Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/27/2005 12:59:36 AM EDT
First let me say that I have never handled, let alone fired a smith and wesson auto so I have no real opinion on the matter, but...

I have noticed that when people talk about full size auto's for police/military/self defense use they basically talk about glocks, sigs, HK's, and 1911's (berettas, XD's, CZ's, and Rugers get a fair amount of mention too) but they NEVER mention smith and wessons. By smith and wesson autos I mean things like the 5906, large metal frame guns (not the sw(p)99 or the sigmas). Why (at least on arfcom) do these guns NEVER get mentioned? They have been around forever and have seen fairly wide use by police departments and so I find it hard to believe they are crap (unless you care to inform me otherwise). Is this due to smith and wesson's politics? People seem to buy their revolvers in spite of that issue. Is there something I'm missing?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 1:02:23 AM EDT
Possibly due to S&W's past ownerships politics. WAVE posted about a 10mm S&W he got recently.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 1:02:36 AM EDT
IMHO, S&W autos are ok. On the other hand, H&K, Beretta and most of those other companies listed make an exceptionally good firearm. There's nothing wrong with a Smith per say, but you can get a whole lot more for your money.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 1:04:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CAAAwarfighter:
Possibly due to S&W's past ownerships politics. WAVE posted about a 10mm S&W he got recently.



S&W's past ownerships politics,please give me the info on this one.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 1:26:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 1:31:04 AM EDT by ARDunstan]

Originally Posted By HarrySacz:

Originally Posted By CAAAwarfighter:
Possibly due to S&W's past ownerships politics. WAVE posted about a 10mm S&W he got recently.



S&W's past ownerships politics,please give me the info on this one.




S&W Court Settlememnt

III. THE STRANGE CASE OF SMITH & WESSON.

A. STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Smith & Wesson, one of America's oldest manufacturers of firearms, has been named as a defendant in several of the municipal third party lawsuits seeking compensation for the expense of "gun violence." The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has threatened to file its own third party lawsuit, although it has not identified whom it would name as defendants, and has invited potential defendants to reach a "settlement" prior to the suit being filed.

On Friday, March 17, 2000, HUD announced that it had reached an agreement with Smith & Wesson. Of significance, with respect to this discussion are the following provisions:

¾ -Although unrelated to questions relating to antitrust liability, Section II(A)(i) would require a signatory to require of its "authorized dealers" that each dealer permit unlimited inspection of records, for any reason, contrary to Federal Statute, 18 U.S.C. §923(g)(1)(B)(ii); Section IIA(j) would require the manufacturer to require of its "authorized dealers" that each such dealer "(p)articipate in and comply with all monitoring of firearms distribution by manufacturers, ATF or law enforcement. It would also require the manufacturer to require of its "authorized dealers" that each such dealer agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the "court enforcing this Agreement."

¾ -Section I(B) provides for an exception for law enforcement and military [Page 786] firearms. This implies recognition that a firearm configured as required by the agreement may not be suitable for personal protection.

¾ -Section II(A)(1)(d) would require a signatory to require of its "authorized dealers" that each such dealer agree that it will not sell any firearms at gun shows unless each sale at such gun show be the subject of a background check.

¾ -Section II(A)(1)(h) would require a signatory to require of its "authorized dealers" that each such dealer agree (i) that it will provide safety locks and warnings with firearms, (ii) that it will not sell high capacity ammunition feeding devices, (iii) that it will not sell "semiautomatic weapons" as that term is defined at 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(30) (without regard to the date of manufacture), and (iv) that it will not sell any firearms which are not designed in conformity with the design restrictions embodied in the Agreement (even though this standard is subject to further, unknown agreements with unknown entities).

¾ -Section II(A)(2) would require a signatory to require of its "authorized distributors and dealers" that each such distributor or dealer agree to a provision which would permit the distributor or dealer status to be terminated upon notice that it may be violating the Agreement. Notice of termination may be sent either by the manufacturer or by an "Oversight Commission" created by the Agreement.

