Has the boycott of S&W and Ruger ended?


PDA






rajb123
May 25, 2012, 03:20 PM
I know these two gun manufacturors both supported and advocated passage of Bill Clinton's gun control laws and both companies were boycotted heavily by Americans who dissagreed with their support of more and more gun controls.

Most of the worst Clinton laws sunset during the Bush#2 years and they were quietly allowed to expire without fanfare. I believe these included the ban on new manufacture and sale of ammo magazines over 10 rounds, and the ban against so-called assault weapons (black semi-automatic rifles with carry handles).

I think a few other Clinton gun laws, like a ban on so-called cop killer bullets, are still in effect; right?

Anyway, I have not purchased any Ruger or S&W guns since 1990 and I just wondered if the ban was still ocurring by the American public in practice. I think Bill Ruger died in 2005 but I assume the same old management is still in place. ...not sure about S&W, but I think they were bought by private equity several years ago.

Thanks....

Frankly, it is too bad there is not more competiion for S&W and Ruger from other American manufacturers.


Thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "Has the boycott of S&W and Ruger ended?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
May 25, 2012, 03:35 PM
Your information is a bit off.

There never was an effective boycott on Ruger or S&W. Both companies lost little business.

The AWB sunsetted with considerable fanfare and a great deal of noise about not continuing it over 7 years ago. States adopted their own and continue them to date.

Ruger and S&W are stronger than ever.

JoeMal
May 25, 2012, 03:58 PM
I love my MKIII

That's all I'm gonna say about that :evil:

Skribs
May 25, 2012, 04:00 PM
Ruger makes the only revolvers I'll buy. S&W makes the AR I'm going to get first.

Ryanxia
May 25, 2012, 04:02 PM
Ruger got the hint that their company was viewed as anti-gun (ironic?) so they got the idea to donate X% to the NRA out of their sales until they reached 1 million dollars. I believe they've reached that goal but not sure.

They're all owned by the same company now anyway aren't they? Freedom Group/Cerberus?

My own preference is Taurus, Marlin & Stag :)

rajb123
May 25, 2012, 04:03 PM
Apparently, before his death, Bill Ruger Sr, advocated trigger lock laws, magazine bans, waiting periods, and background checks.

The Supremes overturned one trigger lock law passed in the Clinton era, I believe in DC, but the law in my state, unfortunately, is still in effect.

While the Clinton administration was preparing this horrible set of new laws, I spent considerable time and effort writting members of Congress and making phone calls to try to stop it.

After the political gun control positions of S&W and Ruger came out, I considered them a true betrayal of Americans and the 2nd Amendment and that is why I would NEVER buy their products.

Yeh, some the the worst federal laws sunset but many states adopted them and are still on the books.....

Weevil
May 25, 2012, 04:13 PM
Bill Ruger is dead and gone and his family sold off their interests in the company years ago. Lots of HiCap mags and small concealed carry weapons not the "sporting goods" company of Bill's era.

The British company that owned S&W sold it off a long time ago and the new American owners who bought it have brought them back to being a major player.



If you're still boycotting these companies and their new owners you're way behind the times and need get out of the dark ages.

M2 Carbine
May 25, 2012, 04:43 PM
Has the boycott of S&W and Ruger ended?
There's many people, including myself, that will not buy a new S&W that has the ugly lock hole in the gun. I own and still buy a LOT of pre lock Smiths but I just bypass the S&W table at the gun shows.

After Bill Ruger died I came back to Ruger and buy a LOT of them.

rajb123
May 25, 2012, 05:40 PM
I'm STILL fighting the bad gun laws that Bill Ruger advocated and helped pass 20 years ago and it is now seven years after his death. Ditto for S&W.

...my life time ban of S&W and Ruger products - new and used, continues....

...our freedoms are too precious to let people like this bargan them away in exchange for what they wanted at the time - money.... plain and simple

firesky101
May 25, 2012, 05:41 PM
Ruger got the hint that their company was viewed as anti-gun (ironic?) so they got the idea to donate X% to the NRA out of their sales until they reached 1 million dollars. I believe they've reached that goal but not sure.

