Smith and Wesson Boycott


PDA






BluedRevolver
September 5, 2011, 04:06 PM
I know S&W are owned by different people and the old boycott has been largely lifted, but there are still those who refuse to buy S&W products because of their betrayal in the 90's, along with the fact that s&w has yet to formally renounce their actions and they still have that Hillary hole.

What are your thoughts on continuing the boycott that is largely over, and do you think it should be reinstated?

If you enjoyed reading about "Smith and Wesson Boycott" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
F-111 John
September 5, 2011, 04:50 PM
Judging by the popularity of the M&P and Bodyguard lines of firearms, I'd say the boycott is pretty much over except for those few die-hards.

gordy
September 5, 2011, 05:13 PM
Do you think the boycott worked?
I don't think it did anything but give some people something to do.
S&W is still in the handgun market and selling lots of them.
As F-111 john put it only the diehards are still out there crying foul.
I have always been a S&W fan, IMHO the best DA revolver maker.
And I think the 3rd gen autos are the best out there, I am not to fond of the current line of auto's but thats OK as I have many of there older products.
And I would like to know who was betrayed?

SorenityNow
September 5, 2011, 05:18 PM
What boycott?? Someone please fill me in.

Mike1234567
September 5, 2011, 05:20 PM
I never heard of the boycott but I only recently got back into firearms.

gordy
September 5, 2011, 05:22 PM
Some years back when S&W put on there revolvers a small lock.
A few people cryed foul and swore to never buy a S&W gun ever again as long as a lock was on it.
S&W offers guns with no lock and with a lock.

wlewisiii
September 5, 2011, 05:24 PM
I never paid attention to it any more than I ever worried about the locks.

SorenityNow
September 5, 2011, 05:35 PM
Right ok. I know the lock you guys are talkin about. I though putting a lock on a revolver was the dumbest thing. I remember reading a article on the snubbie 357, the strong recoil would accidently lock the safety.I have never owned a safety lock revolver and prob never will. My smith has about a 7 or 8lb and thats enough safty for me

Sam1911
September 5, 2011, 05:48 PM
Oh good grief. The company that owned S&W for a time made some errors. That time is past, those folks are no longer involved and S&W is one of the most successful and prolific gun-makers in the country and they do an awful lot to support gun owners and the shooting sports. A boycott over a two decade old issue is as silly as it would be ineffective.

As far as the lock goes -- I'm no fan. But, there are plenty of guy buyers out there who think having a way to lock a gun so someone can't make it work when the owner isn't there is a pretty neat idea. Caving in to the antis is not -- by far -- the real reason they still add the lock. ... just like Springfield, Ruger, Beretta, etc., etc.

PolymathPioneer
September 5, 2011, 05:58 PM
Is this evolving into another lock thread? :uhoh:

bigtubby
September 5, 2011, 06:12 PM
I much prefer the older smith's and would not buy a new one partly because of the lock and mainly because of the price.

elano
September 5, 2011, 06:32 PM
I won't buy a smith if it has a lock. I don't trust them. They prob work fine but I don't like the idea. Especiqlly when there are other manufacturers who don't have them and ysed guns on the market without them for much cheaper.

JellyJar
September 5, 2011, 06:36 PM
I won't ever buy a new Smith and Wesson revolver with that stupid lock on it! However, I may, perhaps, buy one of their other firearms it the fancy strikes me.

bannockburn
September 5, 2011, 06:37 PM
This is such a non-issue I don't know why anyone would even consider boycotting S&W products for something that happened so long ago; especially when they were under different ownership and during a different political climate.

As for the IL; if you don't like it, don't trust it, or if you simply don't want it, by all means buy something else. Plenty of other revolvers out there to choose from.

Time to lay this so-called economic activism against S&W to rest!

ColtPythonElite
September 5, 2011, 06:52 PM
I didn't realize there ever was a S&W boycott. If there still is I don't support it. Wheel gunners should buy lots of Smiths, both new and used. That leaves more Colts for me...

CajunBass
September 5, 2011, 07:00 PM
Other than a Sigma that I bought to see if it was as bad as "everyone" says it is (it's not, good gun IMHO), I haven't bought a new Smith & Wesson in years. Of course on the other hand I haven't bought a new Ruger, or Colt either. I buy used guns almost 100%.

