[mikeb3185]

i was decided on the smith 642 and then i was working on my paper on gun control and learned about s&w conceding to the anti's and refered to clinton and wesson. now im not so sure i want to support s&w. any other manufacturers make a similar pistol?

or am i just being petty

[S&W620]

Well any gunmaker can't conceed too much to the anti's as they do MAKE guns. As long as you like the weapon, go for it.

[cmidkiff]

There's many gun fanatics that won't touch a new S&W. S&W signed an agreement with Clinton in 2000, requiring some safety features, and limiting distribution.

S&W was under different ownership at that time (a british company, Tompkins Industries owned them). Safe-t-hammer bought them in '01.

The current ownership has been trying hard to change this perception, supporting gun rights groups at every level. I was at a MissouriCarry.org picnic last week, and S&W donated a new M&P .40 to their raffle.

At this point, I'm willing to let the past go. Not everyone is ready to do so.

[wuchak]

The current owners had nothing to do with the Clinton agreement and has been doing everything possible to overcome the blemish on the company's reputation due to that foolish decision of the former owners.

S&W is back in the hands of Americans and more importantly people who love guns. If anyone has a reason why the current management shoudn't be supported by purchasing new S&W firearms I'd like to hear it.

I'm also troubled by people who would boycot S&W for their agreement with Clinton but continue to shop at Walmart, Dick's, and other stores that carry firearms but refuse to carry handguns.

[MartinBrody]

I had the same concerns you did. Aside from the other responses about their past politics, I would urge you to buy a S&W because in my experience their products are superior and they stand behind them. If you have any issues, when you call their customer service you talk to a person who will actually help you, if you email, they write you back.

I am sure someone will tell you about a bad experience with them, but remember this is the internet and you will find complaints about everything. I have heard from too many people about other companies not standing behind their product in spite of what their warranty says. S&W does stand behind their products.

[swingcatt]

Back in the late '90s (1990s that is) S&W was owned by Tompkins Steel in the UK. Saf-T-Hammer, an American Company bought them in 2001 and promptly began a revival of the policies that made S&W a firearm standard. I heartily support them now, but will admit that I was on the boycott bandwagon shortly after the Clinton cave in. SC

[MachIVshooter]

If anyone has a reason why the current management shoudn't be supported by purchasing new S&W firearms I'd like to hear it.

ILS.

[cbsbyte]

Tompkins ownership of S&W nearly drove the company into the ground. The British managers had no understanding of the American gun culture, buyers or manufacturing of firearms. To them it was a business of mass production. Besides signing the Clinton HUD agreement, which by itself caused a massive nation wide boycott of their products. They also terribley mismanaged S&W. They cut funding for R&D projects, under their care quality slipped, worker moral faded, many who where laid off. In 2001 Saf-T, which in itself is not a large company, bought S&W for $15 million plus debt, from Tompkins which in 1987 bought the company for $112 million.

http://www.gunweek.com/2003/feature0201.html

http://www.john-ross.net/betrayal.htm