They're all owned by the same company now anyway aren't they? Freedom Group/Cerberus?

My own preference is Taurus, Marlin & Stag :)
pretty sure Ruger is not owned by freedom group, but Marlin sure is.

Sam1911
May 25, 2012, 05:55 PM
Both companies saw the last of the folks involved with those decisions years ago now. Both companies have made quite strong steps to bury those sad chapters of their short-sighted pasts.
Both companies make products that fill the needs of a thriving armed citizenry and are more than happy to sell you guns which defy those erroneous policies.

Sometimes the world gives folks a second chance. Sometimes a person -- or a corporation -- puts mistakes behind them and seeks to regain lost trust. We can hold them in disdain for the faults of people no longer involved, or we can judge them by their current actions, policies, and products.

Really, though, if it makes you feel better and you want to uphold your oaths, continue to boycott. You can follow your conscience without any worry that your actions are harming either of these great American firms. The boycott will be just as alive tomorrow as it was years ago, because you are a boycott of one! :)

BSA1
May 25, 2012, 05:55 PM
The King is dead. Long live the Queen.

However gallant Knight of the long crusade do not put thy sword away yet.

Yet another dragon has raised it's head for S&W has dared to put internal locks on it's handguns.

Keep thy sword sharp and senses keen for you will face many foes in your journey.

kb58
May 25, 2012, 06:06 PM
Hard to say that there's any "boycott" when Ruger has to stop taking orders in order to give themselves time to make the ~1,000,000 backordered firearms... Given that fact, if there ever was a boycott, it apparently ended years ago.

hirundo82
May 25, 2012, 06:20 PM
They're all owned by the same company now anyway aren't they? Freedom Group/Cerberus?

As the only publicly traded gun manufacturers, S&W and Ruger are two of the few American gun manufacturers not owned by Freedom Group.

oneounceload
May 25, 2012, 06:24 PM
'm STILL fighting the bad gun laws that Bill Ruger advocated and helped pass 20 years ago and it is now seven years after his death. Ditto for S&W.

...my life time ban of S&W and Ruger products - new and used, continues....

...our freedoms are too precious to let people like this bargan them away in exchange for what they wanted at the time - money.... plain and simple

Your money, your choice - but don't get upset when you find out how many folks here buy Chinese and Russian and Turkish guns.........

You're missing out on some nice guns

SabbathWolf
May 25, 2012, 06:33 PM
After Bill died, Ruger has changed policies completely.
They sell hi-cap mags now, "supposedly" improved the Mini-14, AND also entered the AR15 market with their piston-op Ruger SR556 carbine.
In short, they did a complete 180* now that stick-up-his-rear-end Bill is gone.
And all those changes reflect a "good" thing.

I do, or have, owned a Ruger GP-100, a mini-14, a 10/22, and a 357 Blackhawk.
Both handguns and the 10/22 are/were excellent.
The mini-14...well...it frankly sucked, I hated it, and I sold it.

But I will buy from them now to show my support for their new direction when it comes to the 2A and "trying" at least to give the public what they want now. I think boycotting them "now" would be a mistake while they are trying to do the "right" thing.

S&W however...I'm not familiar enough with their political stances to have a comment either way. I'm just not up-to-date on them.

Bubba613
May 25, 2012, 06:39 PM
In short, they did a complete 180* now that stick-up-his-rear-end Bill is gone.
You mean "Billy."

SabbathWolf
May 25, 2012, 07:39 PM
You mean "Billy."

lol....yeah...OK
ha ha ha

rromeo
May 25, 2012, 08:09 PM
I think a few other Clinton gun laws, like a ban on so-called cop killer bullets, are still in effect; right?I know of no such laws. Please explain.

SaxonPig
May 25, 2012, 08:13 PM
I did not buy a new Ruger until last year. I would not buy one as long as Turncoat Bill lived.

The S&W fiasco was wrought by the British owners. Once they sold out I held no further grudge against S&W.

I would disagree with those claiming the backlash had no effect. Both companies saw sales drop due to their actions. No, it didn't last long, but it happened long enough for other gun companies to notice. Hopefully they have learned their lesson about getting in bed with Satan.