The lock doesn't bother me. If I happen to see something with a lock that I like, I'll buy it. For anyone who wants to "boycott" Smith & Wesson (or Ruger for that matter), knock yourself out. It's ok with me.

skt239
September 5, 2011, 07:11 PM
I have always loved S&W revolvers and honestly never cared about the agreements they made. The fact of the matter is, there is no other company that offered the level of quality and selection that S&W offered. Back in the height of the boycott if you wanted well made and light revolver for carry there was only one option, S&W. The only other options was Taurus or Charter, both junk IMO.

Strykervet
September 5, 2011, 07:21 PM
The caving in was the problem, the fact we had a very lively gun ban atmosphere at the time, and the gun industry was largely on the anti's side! Let us not forget this. Bill Ruger was the original idea for the high cap. mag ban --his exact words were "no honest man needs a magazine that holds over 15rds." Really? I thought I was honest. Not honest enough for Bill Ruger, no sir, telling the truth isn't enough. You needed to pass a sniff test too.

Smith caved in and sided with the Clintons. They did this to save their own bottom line, they are after all a corporation. Ruger did too, actually drafting a lot of the wording for ban. He only "wanted to save his little rifle". And destroy the competition. And make a lot of cash. And deem you a criminal for owning high cap mags. And make it to where the only 5.56mm semi auto rifle you can own is the Ruger Mini-14. Thanks Bill, you'll always be remembered, and not for investment castings.

Smith didn't have a figurehead. Bill Ruger kept his nefarious dealings secret for a long time. Colt just sort of "went away". These are the "Big Three" of American arms manufacturing if you will, and they sold us out. Sure there was Winchester and Remington, but they didn't have a dog in this fight. Bill Ruger even said he'd act as the voice for "responsible American gun owners". I didn't ask for that!

Any of you that remember the ban, you likely remember WHY the boycott started. See, I turned 18 the summer before the ban was enacted, just months before. So I got the full brunt of it. That ban, essentially, was for me. The goal, as I see it, was to make sure my generation and those later could never ever challenge the governement. That we would never have parity of force. That my generation would have a neutered Bill of Rights. You have to understand the rest of the zeitgeist, that we also had militias, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc., and a government that wanted total control.

Some of you probably wonder "why 15rds.?" 15rds. because Glock had just introduced the G17 a few years earlier and was seriously cutting into Bill's profits. A 15rd. magazine limit would shut out a good deal of the competition without hindering Bill. It was all about Bill, really, at least in Bill's mind. How Bill could maximize profits while manipulating legislation in order to secure a larger portion of the pie. But Bill sided with the enemy and he got burnt, along with the rest of us. They changed the "5" to a "0" and we got ten round mags instead.

I remember the ban, and though Smith got boycotted, it wasn't all about the locks. In fact, I can't recall anyone boycotting them BECAUSE of the locks. It was because of the dealings with Clinton behind closed doors. The locks just turned up at the same time because Smith got bought by a company that makes those locks and it was supposed to be part of the Clinton deal. Which is why they are still on there today probably. Nobody wants them. The people that need them, well, in my opinion, they shouldn't own a firearm at all. It should be locked up completely when not used, and in firing condition when not locked up.

I grew up before the ban, I recall that there was no tacticool, there were no buying rushes, and firearms and parts were in general low priced. The ban changed all that. That ban made 13rd. Glock 21 mags $120 each. Sometimes used, and you were lucky to get full metal lined. C-Mags were $600 when you could find one. Lots of people went to prison and are now felons because they unknowingly put a threaded barrel upper on a post-ban lower, or they bought one in illegal condition at a gun store (yes, I saw "illegal" arms for sale in pawn shops --the law was so cosmetic and shallow-- many didn't even know what it said). Now the ATF could find out when the lower was made, but this was before the internet, and many companies wouldn't tell you when the serial numbers were issued. Some went out of business because of the ban, some before. But ATF could just find out when it was first transferred. American Justice gun ban style, all in favor of big government.