¾ -Section II(C)(3) would require a signatory to require of its "authorized dealers" that each such dealer agree to limit multiple sales, permitting the dealer to deliver one handgun at the time of sale, while he retains the other handguns for 14 days.

¾ -Section II(D)(4) would require a signatory to agree that it will not place advertisements near "high crime zones or public housing."



B. DISCUSSION.

1) STATUS OF THE "SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT"

There is room for doubt as to the validity of the threat from the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Secretary appears to be limited, by statute, in the issues over which he may sue, 42 U.S.C. §1404a, which are confined to those functions under the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. §1437, et seq.), and title II of Public Law 76-671, as amended (42 U.S.C. §1501, et seq.). I have found nothing in either law which could, by the most generous interpretation, be construed to justify or authorize the threatened lawsuit.

Further, the threatened suit sought to impose regulation, rather than obtain compensation, which implies that regulation was the relief sought. Since the [Page 787] regulations which HUD seeks to impose have been considered and rejected by Congress, there is serious doubt that such regulations, however arrived at, are valid.[28] Further, the nature of the regulations sought to be imposed by HUD were legislative, rather than administrative, and, therefore, required an exercise of a power allocated, by the Constitution, to the Legislative Department.[29]

It is the opinion of counsel that the primary party with standing to assert the invalidity of the agreement is Smith & Wesson, or any successor in interest.[30] However, if the government had acted ultra vires, even if it could have validly requested the voluntary agreement from Smith & Wesson, the fact that the agreement is with the government may not be a valid defense in an action against Smith & Wesson asserting an antitrust claim.


2) ANTITRUST IMPLICATIONS OF THE "AGREEMENT"

i) State Participation in the Settlement

In the Preamble to the "Agreement" is the following statement: "The undersigned state, city, and county parties to the Agreement dismiss the manufacturer parties to the Agreement with prejudice from the lawsuits specified in Appendix A subject to any consent orders entered pursuant to paragraph VIII."

The Constitution, at Article I, Sec. 10, has the following prohibition: "No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." In the "Agreement" Smith & Wesson makes several promises, each of which is a promise to do that which had been proposed, repeatedly, in Congress or in [Page 788] state or local legislatures. Entering into the lawsuits, and making a concession (dismissal with prejudice) in order to obtain the result which could not be obtained through the legislature is the equivalent of legislation.[31] Smith & Wesson has existing contracts with dealers. However, under the terms of the "Agreement" all of these contracts must be reformed or terminated. That is, through "legislation," the municipal plaintiffs, creatures of, and therefore, constitutionally in the same class as, the states, have "impaired the obligation of contracts." Every dealer will have a cause of action against the municipal plaintiffs for having "enacted" this "legislation."

Further, the "Agreement," at III(A)(1) creates an "Oversight Commission" of five members, two of whom are to be appointed by the municipal parties, III(A)(1)(a), and a third to be appointed by the state parties, III(A)(1)(b). The "Oversight Commission" has the power, granted at II(A)(2), to terminate a contract between a manufacturer and a dealer. Thus, the majority vote on the "Oversight Commission" is in the hands of states and creatures of states, with the pretended authority to terminate contracts.

The fact that the "Agreement" is entered into with a governmental entity does not necessarily relieve Smith & Wesson of its obligation to obey the antitrust laws. Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341 (1963). The Sherman Antitrust Act, at 15 U.S.C. §1, reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.

Injured parties may seek treble damages for injuries incurred as a result of violation of the anti-trust laws, 15 U.S.C. §15(a) Further, a private party may seek an injunction against threatened loss or damage by a continued violation of the antitrust laws.