ApacheCoTodd
May 25, 2012, 08:19 PM
Now that "The Bill" is gone, I support Ruger 100%.

As for S&W, I still think they'd blow with the wind if the heat ever got high enough again and their martial firearms were in contention for Federal contracts.

230RN
May 25, 2012, 08:33 PM
I loved that "Hillary Hole" wisecrack, too. I'm going to unabashedly steal it shamelessly and not even give you credit for it. Nyah-nyah!

I had to use two paper towels to wipe off my monitor after that one!

ApacheCoTodd has a good point about the military contracts. I wonder how generally applicable that is, and how many other manufacturers of guns and ammo and optics would cave in. (I note that there was recently a very large government order of ammo. Hm.)

RevDerb
May 25, 2012, 08:37 PM
First that I've heard of a boycott. I can't tell you how many S&W's and Rugers that I've bought over the last 5 years. (Probably could if I chose to sit down with a pencil & paper but why bother?)

skt239
May 25, 2012, 08:43 PM
Ruger can't fill orders, S&W's are selling like crazy and your asking if there is a boycott? There never was a boycott to begin with.

TennJed
May 25, 2012, 10:07 PM
You seem well educated about Ruger's political history. Makes me wonder why you needed to ask if a boycott was still in effect. Seems a person with you knowledge would know that there never was an official boycott and the company is stronger than ever.

One could argue that few other company has done more to help gun owner's rights than Ruger. The most important thing we can do to help our cause is to increase our numbers. How many people were introduced to guns with a 10/22, a single six, or a MK? How many people bought Rugers for their first centerfire?

Ruger makes a quality product at a price that a working man can afford. Add to the fact that they are American made. I believe Ruger has played a very positive role in American gun rights

Weevil
May 25, 2012, 10:48 PM
Oh there was indeed a boycott and it was effective.

This is why the Ruger family bailed out when Bill died and the Brits dumped S&W.

Sales had slumped the companies were in trouble and they got out while the gettin' was good.

Kudos to the new owners of these companies for being able to overcome the bad blood and win back gun buyers to save these American institutions.

That's why I'm not sure why some die-hards are still hanging onto their grudge 10 years later.

We won guys, we proved our point!

What is to be gained by continuing to hate the new owners and boycott their products for what the old owners did???

FIVETWOSEVEN
May 25, 2012, 10:55 PM
I'm STILL fighting the bad gun laws that Bill Ruger advocated and helped pass 20 years ago and it is now seven years after his death. Ditto for S&W.

...my life time ban of S&W and Ruger products - new and used, continues....

...our freedoms are too precious to let people like this bargan them away in exchange for what they wanted at the time - money.... plain and simple

They aren't owned by the people that wanted those laws anymore. One owner died off and the other sold S&W. By boycotting them, you are hurting good American companies that are pro 2nd-Amendment.

jon_in_wv
May 25, 2012, 11:06 PM
I wonder if you guys that so self righteously boycott Ruger and S&W boycott companies that today give millions of dollars to anti gun organizations? Or do you only have enough hatred for those two companies?

psyopspec
May 25, 2012, 11:09 PM
Both companies make products that fill the needs of a thriving armed citizenry and are more than happy to sell you guns which defy those erroneous policies.

The last part of that sentence is why I forgave them. The sunset of the AWB wasn't enough - Ruger continued to deny selling so-called high-capacity magazines to civilians, and didn't manufacture any so-called assault weapons. I went back and searched, but couldn't find the post from around 2006ish where I said that it wasn't just silencing the rhetoric that would result in me letting them off the hook: It would take a full-on reversal of policy. When I started seeing Ruger ARs and standard capacity magazines on shelves, I stayed true to my word. I bought MK III. Even looking at that gun, there's plenty of evidence of the dark times - safety billboards on the upper receiver, locks, obscene loaded chamber indicators, but these are all just reminders of what was and not a reason to continue boycotting the company for being anti-2A.

As for S&W, I forgot we were supposed to boycott them, but I inadvertently helped out by not being interested in anything they had to offer back then.

SabbathWolf
May 25, 2012, 11:09 PM
...What is to be gained by continuing to hate the new owners and boycott their products for what the old owners did???