I was so glad when Bush let it fail. I hated everything Bush did and stood for, but for this one, I'll gladly thank him on a stage in front of all. I'll never ever vote for a politician that will sell my rights out, and I deem the 2nd the highest of all, it is the Queen of the Bill of Rights. With that one amendment, all the others can be safely secured. Without it, all is lost. Look at Syria. They have a pretty good gun ban too it seems. Nobody is shooting back anyway.

The day the ban expired I bought tons of mags. Every time the antis get on their pulpit and preach for bans, I go get more. When Giffords got shot, I scored tons. See, I have a "Depression Mentality" now. My grandmother, who lived through the depression, always had food stored away. I always have mags stored away. Just recently, I found out that the feds sent surplus stores letters telling them to "watch out" for folks that buy tons of mags. When Obama got elected, that man-woman Napolitano said that veterans and soldiers trained to fight and people who believe in the Bill of Rights are to be considered enemies of the state.

When that ban started, I'll never forget Clinton's speech. He gave a speech about registering weapons. It was a paraphrased version of Hitler's Nuremburg speech. About how our streets would be safer and crime would go away. Hitler's law targeted the Jews. Clinton's law targeted the poor (because if you could afford pre-ban, the ban didn't exist!). Both enemies of the ruling class of the day. Too eerily similar for my likings.

No sir, had nothing to do with locks. It had to do with selling out.

Magnumite
September 5, 2011, 07:26 PM
These lock and boycott discussions are the same as the 1911 FLGR, MIM and cast frame discussions. And about as useful.

MikeJackmin
September 5, 2011, 07:33 PM
The boycott was about more than the lock.

My recollection is fuzzy, but as I recall, S&W made a deal with the Clinton admin to only provide their products to gun shops who agreed to follow a set of new and obnoxious rules. Again, this is from memory, but one example of the rules was that these shops could not sell any gun, to anyone, who could not document having taken a safety class. Overall these limits represented a substantial, and extra-legislative, burden on both buyers and sellers. S&W, in return, would enjoy government protection against 'gun safety' civil suits. Their competitors, who did not agree to the new rules, would presumably be sitting ducks for the lawsuits to follow.

Needless to say, this was not popular.

The deal eventually fell through, and S&W never quite got the stink off them. The Hillary Holes on the sides of their guns are pretty much all that remains, and most folks don't even remember the rest of it anymore.

I do. I have plenty of old smiths, but I've bought nothing new from them. The old ones suit me fine and there are more than enough to last me the rest of my days.

I don't pretend the boycott has any purpose anymore, and I don't care if other people buy from Smith or not. I avoid their new products simply because I'd feel like crap if I bought one.

An apology would go a long way, but we'll probably never see it.

Smith357
September 5, 2011, 07:42 PM
I never boycotted them, I just like the old moldy ones better. A nice looking 85-95% shooter with no box is way cheaper than a new specimen and will work just as well if not better than new. But then, I don't buy new rifles either.

elano
September 5, 2011, 07:44 PM
I won't buy a smith if it has a lock. I don't trust them. They prob work fine but I don't like the idea. Especiqlly when there are other manufacturers who don't have them and ysed guns on the market without them for much cheaper.

420Stainless
September 5, 2011, 07:45 PM
The Taurus model 85 I own was a direct result of the original boycott. Would rather have had a S&W, but the Taurus has turned out to be a fine gun. After the company was sold to new owners I dropped my grudge. There's only been two models I've been interested in since the boycott - both Mountain Guns. I bought a model 25-13 a few years ago and love it. Thought about buying a 629 Mountain Gun, but never got around to it. If they come out with another model I find attractive I won't hesitate to get one.

PowerG
September 5, 2011, 07:57 PM
nm.

SlamFire1
September 5, 2011, 08:07 PM
I was mad at S&W at the time, now I am not.

Without organization, leader, or platform, the individual American Shooter showed the gun industry the consequences of supporting bad legislation. :fire:

I think that was just wonderful and is something Americans should be proud of.

As my friend Al said “I love it when a plan comes together”.

I had no idea there was a plan, but apparently, there was one.

Two thumbs up to the American shooter. :D

W.E.G.
September 5, 2011, 08:23 PM
:banghead:...and bILL rUGER too!!!

savit260
September 5, 2011, 09:14 PM
Too many nice revolvers out there to buy ones with ugly holes in the side.