In light of the principles of federalism, a state itself, whether acting through its legislative, judicial, or executive departments, is not subject to the anti-trust laws. Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943). However, local governments are exempt from anti-trust laws only if the anti-competitive action is taken pursuant to state policy. LaFayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 435 U.S. 389, 413 (1978). The employment of "sham" lawsuits to restrain trade is a violation of the anti-trust laws. A lawsuit may be considered a sham if the aim [Page 789] of the lawsuit is the governmental process itself, with its delays and expenses, as opposed to the possible outcome of the process. See, Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc. 499 U.S. 365, 380 (1991). The sham lawsuit must be objectively merit less and must be pursued for the purpose of restraining trade through the litigation process, rather than any possible judgment. That is, the lawsuit must lack probable cause. PERI v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49, 60 (1993).

In 1984, Congress amended the anti-trust laws to prevent recovery of damages ". . . from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity. . . "(emphasis added), 15 U.S.C. §35(a). Such immunity, if it were not conditioned upon acting in an official capacity would give one, by his status as a government official, carte blanche to violate the anti-trust laws in a private capacity. However, by adding this condition, it could be argued that this amendment to the law merely codifies the holding in LaFayette, supra, and its progeny, i.e., that the "state action exemption" applies to the acts of a local unit of government if the acts in restraint of trade be taken pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy. The Ninth Circuit appears to agree. In Lancaster Community Hospital v. Antelope Valley Hospital District, 940 F.2d 397 (CA9 1991), the court refused to recognize the statutory immunity when the action was not taken pursuant to clearly articulated state policy.

In the instant case, the municipal plaintiffs are seeking to compel Smith & Wesson to enter into tying arrangements with its distributors and dealers. If such arrangements be authorized by state law, that is, if a state require the sale of a lock with a handgun, then the provision in the "Agreement" is unnecessary. If the state does not require this, or permit municipal corporations to require this, then the provision amounts to a conspiracy to restrain trade. If Smith & Wesson actually fulfills its obligation, under the "Agreement," to require this tying arrangement by its "authorized dealers," then it will have actually restrained trade.


ii) "Tying Agreements"

In Northern Pac. R.. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958), the Railroad had received, from the U.S. government, enormous parcels of land in order to compensate it for building the railroad, under the theory that the land could be given to settlers whose use of the rails would provide the freight needed to amortize the construction costs. The railroad sold the land, and mineral rights, on the condition that the buyer agree to ship over the railroad. The Court applied the "rule of reason," as articulated in International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392 (1947), with respect to tying arrangement (requiring that one thing be bought if one buy another) and held that it was illegal as a restraint of [Page 790] trade.

The requirement, in Section IIA(1)(h), that "authorized dealers" provide safety locks with the firearms they sell is a tying arrangement. Unless this tying arrangement is specifically authorized by state law, it is an illegal restraint of trade. Although we said, above, that for purposes of the impairment of contracts clause, municipal action in the form of legislation is the same as state action this is not true for the purpose of exemption from the operation of the antitrust laws.


iii) Vertical Restraints

A vertical restraint is imposed by a manufacturer on its distributors and dealers, or by distributors on dealers, requiring the party downstream to agree, as a condition of doing business, not to conduct business beyond certain boundaries. This arrangement may involve a specified geographic area, in which one may be exclusive, or it may involve certain business practices which the downstream party must not engage in. The history of these arrangements has been varied. In White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U.S. 253 (1963) the Court held that vertical restraints should be viewed under the "rule of reason," to determine if, in each case, the arrangement restrains commerce and competition, or encourages the same. Four years later, with little mention of White Motor, the Court, in Schwinn v. United States, 388 U.S. 365 (1967), held that vertical restraints were per se illegal. Then, in Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, 433 U.S. 36 (1977), the Court abandoned Schwinn and returned to the rule of reason. Thus, if the "Agreement" creates a vertical restraint arrangement, it would have to be shown that the arrangement actually restrains trade.