Absolutely nothing...unless it's "throat slashing" time for no apparent reason.
;)

Gottahaveone
May 25, 2012, 11:14 PM
There's many people, including myself, that will not buy a new S&W that has the ugly lock hole in the gun.

I would not buy a new S&W for many years because of their caving in to Klinton. Then along came the new management. About the time I was willing to let bygones be bygones and start considering them as an option again, they came out with the internal lock nonsense. So no, I still don't buy S&W products.

I fully realize that my few dollars are not even noticeable to them, but it's MY money and I'll spend it (or not) where I want.....

psyopspec
May 25, 2012, 11:22 PM
I wonder if you guys that so self righteously boycott Ruger and S&W boycott companies that today give millions of dollars to anti gun organizations? Or do you only have enough hatred for those two companies?

With Ruger it wasn't disagreement about 2A that was the problem. It was the glaring hypocrisy that irked me.

As someone who "so self-righteously" boycotted, I admit that I probably do business w/ antigun companies from time to time. Think I might have purchased a bottle of Heinz ketchup in the last decade. Ms. Kerry doesn't run a business that should be implicitly for a human right while simultaneously going on TV and poo-pooing the same. If I only went to films with pro-2A actors, I'd be missing out on a great art form. I paid handsomely earlier this year to go to a Bruce Springsteen concert, and will do so again if the opportunity arises. The difference is that with these folks, I know what I'm getting.

"My hypocrisy goes only so far" / "My hypocrisy knows no bounds" as Doc H said.

grizz13
May 25, 2012, 11:46 PM
Ok what's all this about internal locks on all S&W products. I've bought 2 pistols in the past year and a half and neither has an internal lock. One is an M&P in 9mm the other is an Airweight in .38 special.:scrutiny:

spotch
May 26, 2012, 12:32 AM
Even if you don't subscribe to the belief that Ruger played ball on some limitations in order to prevent larger bans from seeming necessary (as some do), boycotting a company long after they got rid of the policies you hate, and implemented policies you like, seems awful self-defeating. The way you train anyone is by rewarding good behavior and punishing bad. If you punish ALL behavior, they'll never learn anything.

Davek1977
May 26, 2012, 02:07 AM
I own both Ruger and S&W products. I see no reason to let former policies of former owners dictate what I buy. Both companies make some excellent products, and I am not the least bit ashamed in giving either company my business. With so many real threats to our freedoms, I'd focus my efforts elsewhere than boycotting a company that once had policies many found unfavorable, but has since changed direction and is now one of the premier "good guys"

SabbathWolf
May 26, 2012, 02:10 AM
I own both Ruger and S&W products. I see no reason to let former policies of former owners dictate what I buy. Both companies make some excellent products, and I am not the least bit ashamed in giving either company my business. With so many real threats to our freedoms, I'd focus my efforts elsewhere than boycotting a company that once had policies many found unfavorable, but has since changed direction and is now one of the premier "good guys"

Yep. In fact...I'm happy about just about "anybody" who will still make guns and sell them to the public just to p*ss off the libs.....lol

Apuuli
May 26, 2012, 03:24 AM
I was having a feud with my neighbor when he moved away. A new family moved into his old house. I continued the feud with them. After all, they had the same address...


:rolleyes:

SabbathWolf
May 26, 2012, 03:26 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/Swampdragon/smilies/8504adca.gif

JERRY
May 26, 2012, 04:41 AM
i will buy a .22lr rimfire gun from either one, but nothing with a built in lock for self defense in my house.

there are too many non locked centerfire S&W and Ruger revolvers on the market to buy a new one with a built in lock.

i made the mistake of not doing my home work with the LC9 thinking it was just an LCP with additional un-needed features.

had i known the LC9 had a built in lock id have bought something else. anyone want to trade for a LC9?

Quiet
May 26, 2012, 04:47 AM
Oh there was indeed a boycott and it was effective.

This is why the Ruger family bailed out when Bill died and the Brits dumped S&W.

Sales had slumped the companies were in trouble and they got out while the gettin' was good.