Magnumite
September 5, 2011, 09:18 PM
For the uninformed, only one person was involved in signing that agreement with the Clintonistas and it was a backdoor deal without management nor employee involvement and support. It was cloak and dagger all the way done solely by the president of S&W at the time - who just happened to be British. He quickly resigned. The Brits are very strong government and antigun so it is no surprise that guy buckled - or perpetrated - to ( with) our governnent authoritarians.
So the backlash was against the ones who needed support the most, S&W, its employees and its stock holders. Nothing would have pleased the Clintonistas more than to see this American firearms icon fold. And the shooters almost did it for them. I never supported that 'boycott' and never would a similar one. I did propose to sue the hell out of that gutless turncoat Redcoat but it fell on deaf ears.

Bill Ruger was only suggesting a way of avoiding outright bans on the guns. The antigun push was in full swing and the real intent by the anti's in government still hadn't tipped their hand. Ruger was observant in seeing Congress viewing us as not being able to reason and compromise and considered it as a motivation to push total bans. He suggested 'something like a capacity limitation' in disussion and was promptly throttled by everyone as going to the 'other side'. Not the case. The Clintonistas formed that 'crime bill' on their own with no input from Bill Ruger.
The crime rose and set, the magazine cap did nothing but cost lots of money and people are starting to see some in government as the elitist piwer mongers they are.
And Smith and Wesson is strong and prosperous.
This post will rile many but no problem. Its true.

ozarkguy
September 5, 2011, 10:06 PM
All of my S&W's are of the older, pinned and recessed type but that's because I'm older myself and bought them years ago. I don't really have a problem with the internal lock and even have a couple of the new flattop Rugers with them. My only problem with the S&W IL is that they drilled an ugly hole in the side of the gun and even put a little arrow showing which direction to turn the key, for crying out loud! I wish they could have hidden it in some way so that it wasn't so unattractive.

MikeJackmin
September 5, 2011, 10:44 PM
For the uninformed, only one person was involved in signing that agreement with the Clintonistas and it was a backdoor deal without management nor employee involvement and support. It was cloak and dagger all the way done solely by the president of S&W at the time - who just happened to be British. He quickly resigned. The Brits are very strong government and antigun so it is no surprise that guy buckled - or perpetrated - to ( with) our governnent authoritarians.
So the backlash was against the ones who needed support the most, S&W, its employees and its stock holders. Nothing would have pleased the Clintonistas more than to see this American firearms icon fold. And the shooters almost did it for them. I never supported that 'boycott' and never would a similar one. I did propose to sue the hell out of that gutless turncoat Redcoat but it fell on deaf ears.

Bill Ruger was only suggesting a way of avoiding outright bans on the guns. The antigun push was in full swing and the real intent by the anti's in government still hadn't tipped their hand. Ruger was observant in seeing Congress viewing us as not being able to reason and compromise and considered it as a motivation to push total bans. He suggested 'something like a capacity limitation' in disussion and was promptly throttled by everyone as going to the 'other side'. Not the case. The Clintonistas formed that 'crime bill' on their own with no input from Bill Ruger.
The crime rose and set, the magazine cap did nothing but cost lots of money and people are starting to see some in government as the elitist piwer mongers they are.
And Smith and Wesson is strong and prosperous.
This post will rile many but no problem. Its true.
I agree that there were plenty of people at Smith & Wesson who were unhappy about the deal. However, I don't think it's fair to place the blame entirely on one person, either. To my knowledge, the subsequent management made no official effort to distance themselves from this agreement once the guilty party left. They continued to play both sides, until the point simply became moot. The never reversed course, and they remain responsible for that.

Like I said, an apology would go a long way, and it is not forthcoming.

S&W would have killed us with this deal - it would have been a disaster for the entire industry. Arbitrary regulation, enforced by state-funded civil suits, filed by the Attorneys General of dozens of cities and states, would have finished us. That was the whole point, after all. And they knew it. They probably figured they could fulfill police and military orders and leave the rest of us to hang. To hell with them.

From a strictly pragmatic point of view, if it were necessary to ruin S&W in order to stop this deal, it would have been a worthwhile trade. I'm happy it didn't come to that. I realize that, as individuals, most of the folks who work there are our friends. I'm happy they remain strong allies to us now. But I still won't buy their stuff.