The "Agreement" requires, at Section IIC(1), that the "authorized dealer" agree not to sell to federal firearms licensees (FFLs) any Smith & Wesson product unless the FFL is also an "authorized dealer." Section IIA(1)(d) would require provisions to prevent an "authorized dealer" to refrain from selling at a gun show unless all sales at the gun show be subject to a background check. Section IIA(1)(h) would require provisions under which "authorized dealers" would not sell "high capacity ammunition feeding devices," "semiautomatic weapons" as that term is defined at 18 U.S.C. §921(A)(30) (i.e., ugly guns, or guns with ugly names written on them), or any firearms which are not designed in conformity with the design restrictions embodied in the "Agreement." That is, Smith & Wesson must require its "authorized dealers" to agree not to sell competing goods of manufacturers who are not parties to the "Agreement," and to agree, also, not to sell certain unrelated and noncompeting, but lawful, goods. These provisions amount to vertical restraints. [Page 791]

The question, then, is whether these would restrain trade. Since no other manufacturer has signed the "Agreement," an "authorized dealer" would not be able to carry these others products. Since Smith & Wesson only control approximately 40% of the domestic handgun market, this means that an "authorized dealer" must not sell firearms from the other 60% of the market. Further, the size of the market share of Smith & Wesson, in terms of the antitrust laws, is large enough to warrant the assertion that they bargain from a dominant position, giving them inordinate bargaining power. Under this analysis, this vertical arrangement does restrain trade.


iv) Restraint of Trade Generally

Under the terms of Section IIC(3) the "authorized dealer" would be required, in the case of multiple purchases, to deliver only one gun on the date of the purchase, while withholding the other guns for fourteen days. (quaere: Since the Agreement is entered into by the United States Government, and by municipal governments, what does this provision do to one gun a month laws?) It has been held that such arrangements cripple the freedom of traders and restrain their ability to sell in accordance with their own judgment. Klor's v. Broadway- Hale Stores, 359 U.S. 207 (1959), citing Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, 340 U.S. 211, 213 (1951).

Section IIC(1) would require the "authorized dealer," when selling to other FFLs, to sell only to FFLs who are "authorized dealers." In Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Association v. United States, 234 U.S. 600 (1914), the Court held that a blacklist arrangement, which did not require the recipients of the blacklist to actually refrain from conducting business with those who were listed, was a restraint of trade. In this case, there is an actual restriction on conducting business with certain lawfully licensed dealers. A refusal to deal, in such circumstances, could be deemed a restraint of trade. See, Fashion Originators Guild v. Federal Trade Commission, 312 U.S. 457 (1941).


v) Miscellaneous

Section IID(4) would prohibit advertising near "high crime zones" and public housing. The term "high crime zone" is not defined. This provision presents the possibility of arbitrary enforcement of an ambiguous term. It presents clear First Amendment issues since some of the parties to the "Agreement" are governments. It also presents a clear and unambiguous equal protection issue. All of these issues have been examined before. While beyond the scope of this paper, since they are not antitrust issues, any potential challenge to the Agreement should include an in depth examination of these issues. [Page 792]


3) ANTI-TRUST IMPLICATIONS FOR NON-SIGNERS OF THE "AGREEMENT"

The announcement of the "Agreement" brought forth an instantaneous reaction. Distributors declared that they would no longer distribute Smith & Wesson products. Dealers declared that they would not sell Smith & Wesson products. Some dealers went so far as to ship their remaining inventory back to their distributors or to Smith & Wesson itself, willingly incurring the restocking fee to avoid the taint of having Smith & Wesson products in their inventories. Consumers nationwide vowed never again to buy a Smith & Wesson product. There have been some calls for a boycott, although NRA has declined to do so. In response to the reaction of gun owners and dealers, the proponents of the municipal lawsuits have demanded an investigation into the actions of the industry for possible anti-trust violations.

It is not a violation of any law, nor of any public policy, for consumers to decide to buy one product and refuse to buy another. All evidence indicates that the reaction was spontaneous. An examination of the "Agreement" reveals several provisions that individual consumers might find objectionable. For example, federal law, at 18 U.S.C. §923(g)(1)(B)(ii), places limits upon the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), to inspect records of dealers. The limitation was enacted to correct certain perceived abuses. The "Agreement," at Section II(A)(i) would require a signatory to require its dealers to agree to unlimited inspection of records. It is improbable that any dealer would agree to this, simply for the privilege of selling Smith & Wesson products, when there are competing products which do not impose this requirement. It is even more improbable that a consumer, knowing that the records will be subject to unlimited fishing expeditions, would buy any firearm from a dealer who has consented to such searches.