Kudos to the new owners of these companies for being able to overcome the bad blood and win back gun buyers to save these American institutions.

That's why I'm not sure why some die-hards are still hanging onto their grudge 10 years later.

We won guys, we proved our point!

What is to be gained by continuing to hate the new owners and boycott their products for what the old owners did???

I agree.

The need for the boycott is over.

SabbathWolf
May 26, 2012, 05:36 AM
i will buy a .22lr rimfire gun from either one, but nothing with a built in lock for self defense in my house.

there are too many non locked centerfire S&W and Ruger revolvers on the market to buy a new one with a built in lock.

i made the mistake of not doing my home work with the LC9 thinking it was just an LCP with additional un-needed features.

had i known the LC9 had a built in lock id have bought something else. anyone want to trade for a LC9?

I never did understand the big hatred for guns with an internal lock either way.
Granted, I'm against the very idea of it all together from a political point of view.
But, from an actual functional point of view, I see it as no big deal at all.
I mean "unlock" the gun and then destroy the key if you want to.
It will still function just the same either way.

My Ruger 357 Blackhawk for example has an internal lock.
You can't even tell either way.
In order to even get to it, you have to take the grips off.
I just took the grips off, unlocked the gun, put the grips back on and called it a day.
You cannot even tell one way or another that it even "has" a lock.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/Swampdragon/a632c901.jpg


Now on the other hand...guns with a big stupid hole clearly visible on the sides of them or something is different.
I wouldn't want that just because of aesthetics reasons.

Kiln
May 26, 2012, 06:32 AM
It is kind of like when people boycott video games or movies. People whine and complain to no end about little crap and then are the first ones in line to pick up a copy when it comes out.

SuperNaut
May 26, 2012, 06:40 AM
Has the boycott of S&W and Ruger ended?

I boycott them because neither company makes anything I'm even remotely interested in buying.

The Lone Haranguer
May 26, 2012, 08:59 AM
Has the boycott of S&W and Ruger ended?
Apparently, not in some people's minds. :rolleyes:

WRT Ruger, there are not even any Ruger family members in its hierarchy. And they are making a number of firearms that - I will concede - the old man would never have approved of.

jon_in_wv
May 26, 2012, 09:10 AM
S&W and Ruger are the two largest gun makers in the US, Ruger stock is higher than it has ever been. I would say those who are boycotting aren't making much difference. I'll keep buying both. I'm not going to punish the company when they do the right thing because someone in the past did the wrong thing. Besides, I'm too busy boycotting General Motors.

JohnBT
May 26, 2012, 09:10 AM
I wonder why there's never been a boycott of Remington and Marlin for not making any concealable handguns. Ruger wasn't the only company with a limited selection.

How many votes did Mr. Ruger have on that old gun law? Anybody know? I doubt it from some of the nonsense I've just read.

JERRY
May 26, 2012, 11:18 AM
I never did understand the big hatred for guns with an internal lock either way.


an un-needed devise built in to disable the gun which requires a tool to disengage is not what i want on a defensive piece.

on a defensive gun i want features which enhance its shootability, not disable them.

Gottahaveone
May 26, 2012, 12:18 PM
I never did understand the big hatred for guns with an internal lock either way.

Not only does it add an unnecessary mechanical complexity that has the possibility of failure (no matter how small the possibility, it wouldn't exist if the lock wasn't there), it also apparently opens you up to liability if the lock is not used and an unauthorized person does something bad with the weapon. I'm willing to bet that this isn't the last that this father is going to hear about that lock.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8177940&postcount=5

You said you unlocked yours and that's the end of it. What happens when some delinquent breaks into your house, steals your revolver and shoots a gang banger buddy with it? Do you really want to be explaining to a jury why you didn't utilize the included safety feature that would have prevented this poor misguided soul from being able to use the weapon that he committed several crimes to acquire?

The internal locks are an unnecessary solution to a non-existent problem.

DPris
May 26, 2012, 12:56 PM
The remaining Ruger "family" did not "bail" out because of either a boycott or "slumping" sales.
There was internal pressure involved.
Bill Junior was not....particularly beneficial to the company.
Denis

psyopspec
May 26, 2012, 04:40 PM
I wonder why there's never been a boycott of Remington and Marlin for not making any concealable handguns. Ruger wasn't the only company with a limited selection.