Rexster
September 5, 2011, 11:15 PM
I am not boycotting S&W, but have put their keyhole-enhanced revolvers on my personal list of things to be ignored. There are plenty of pre-keyhole, pre-owned S&W revolvers to keep me contented. I own enough firearms to meet my needs for a lifetime, so for me to open my wallet, a firearm has to appeal to me. A keyhole that looks like something from a set of handcuffs does NOT appeal to my sense of aesthetics!

Meanwhile, I buy new Ruger revolvers for the simple reason that they fit me better, not
as a political statement. The guy who designed the original GP100 and SP101 factory grips
seems to have hands just like mine. Life is good!

Also on a practical level, I don't like the feel or look of the wider MIM triggers on the medium and large-frame S&W revolvers. I like the narrower forged "combat" triggers characteristic of the 1980s-1990s L-frames, which were also in many K-frames of that era. Ruger revolvers triggers are well-shaped for my taste.

I bought an S&W M&P15 lower receiver, upon which I built my AR. I have considered an M&P auto-pistol. I would love to see S&W make another run of the Schofield, if it happens when my finances pick back up. I am not boycotting S&W, just ignoring their uglier and ill-fitting products, which is their revolver line-up.

Paris
September 5, 2011, 11:21 PM
I wasn't buying firearms in the 90s although I do remember the news surrounding S&W at the time.

I've bought two S&W products since 2005, a Sigma in .40 S&W and a 686 in .357 Mag. I've been very happy with both of these firearms and will probably buy more S&W products in the future.

I don't really have anything to crusade against when it comes to S&W.

VA27
September 5, 2011, 11:50 PM
The lock is the least of my worries. The last 'new' Smiths I bought had the lock and it wasn't a problem.

My problem was with the V sights. Good for close and quick, less so for far and precision. It was difficult to tell if the accuracy (or lack thereof) was the fault of the sights or the two piece barrel and shroud (another problem). The last one had fixed sights and the relationship between the point of aim and point of impact was so casual as to suggest coincidence.

The last new one also took two trips around the cylinder to fire all shots even after a trip back to the factory.

I have enough old Smiths to keep me happy.

If they should ever again make something that interests me, I'll give 'em another chance. But I won't worry about the lock.

JohnhenrySTL
September 6, 2011, 12:03 AM
STRYKERVET,

As a gun owner and historian I very much enjoyed your posting. Thank you very much. I was wondering in what year did the ban come out?

22-rimfire
September 6, 2011, 12:13 AM
...along with the fact that s&w has yet to formally renounce their actions...

Don't hold your breath on any "renouncement". I wouldn't if I owned S&W lock stock and barrel today. Why dig up the past? It's like holding a grudge against Ruger these days. It was a business decision at the time as these companies planned on surviving and making guns.

That was pretty much pre-internet days for the common man and many didn't even know about it. I don't think the boycott was effective if there was ever a boycott. Kids that were just born then are now in their early 20's. Why would they care? The point is I don't think many care in the least these days.

CraigC
September 6, 2011, 01:01 AM
The boycott was silly to begin with. However, I refuse to buy a new S&W revolver strictly because I don't like how they are made relative to their high asking prices. That said, two of the last few guns I bought were new S&W's. An M&P15 and a Bodyguard .380. I've been quite pleased with both.

Radagast
September 6, 2011, 04:54 AM
Actually the boycott was very effective. S&Ws sales crashed. Their British owners Tomkins sold the remains off for 15 million dollars, down from the 112 milllion that they purchased S&W for in 1987.
Glock was about to sign a similar deal with New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer but backed out when they saw what happened to S&W. There were unconfirmed rumours that Sig was about to cave but grew a backbone in response to the boycott.

I can recall being castigated for buying a new S&W even though I'm in a different country. At least one S&W factory worker was on the gun forums begging shooters to start buying again as they were facing lay offs as a result of the boycott. Every new thread that mentioned S&W was instantly spammed with demands that the boycott be enforced. It was the first spontaneous internet based boycott that I am aware of. And it worked.
The new owners of S&W announced that they would not implement the Clinton agreement.
The requirements for new controls on storage, training, display and sales of firearms that the Clinton administration tried to enforce without obtaining an Act of Congress fell apart.