The fact is that the municipal lawsuits, and the threatened participation by HUD, are perceived as unjustifiable by the gun owning public. Smith & Wesson, by coming to agreement with those conducting these lawsuits, is seen as a traitor. With public hostility toward the products of Smith & Wesson so high, a decision not sell these products could be seen as nothing more than a prudent business decision.

The reaction against the lawsuits, and the "Agreement," arises out of political conviction, not economic greed. The case law in such matters could not be more clear. A boycott motivated by a belief that a business is taking action which harms one's political rights is protected action, and is not a violation of the anti-trust laws. NAACP v. Clairborne Hardware,458 U.S. 886 (1982).

One of the advocates of anti-trust action against industry is New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who is quoted as saying: "We have the capacity to say to gun makers, 'we can drive you into bankruptcy if you don't play by [Page 793] our rules."' [32] Given that this is the clear and unambiguous intent of the players in this drama, the fact that there would be no merit to an anti-trust case against industry would be no more a deterrent to such a case than has proven to be the case with the case in chief. The idea is not to win in court, but to bankrupt the opponents.

Link Posted: 12/27/2005 1:44:26 AM EDT
My dad has one, it's not bad but sucks compared to Glocks or HKs. Then when they started painting their guns, I lost all respect for them. Just another company that became complacent, and is now struggling to keep up within its industry.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 2:04:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 2:16:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 2:17:10 AM EDT by ALPHAGHOST]
other than the 1911 line, SW autos arent that great compared to other brands (feel and shootability wise)
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 2:17:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 2:21:58 AM EDT
Why? Cause Glocks are better with better customer service and a better value than most S&Ws

Insert your own brand other than hi point, lorcin, or jennings in the red spot.


Link Posted: 12/27/2005 2:24:48 AM EDT
I don't care for them, because every one of their grips feels like it's got the ergonomics of a two by four. I think it's just my hands, but I cannot get comfortable with their grips--they feel too wide and square for me. The 39/59 series isn't too bad and the Sigma is as close to comfortable as I'd get, but I like the 1911/Beretta 92 style autos better.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 2:54:09 AM EDT
S&W auto's are the "un-gun"......no class. Never had it, never will.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:06:44 AM EDT
Why no love for smith and wesson autos?

'Cause they're FUGLY.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:08:01 AM EDT
While I'm no fan of S&W pistols, I will admit the the 4506's & 5906's are actually decent pistols...at least the ones I've shot were. However, as stated previously, their ergonomics aren't the best.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:23:45 AM EDT
I have a 4506 that shoots well. The only reason I bought it is because the price was discounted after the department upgraded to Sigs and I was the only one who ever fired it. As mentioned, the ergonomics suck, it's not going to win any beauty contests and it could double as a boat anchor compared to the Glock. But I manage to make it work despite its flaws.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:33:55 AM EDT
I like thier revolvers, but IMO thier autos arent anything special.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:36:30 AM EDT
I had a S&W 469 and it was a very nice auto. I carried it CCW for awhile and never had a problem with it.

___________________________



Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:43:56 AM EDT


S&W's past ownerships politics,please give me the info on this one.




S&W Court Settlememnt

III. THE STRANGE CASE OF SMITH & WESSON.

A. STATEMENT OF FACTS.



S&W WAS owned by a British Company at that time. Since then it was bought by an American company.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:15:45 AM EDT
I've got a S&W model 39 and it shoots great...and is always an attention getter at the range.


Now, do not read the following if you are faint of heart, or prone to epilepsy........