There's a difference between not manufacturing a type of gun, and publicly advocating for that family of firearms to be turned into contraband. No one in this thread who was ever for boycotting the company has said they did so due to Ruger not manufacturing concealed handguns. Maybe you had to be there, but there were also no executives from Rem or Marlin trying to raise public support for the AWB.

It also fractured the gun culture. Old man Ruger's demonizing of so-called "assault weapons" with folksy charm contributed to a large number of hunters (who shot exclusively bolt guns or break action shotguns and the like) to jump on the AWB wagon. I got more than one dirty look at the range during the AWB years for owning an AR; now I see more ARs when I go to the range than any other type.

Kiln
May 26, 2012, 05:19 PM
I boycott them because neither company makes anything I'm even remotely interested in buying.
The only reason I don't like their guns is because they make alot of guns with...lets say "borrowed" designs.

SabbathWolf
May 26, 2012, 05:30 PM
Not only does it add an unnecessary mechanical complexity that has the possibility of failure (no matter how small the possibility, it wouldn't exist if the lock wasn't there), it also apparently opens you up to liability if the lock is not used and an unauthorized person does something bad with the weapon. I'm willing to bet that this isn't the last that this father is going to hear about that lock.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8177940&postcount=5

You said you unlocked yours and that's the end of it. What happens when some delinquent breaks into your house, steals your revolver and shoots a gang banger buddy with it? Do you really want to be explaining to a jury why you didn't utilize the included safety feature that would have prevented this poor misguided soul from being able to use the weapon that he committed several crimes to acquire?

The internal locks are an unnecessary solution to a non-existent problem.


I already said from a political stance I disagree with the locks.
;)

I find it funny though that my single-action revolver, the least likely of the bunch to be interested in by a gangbanger...lol......is the "only" gun I own that has an internal lock anyways. It's also my only Ruger however too.

Snowbandit
May 26, 2012, 05:54 PM
I got rid of all my Rugers because of Bill's stunt and refused to buy any Smiths until well after they were sold by the British. Not buying Ruger products now is just a habit with me and I gave up on Smith again because of the stupid lock. Plenty of other options out there. No, I don't buy foreign guns either.

DPris
May 26, 2012, 07:40 PM
Penalizing myself and only myself in dumping guns I already own when a maker does something to annoy me politically strikes me as...only penalizing myself.

An extreme "statement" that...only penalizes myself.
Not buying NEW for the duration, I can understand. :)

I avoided working with S&W till their Clinton Agreement was dead, and cancelled a project I'd just started when they announced that agreement, but I have very effective tools from both S&W and Ruger that can't be duplicated as efficiently for me by any other maker, and I would not deprive myself of those just to make a point that nobody but me would notice, thereby...only penalizing myself. :)
Denis

Jim NE
May 27, 2012, 12:10 PM
It's kind of funny that people complain only about S&W internal locks.

Of all the complaints I've heard about Taurus, I've never once heard a person complaining that Taurus handguns often come with internal locks. Both of my Taurus semi-autos (bought new) have locks.

The S&W I have with a lock is one of my best shooters, and haven't had a lock failure or malfunction.

DPris
May 27, 2012, 01:56 PM
The Taurus locks have not been known to activate themselves. Neither have those on Ruger models that have them.
I dislike internal locks in general, but find the two mentioned to be less offensive in looks & execution.
Denis

gunsnsprinkles
May 27, 2012, 02:26 PM
I would buy a Smith or Ruger any day. They are good company's and take care of their customers unlike Kahr. [had to get that plus in. LOL Smith was owned by a English company and now has been sold. Reagan was for the Brady bill, and personally I dropped the NRA because of them bringing on board people like Ted Nugent who do much more to damage gun owners than ten Bill Clinton's. Nugent's mouth saying things like America will be a burb of Asia or holding up an AR and saying Hillary take a ride on this and firring blanks from a M2 saying Reno can kiss a** does not help us and makes non guns owners look at the rest of us with a see I knew gun owners were crazy nut jobs. Nugent is a good guitar player and never could sing worth a tinkers darn. Thats why he needed people like Tommy Shaw in the damn Yankees to pull that off. Any way the NRA has gone off the reservation with Obama is just waiting to put us all in concentration camps bla bla bla. I agree with all politicians some and disagree with all politicians some. As Ed Koch used to say if you agree with me 70 % of the time vote for me, if you agree 100% of the time see a psychiatrist.