I don't approve of the lock because it is mechanically suspect - I've seen it fail, but the lock was not the issue. The issue was an attempt to introduce extra-legal regulation of the firearms community.
The lock persists because the new owners of S&W happened to be the patent holders for the lock design.

SAA
September 6, 2011, 05:06 AM
I know S&W are owned by different people and the old boycott has been largely lifted, but there are still those who refuse to buy S&W products because of their betrayal in the 90's, along with the fact that s&w has yet to formally renounce their actions and they still have that Hillary hole.

What are your thoughts on continuing the boycott that is largely over, and do you think it should be reinstated?

Boycott S&W, and buy what? A Ruger? LOL! At least S&W didn't turn honest gun owners into felons!!!

evan price
September 6, 2011, 05:22 AM
The S&W boycott and the AWB happened right as I was getting heavily into gun ownership and shooting. It was only within the past few years that I finally bought my first S&W product and that was with a bit of hesitation- and it wasn't even really a S&W, it was a Walther. I've bought a few more S&Ws since then, but the new production Smiths are on my not gonna buy it list. The ban wasn't about the lock, but the lock was because of the ban. Its ugly, un-necessary, and I won't pay for something I won't ever need or use. It is a symptom of what is wrong with the government trying to mandate something without understanding how the product is used and the industry caving in.

My personal feeling is new S&Ws are not worth the asking price based on quality of craftsmanship and the ugly lock. S&W's finishes are just not anything special. A new snubbie versus a snubbie even from the Bangor-Punta years are two totally different guns. The hand craftsmanship is gone. If I am gonna by a mass produced consumer commodity I might as well go cost effective.

Fishman777
September 6, 2011, 06:44 AM
I bought two M&Ps in the last year. Why would a person Boycott an American owned and American made product when these companies were backed into a corner by politicians?

In my book, it is stupid.

oldfool
September 6, 2011, 07:19 AM
Magnumite and Radagast both posted quite accurate descriptions of the events of that time.

Anti-gun agendas were real popular with politicians of that era, and quite a few smaller companies were forced out of business (completely and permanently destroyed) by the extreme costs of defending themselves against lawsuits which never should have been allowed in American courts. All manufacturers were under a lot of pressure and rightfully worried about their future.

The BRITISH owners of S&W went much too far in agreeing to some pretty outrageous proposals, obviously in the interests of anti-competition more than anything else. The results were as noted by above named posters.

If you don't like the style, features, or manufacturing methods of some particular firearm, don't buy it. If you do like a particular firearm, do buy it. Some idiotic self delusional POLITICAL boycott of a company that does not exist any more, in the interests of driving any large and successful American owned and operated firearms manufacturer out of business and out of America, destroying American jobs is utterly STUPID.

Drink more Tea if ye must, but quit putting peyote in it.

madcratebuilder
September 6, 2011, 11:19 AM
The S&W boycott, the Ruger boycott, that eliminates a lot of hand guns. If it means demand is down and prices a well drop I'm all for it.

Thaddeus Jones
September 6, 2011, 11:44 AM
The current company calling itself S&W has not made a handgun I would own since 2001. Exhorbitant prices for ugly, cheaply made guns. No thanks.

I could care less what happens to that company. As far as I'm concerned they went out of business already.

jmstevens2
September 6, 2011, 11:53 AM
Some idiotic self delusional POLITICAL boycott of a company that does not exist any more, in the interests of driving any large and successful American owned and operated firearms manufacturer out of business and out of America, destroying American jobs is utterly STUPID.

Drink more Tea if ye must, but quit putting peyote in it.

Real High Road buddy. I thought I was reading the HiPoint Forum for a second.

Standing Wolf
September 6, 2011, 12:12 PM
No sir, had nothing to do with locks. It had to do with selling out.

Thank you, Strykervet

I'm still not buying new Smith & Wesson products on principle; I also don't buy firearms with locks, but principles come first.

sidheshooter
September 6, 2011, 12:51 PM
My memories (that of an idealistic college student at the time) pretty much mirror Strykervets. In hindsight, maybe there was more to it-there always is-but I'm pretty much with the 'vet's post, lock stock and barrel.