....I want a model 59 (Gasp)
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:16:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:28:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
past politics aside,

S&W built some of the least ergonomic auto's ever made. then came the sigma's. that single gun pretty much destroyed the past reputaion of the comapany. i have seen VERY few people that owned an early sigma that ever got it to run reliably.


That and the order of 10mm's that the FBI had to send back because of the trigger locking up. That really hurt their police sales.

Personally, I like the third generation autos. I have a 3913 that is a great carry gun.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:36:55 AM EDT
Smith and Wesson makes cars??
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:38:23 AM EDT
I had a 3913 and a 5906. Great shooters and impossible to wear out. That 5906 is on (at least) its 5th owner by now.

The Smith was a state-of-the-art gun back when Colt, Springfield, and Thompson were the three major players in the 1911 market and had forgotten how to make a quality 1911 (for you whipper snappers who were too young for that era). The models, calibers, and configurations were so extensive at one point, it was mind boggling.

Smith and Wesson politics essentially abandoned gun owners in the past, not entirely unlike Colt now.

California Highway Patrol is still carrying the SW 4006, unless they recently changed.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:40:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 4:41:51 AM EDT by mikejohnson]

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
past politics aside,

S&W built some of the least ergonomic auto's ever made. then came the sigma's. that single gun pretty much destroyed the past reputaion of the comapany. i have seen VERY few people that owned an early sigma that ever got it to run reliably.



I have an early SW9F, runs reliably... now. Not as durable as a Glock, but decent considering they are cheap.

There have also been a couple versions of the Sigma too...

Of course, they weren't cheap many years back-- average retail was $400+, now average retail is $300+... (gun shows, were $370ish, now $250ish) Mags are still expensive though-- $40. I just bought an extra one since I was cheated out of a mag during the ban...

Issues: hangs up on last round on magazine-- the follower didn't allow the last round to feed for some reason (10rd and 17rd mags). This is no longer an issue. Used to jam occasionally-- looking at the brass, a gunsmith did a quick polish of the chamber due to circular machine marks imprinted on the brass... marks are still there, even after being sent back to S&W. I've shot it a lot, and haven't had problems in many years. In fact, until recently, it was usually my go-to gun and is small/compact enough to easily conceal for a full size weapon with 17+1 rounds of Hydra-Shoks... and it shoots/handles very well. I am very happy with it.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:44:06 AM EDT
I used to shoot a Smith 9mm (been too long can't remember the model number) it would only function with FMJ ammo and had a crappy trigger. Plus I don't like guns with safeties high on the slide. Glock, Sig and HK are best best auto makers, bar none.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:51:44 AM EDT
The only real reason they aren't more popular is that they have not been featured in a COOL shoot em up movie.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:55:53 AM EDT
Besides the fact that the whole remove magazine your gun quits crap and the sell out to the Klintonistas, there were also problems with the stainless autos at least from my experience. The 4006 and 4506 in Tulsa PD and Tulsa County (respectively) use had to have a special stainless lubrication and they would jam alot, expecially the .40 ones the TPD used. They switched to Glock 22's about 4 years or so after they went to the S&W autos from S&W revolvers.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:58:08 AM EDT
I had a S&W 4013TSW for a few years.

1) BEST crisp trigger I've ever had on a semiauto- better than my Beretta M-92 and certainly my Glocks
2) The ONLY gun I have ever had that DIDN'T jam, ever, once.

I only sold it because it was my only .40, everything else was 9 or .45, and I grew to dislike .40 the more I shot it.

I'm happy with Glocks now, but if I wouldn't be displeased if I had to own another S&W semiauto.

Link Posted: 12/27/2005 5:00:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 5:00:58 AM EDT
I am totally predjudiced against them but I admit that I have never fired or even handled one.

Maybe they do need to buy a spot in a cool new movie.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 5:03:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 5:04:26 AM EDT by NCPatrolAR]
I carried (for work) and now own a 4046 that is atleast 12 years old and I haven't had a single malfunction out of it. The gun is heavy, but it is far from the worse pistol I've ever handled. The 4046 is a pistol, just like my Glocks, that I know will go bang each time I pull the trigger.

