because THEY are weenies, and wish to appease Marxist anti-gun forces. The way these suits are getting thrown out of court left and right, if I were Saf-T-Hammer, I'd feel on pretty good grounds to thumb my nose at that blackmail agreement the former owners / sellouts signed. Not making apologies for Saf-T or Slick & Willie. No matter what happens, I ain't buying their stuff BECAUSE ITS CRAP.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 1:31:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 1:56:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: All else aside, this is your loss. NO ONE (with the possible exception of Freedom Arms at 3X the price) makes a revolver that comes close to a S & W.
View Quote
Beekeeper - Who wants a revolver????? I own one. Its a cowboy action shooter. Besides that one, I can't see EVER getting another one.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 2:06:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2001 2:05:43 PM EDT by Matt_S]
Bee Keeper you make a good point. By refusing to buy S&W products we let what was once a great company die. But the flip side it this, if S&W did not suffer, the other manufacturers may have likely signed on the dotted line too, thus quickening the erosion of our rights. S&W signed to give up our rights, not their own, this to me is unnacceptable. I choose not to buy S&W to let the other manufacturers know that we do care about our rights, and will support those who support us. When I heard that Gaston Glock told Coumo to jump in a lake, I supported his company and bought another one. As far revolvers, there are two in my family. A GP-100 and Taurus Model 85 ultra-light. I must say we likely would have purchased a 686 and a lady smith had S&W not elected to give up my freedoms for me. So really we both lose, but it was a loss we had to take in my opinion to avoid a much faster erosion of our freedom.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 2:11:50 PM EDT
Dont own one anyway[:)]
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 2:24:54 PM EDT
As a gun shop owner let me tell all of you this. You can take the following as absolute Fact!! I sell 35 or 40 handguns a month on average and I don't stock S&W products. We have not had 1 single request for a S&W this year. I wouldn't stock there products even if they kiss up to the NRA. I would loose money waiting on there stuff to sell. One other thing about S&W. Why pay the big price of a new one when the market is absolutly packed with good clean used Smiths. Why pay over $600.00 for a new 686 when you can get them all day long used for half that price? Smith&Wesson sold us out and now they can pay the price. I feel sorry for their employes who had nothing to do with it but thats just to bad.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 2:43:46 PM EDT
Make an example of them. Don't buy their product and put them out of buisness. This will send a message to the gun industry about where we're at.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 2:49:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cav guy: Make an example of them. Don't buy their product and put them out of buisness. This will send a message to the gun industry about where we're at.
View Quote
Yes, that, and hopefully to the president (of the U.S.) too.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 2:51:19 PM EDT
Watch the movie "Red Dawn" again. When the mayor's son swallows the bug and leads the commies right into the guerrilla's camp, he's dealt with. S&W wants to lead the camel under our tent? They will be an unfortunate casualty. Collaborators will reap the whirlwind!
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 2:55:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 3:02:05 PM EDT
I have dumped ALL of my once numerous S&W handguns. If they stick to the same agreement, I don't care who owns them. Too hell with them!
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 5:25:53 PM EDT
Where is the logic in selling the Smiths that you have owned for several years. All you are going to do is take a beating on them and someone else is going to get one hell of a deal.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 5:35:56 PM EDT
The one thing I can't stand are traitors! They bought a sinking ship over deep water. As long as they honor that sellout of an agreement I would rather own a big stick. NO SLACK!
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 5:36:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SPORTSMANS SUPPLY: As a gun shop owner let me tell all of you this. You can take the following as absolute Fact!! I sell 35 or 40 handguns a month on average and I don't stock S&W products. We have not had 1 single request for a S&W this year. I wouldn't stock there products even if they kiss up to the NRA. I would loose money waiting on there stuff to sell. One other thing about S&W. Why pay the big price of a new one when the market is absolutly packed with good clean used Smiths. Why pay over $600.00 for a new 686 when you can get them all day long used for half that price? Smith&Wesson sold us out and now they can pay the price. I feel sorry for their employes who had nothing to do with it but thats just to bad.
View Quote
Nice to hear from a shop that DOES NOT sell S&W. A very large shop in Plainfield IL ( you know who you are... )continues to sell this crap, so they no longer get my hard earned green. I now go across the street. My family purchases 5 or 6 guns a year and will never purchase a S & W.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 5:49:12 PM EDT
Screw S&W!I don't have a need for a wheel gun anyway,their autos are SH#$! I hate to say the hell with an American Co. but they brought this on themselves,it's just too bad the workers have to suffer.I will not buy anything S&W,not even handcuffs and I need an extra pair.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 6:17:18 PM EDT
They had no honor or respect for those who made them what they once were. Now they can wallow in their own disgrace and eventual bankruptcy. Bow
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 6:36:48 PM EDT
I wouldn't buy a Smith right now either but does anybody know if Taurus or anybody else makes a copy of the Smith 60-10? I got to shoot the first one I ever saw recently and I would love to have one for a trail gun.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 6:39:51 PM EDT
Will not change my mind about buying one new owners or not.there are better guns availible in 44 mag anyway
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 8:29:46 PM EDT
I heard the new owner on Guntalk. He sounded like they were more concerned with just keeping the doors open than backpeddling on the agreement. They had to let some people go. I think plenty of red ink is flowing at Smith, but not too many guns going out the door. He seemed to indicate that they would not even consider the Klinton deal for 2-3 months.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 8:47:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mejames: I heard the new owner on Guntalk. He sounded like they were more concerned with just keeping the doors open than backpeddling on the agreement. They had to let some people go. I think plenty of red ink is flowing at Smith, but not too many guns going out the door. He seemed to indicate that they would not even consider the Klinton deal for 2-3 months.
View Quote
Well, be honest... you would first want to stop the bleeding. Without the craftsmen there, the place is nothing but inert land, buildings, and machinery. I'm suprised ANYONE bought it! As to who needs them? Whatcha gonna do? buy a Colt or a Ruger?(Both have been branded "sellouts" as I remember) All that said, I don't own a S&W right now. I have in the past, my personal boycott did what it was supposed to do. Now I wait and see. Should S&W fold, I don't see where we will get the same creative gunsmithing and innovation from within our own borders. Kimber will have a problem gertting slides and frames. We lose one of the last old "Houses" in this country.(Now that it is truly back in our counrty) Just my thoughts... worth exactly what you paid for them
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 8:50:06 PM EDT
I hope S&W does go belly up... It's a shame, but I'm sure it sends a loud and clear message to other gun manufacturers... I wonder where the U.S. Govt. will get it's "preferred" handguns from if S&W goes bankrupt ??? I guess big brother will have to buy elsewhere also... I wonder if other gun manufacturers can refuse to sell to the Govt. or refuse to sign contracts. Hmmmm....cutoff big bro's source of weapons???? If a gun Co. can refuse to sell to the public.... Can another gun Co. refuse to sell to LE or Govt.???
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 9:14:32 PM EDT
>>They bought the companies assets, and assumed its liabilities. They have NO legal requirement to abide by an agreement the companies former owners signed.<< Yes they do if the agreement is considered to be contractualy binding, which it probably is. Contracts are binding on companies, not just the CEO that signed it. Otherwise, any deals a company made would not have to be honored any time new owners came in. All warranties would be conisdered null and void, production agreements could not be enforced, etc. What will be more interesting is to see if the Bush White House pushes to enforce the agrement.
Top Top