Jim NE
May 27, 2012, 04:09 PM
I dislike internal locks in general, but find the two mentioned (Ruger, Taurus) to be less offensive in looks

That is true. The locks on my Taurus guns look like buttons. The lock on my Model 64 Smith looks like a hole that somebody drilled in the side of the gun.

swiftak
May 27, 2012, 05:12 PM
Guess I missed the boycott thing and I live a 1/2 hour from Ruger.

Goosey
May 28, 2012, 05:54 AM
Well, I won't buy a gun with an internal lock, it just bugs me to no end... I guess the peeps in Maryland are grateful for it, but I just can't stand it. I also won't buy S&W knives. ;)

NMPOPS
May 28, 2012, 06:35 AM
The only reason I don't like their guns is because they make alot of guns with...lets say "borrowed" designs.

What exactly are those borrowed designs. 1911s? ARs? Everybody & their mother makes em. Several companies copy S&W . Also I have a 638 and a 642 with the lock, disconnected it and a non issue. I do agree that on the K Frames and standard J frames the lock has changed the lines of the gun and ruined the looks. So no new Ks or 637s for me.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2

JERRY
May 28, 2012, 07:16 AM
again, i have to state; a built in lock on a gun serves no purpose with aiding it to shoot better, and can only serve the puprose of completely disabling it. for rimfire plinking, sure. for my life is on the line, not a chance.

rromeo
May 28, 2012, 09:38 AM
What exactly are those borrowed designs.From the beginning Ruger has made their guns reminiscent of what GIs might see as war trophies or what they were using.
Recently, they've been making improved knock-offs of Kel-Tecs.

CDW4ME
May 28, 2012, 10:13 AM
I won't buy any S&W product (including the M&P AR's) because of the internal locks on revolvers; if I bought a S&W product I would be supporting the IL philosophy.

I bought a Ruger LCP when they first came out, no IL. Ruger subsequently stuck internal locks on some of their products. :cuss: No more Rugers for me either.

I'll keep the little LCP just like I kept my early 1990's no lock Jframe; they will not be sold out of principle.

Glocks are my favorite, they make pistols with internal locks, but it is a specified option (as it should be).
Dan Wesson, Les Baer, Ed Brown are all acceptable for full size 1911's.
Kahr is acceptable.

Springfield 1911's: they have an IL in the mainspring housing, but this part can be easily removed and replaced with an appropriate (non IL) MSH; the XD pistols do not have an IL. Springfield will even do the change (for $) if you send the pistol (1911) to them; since it can be removed and Springfield will even do it... acceptable.

Edit: Kel-Tec is also acceptable.

CZ-100
May 28, 2012, 11:13 AM
Never knew there was a boycott..

I purchased 4 new Ruger's in the past 2 years and have been VERY Happy will all of them.

spotch
May 28, 2012, 11:15 AM
As has been stated, s&w is selling no-lock revolvers again.

I have no idea how NOT buying a no-lock revolver just like you won't buy a lock revolver is sending any kind of understandable message. Again, you can't train someone or something when you punish them the same for doing right as when they do wrong. ESPECIALLY when you're buying a springfield that comes with a lock that has to be removed. What kind of message are you sending springfield? Screw your guns up all you want, I'll buy them anyway and try to make them right myself or go to the trouble of having someone else do it.

JERRY
May 28, 2012, 11:42 AM
i would definately buy a new non-locked S&W revolver.

politics aside, my reasoning for "boycotting" was the non choice of the lock.