I also own a Smith 908 that I've had for 8 years with no problems. And after the start of the new year, I'll be adding a Smith M&P.


I will state that I think the Smith SW99 is a POS and cant stand carrying the thing.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:13:29 AM EDT
Larry's Pistol and Pawn here in Huntsville, AL had a special S&W night a couple of years ago. They had several S&W reps on site with loaner pistols you could shoot. I forget if you had to pay or anything, but essentially you got to shoot all their guns for nothing or very little.

I was given a Sigma in .40 S&W I believe and several magazines to shoot. The gun jammed on the second shot. The rep gave me another magazine and it jammed again after 2-3 shots. He wanted to give me another mag, but I just cleared the weapon and gave it back to him, I was done.

These were S&W-owned guns, provided by S&W reps from the factory, shooting factory mags with, I assume, factory ammo. And I couldn't empty one mag without it jamming.

Now, what again was the question about why S&W autos suck???

Merlin
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:29:31 AM EDT
I have a model 59 that I put thousands of rounds through... It has ate averything I have feed it, even mild lead reloads. I don't like the feel of the gun just because my hands are so small. I have been thinking about upgrading to a tupperware gun for my small hands. Now I have a 422 that I bought my wife and that is one of my favorite guns to shoot. That guns has ate thousands of cheap wally world ammo.....
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:29:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markm:
The only real reason they aren't more popular is that they have not been featured in a COOL shoot em up movie.



Reservoir Dogs...
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:32:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merlin:
Larry's Pistol and Pawn here in Huntsville, AL had a special S&W night a couple of years ago. They had several S&W reps on site with loaner pistols you could shoot. I forget if you had to pay or anything, but essentially you got to shoot all their guns for nothing or very little.

I was given a Sigma in .40 S&W I believe and several magazines to shoot. The gun jammed on the second shot. The rep gave me another magazine and it jammed again after 2-3 shots. He wanted to give me another mag, but I just cleared the weapon and gave it back to him, I was done.

These were S&W-owned guns, provided by S&W reps from the factory, shooting factory mags with, I assume, factory ammo. And I couldn't empty one mag without it jamming.

Now, what again was the question about why S&W autos suck???

Merlin



The Sigma is not in the same class of guns as something like a 5906. The 5906 is many things, but one thing it isn't is unreliable...
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:33:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SS109:
I am totally predjudiced against them but I admit that I have never fired or even handled one.

Maybe they do need to buy a spot in a cool new movie.



So if Laura Croft had carried two Performance Center guns you'd like Smiths better?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:34:25 AM EDT
Worst fucking, god awful, shitty triggers from a real manufacturer I have ever seen.

Sweet wheels, craptastic autos.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:34:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:


I will state that I think the Smith SW99 is a POS and cant stand carrying the thing.



Why don't you like it?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:35:59 AM EDT
S&W like ruger, makes good revolvers, but there auto blow..
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:38:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 8:43:15 AM EDT by Alien]

Originally Posted By squeezecockerp7m8:

Originally Posted By markm:
The only real reason they aren't more popular is that they have not been featured in a COOL shoot em up movie.



Reservoir Dogs...



Collateral too (Tom Cruise steals a guard's S&W auto at the end of the movie). Granted, he does most of his hits with an H&K USP .45, and one with a silenced suppressed Ruger .22.

Edit: had to change silenced to suppressed before the suppressor nazis see that (even though Hiram Maxim, its inventor called it a silencer )
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:46:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 8:49:12 AM EDT by jrzy]

Originally Posted By Wave:
<---S&W fan. Screw the politics, my guns work.



My S&W's function flawlessly.
I have a 945 from the performance center and a 5906 and they have never jammed or failed to fire, ever.
I like the 5906 for other reasons too.
It takes the same mag as my marlin camp 9's.
My kel tec sub 200 also takes the same mags.
The 5906 looks a little funny with the marlin 20 rd mag sticking out the bottom but who cares about looks if you need extra rds?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:04:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wave:
<---S&W fan. Screw the politics, my guns work.