The only good thing about the ban frenzy, ironically, is that I traded a stock G19 with 4 "pre ban" mags and a case of JHP ammo for-get this-three police trade S&W model 65s with 3" barrels and round butts. My dad and I still each have one of those .357s to this day. No locks on those, BTW.

It was, to quote the sages, "the age of unreason".

Rexster
September 6, 2011, 02:05 PM
To add a bit to my above post, we should in mind that the folks at S&W who collaborated with the clintonistas are no longer running the company. Ruger, for that matter, is a corporation, not a Ruger fiefdom, and selling normal-capacity magazines. There is no reason to reject either company, except on the merits of their current products.

BTW, S&W does sell a few new J-snubs without the lock, mostly the 40-1, but also
a few of the Model 642.

Black Butte
September 6, 2011, 02:23 PM
I know S&W could make a h#!! of a lot more money if the dispensed with the integral lock. I only buy Smiths on the used market for just that reason.

OldCavSoldier
September 6, 2011, 03:52 PM
The current company calling itself S&W has not made a handgun I would own since 2001. Exhorbitant prices for ugly, cheaply made guns. No thanks.

I could care less what happens to that company. As far as I'm concerned they went out of business already.
S&W has sold a great many handguns during the past decade. Out of business, hardly!

Also, I have neither read nor heard of any confirmed case of the "Hillary Hole Lock" accidentally engaging or otherwise interfering with the operation of an S&W handgun. Yes, it may be ugly to some, but, thank goodness beauty is in the eye of the beholder...otherwise my centerfold-looking wife never would have married me....thirty years ago!

That being said, I still get palpitations when I think of old guns, old cars, and old whisky/scotch/cognac. At my age, those palpitations are a GOOD thing!

CraigC
September 6, 2011, 04:04 PM
If you don't like the style, features, or manufacturing methods of some particular firearm, don't buy it. If you do like a particular firearm, do buy it. Some idiotic self delusional POLITICAL boycott of a company that does not exist any more, in the interests of driving any large and successful American owned and operated firearms manufacturer out of business and out of America, destroying American jobs is utterly STUPID.
Amen!!!


There is no reason to reject either company, except on the merits of their current products.
I agree wholeheartedly. It's amazing to me how quickly shooters turn on each other and hole lifelong grudges, often for long dead or imagined reasons.


Also, I have neither read nor heard of any confirmed case of the "Hillary Hole Lock" accidentally engaging or otherwise interfering with the operation of an S&W handgun.
You need to do some wandering around on the S&W forum.

Paris
September 6, 2011, 04:39 PM
I could care less what happens to that company. As far as I'm concerned they went out of business already.

Then by all means, care less.

The rest of us will continue to purchase and enjoy their products.

Life is too short and all that.

MICHAEL T
September 6, 2011, 04:51 PM
I care less about the so called lock. Its the lesser quality of the pistols. I dislike. The 2 piece barrels and terrible rough MIM trigger parts. No Thanks I buy only older S&W I find good used ones for same or less than new and their much better made. I just bought a 1955 J frame 3 inch couple months back Nice bluing which Smith no longer does. Way better made than new ones. and I bought it a little cheaper .

I will keep buying the old ones . Their a zillion out their at good prices. But then I prefer the original early Mustangs to these over priced plastic ones of today.

monet61
September 6, 2011, 06:58 PM
nm.
With all respect, what does nm mean? Nevermore? As in "Quoth the Raven"?

AZ Desertrat
September 6, 2011, 10:05 PM
I like the Smiths I own.....but I WONT buy anymore....I have gone Ruger all the way on the revolvers now.

Super Sneaky Steve
September 6, 2011, 10:22 PM
I think Ruger makes a sturdy revolver that meets my needs and at a much better price. I haven't boycotted Smith but good ol' capitalism means they would have to do a lot to earn my business back.

oldbear
September 6, 2011, 11:19 PM
IMHO, all the boycott did was drive up the price of pre-lock S&W's. Smith and Wesson is still in business still selling most of the handguns they produce, and still making money.

As my revolver interests are mainly the pre. 1980, versions I would be surprised if I were to buy a new S&W. If I were in the market for a NEW revolver my first choice would be a Smith lock or not.

If you enjoyed reading about "Smith and Wesson Boycott" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!