+1

My duty guns are a pair of 4583TSWs. They go bang every time.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:07:32 AM EDT
I dont care for the SW99s shitty trigger pull on the initial shot and the ones we have recieved have had numerous issues with them going down and they are straight from the factory.

Oh, I also cant stand the mag release.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:15:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By okrobocop:
Besides the fact that the whole remove magazine your gun quits crap and the sell out to the Klintonistas, there were also problems with the stainless autos at least from my experience. The 4006 and 4506 in Tulsa PD and Tulsa County (respectively) use had to have a special stainless lubrication and they would jam alot, expecially the .40 ones the TPD used. They switched to Glock 22's about 4 years or so after they went to the S&W autos from S&W revolvers.



Don't know where you got your facts, but my 4006 has 25,000 rounds through it, perfect functionally, and I have never used a "special" lubrication. CLP is all my pistol gets.

Why all the hate for S&W? Too many 1911/Glock/Colt fanboys.

I like my Glock, my Sigs, even my Berettas. But the S&W has always worked, and I know it's reliable.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:16:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 9:22:19 AM EDT by squeezecockerp7m8]

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:
I dont care for the SW99s shitty trigger pull on the initial shot and the ones we have recieved have had numerous issues with them going down and they are straight from the factory.

Oh, I also cant stand the mag release.



*nods* I come from the HK world, so I prefer the mag release. If you weren't used to that, I can see ppl. not liking it. The DA pull is bad imho, I'd probably just leave one out of the pipe and rack it, for my purposes...
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:18:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 9:25:01 AM EDT by luger355]
imo the only good s&w autos are the ones that have been out of production for at least 15+ years.
like my model 52.


the fit and finish on a 52 is dam near supernatural
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:22:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 9:22:31 AM EDT by pzjgr]

Originally Posted By squeezecockerp7m8:

Originally Posted By markm:
The only real reason they aren't more popular is that they have not been featured in a COOL shoot em up movie.



Reservoir Dogs...



Sonny Crocket carried a 4506 after the second season, when he stopped carrying the Bren Ten....

That being said, I love my 1006....but I like big heavy semi auto's. And I can't find a Bren Ten
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:23:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By luger355:
imo the only good s&w autos are the ones that have been out of production for at least 15+ years.
like my model 52.
img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-6/763090/mod52.JPG



You don't like the 952?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:24:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pzjgr:

Originally Posted By squeezecockerp7m8:

Originally Posted By markm:
The only real reason they aren't more popular is that they have not been featured in a COOL shoot em up movie.



Reservoir Dogs...



Sonny Crocket carried a 4506 after the second season, when he stopped carrying the Bren Ten....

That being said, I love my 1006....but I like big heavy semi auto's. And I can't find a Bren Ten



I wonder if he quit carrying the Bren because he couldn't get mags for it...
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:27:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By squeezecockerp7m8:

Originally Posted By pzjgr:

Originally Posted By squeezecockerp7m8:

Originally Posted By markm:
The only real reason they aren't more popular is that they have not been featured in a COOL shoot em up movie.



Reservoir Dogs...



Sonny Crocket carried a 4506 after the second season, when he stopped carrying the Bren Ten....

That being said, I love my 1006....but I like big heavy semi auto's. And I can't find a Bren Ten



I wonder if he quit carrying the Bren because he couldn't get mags for it...



Don't forget Vic Mackie in the Shield
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:30:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 9:32:20 AM EDT by luger355]

Originally Posted By squeezecockerp7m8:

Originally Posted By luger355:
imo the only good s&w autos are the ones that have been out of production for at least 15+ years.
like my model 52.
img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-6/763090/mod52.JPG



You don't like the 952?



38spl wadcutter > 9mm.
its like compairing a race tuned ferrari to porche . Night and day sort of thing.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top