Bmont2409
May 28, 2012, 12:05 PM
I am relatively new to handguns but have had shotguns and rifles for over 50 years. About 25 years ago I bought a 357 Rossi for personal protection and something my wife could shoot and learn with. Since then in the past 2 or 3 years I have purchased about a dozen different handguns and the only one I have with a lock is a Walther P22. While I have had good luck with the P22, I did have some problems with the locking mechanism and there will be no more guns with locks for me. So I guess what I am trying to say is I will "boycott" guns with a lock system built into it. Also something that hasn't been mentioned in the posts so far regarding Ruger/S&W caving into the pressure from the Government is the pressure that the feds can and will put on companies to get them to comply with their wishes. It is our job to put the pressure on the politicians to comply with OUR wishes and we are not doing a good enough job of turning over the compost heap in our Capitols, both fed and state.

FIVETWOSEVEN
May 28, 2012, 12:18 PM
The only reason I don't like their guns is because they make alot of guns with...lets say "borrowed" designs.

Who doesn't nowadays? Most pistols use the browning short recoil operation and are striker fired.

JERRY
May 28, 2012, 12:23 PM
Bmont, i have four guns with built in locks. a cricket .22lr i bought for my daughter, a walther p22 .22lr i bought for my daughter, and a ruger lcr .22lr i bought for my daughter. all these guns are plinker training guns, not defensive pieces so the built in lock is tolorable because if it messes up it wont cost anybody their life.

i bought a ruger LC9 a while back, did not know it had the built in lock when i got it. id gladly trade it for a kel-tec pf9 right now.

Justin
May 28, 2012, 02:25 PM
I won't buy any S&W product (including the M&P AR's) because of the internal locks on revolvers; if I bought a S&W product I would be supporting the IL philosophy.

So, in other words, you are boycotting an entire company because they make a number of products designed to appeal to a specific sub group of gun owners you do not happen to belong to?

That's like saying you refuse to buy a Ford F350 because you don't like the fact that Ford also makes hybrid cars designed to cater to the environmental crowd.

That said, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I see nothing positive to be gained by your insistence on tilting at such a ridiculous windmill.

rromeo
May 28, 2012, 03:11 PM
Are you guys boycotting M&M/Mars for not selling King Size candy bars? They caved in to M. Obama.

TennJed
May 28, 2012, 08:02 PM
I hope people understand that we are talking about gun companies. Some people act like they are true antis. If Ruger and S&W were against gun ownership they are completely failing at that cause.

These companies must make sound business decisions also. It would not do the gun community any good if companies like Ruger go out of business because of a lawsuit.

IMHO some people take the your with us or against us thing a little too far. Keeping our rights hinge on keeping the number of gun owners growing. This is not an overnight process. Unfortunately in a democracy compromise is unavoidable. IMHO most of what is wrong in politics. Is a failure to compromise.

Let Ruger put LCI on guns so they can be sold in California. Maybe we can get enough new shooters in California to eventually change the laws.

CDW4ME
May 29, 2012, 12:38 AM
So, in other words, you are boycotting an entire company because they make a number of products designed to appeal to a specific sub group of gun owners you do not happen to belong to?

That's like saying you refuse to buy a Ford F350 because you don't like the fact that Ford also makes hybrid cars designed to cater to the environmental crowd.

That said, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I see nothing positive to be gained by your insistence on tilting at such a ridiculous windmill.

Come on, the IL on S&W revolvers did not get started because it appealed to potential gun owners.
If that were so, the 10 round 1994 magazine restriction was the result of artificial lower capacity appealing to gun owners.

I do not consider spending my money on products (firearms) made by companies that do not cave in to political pressure ridiculous; besides that, Glocks and the 1911's I mentioned (own) are 1st rate firearms. I did not have to settle for 2nd best due to principle.

rajb123
May 29, 2012, 08:45 AM
Impact of boycott on S&W:

http://www.kc3.com/news/swlayoff.htm

rajb123
May 29, 2012, 08:48 AM
Wakipedia on S&W boycott (in part):

Agreement of 2000

In March 2000 Smith & Wesson was the only major gun manufacturer to sign an agreement with the Clinton Administration.[4] The company agreed to numerous safety and design standards, as well as limits on the sale and distribution of their products. Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith & Wesson by refusing to buy their new products and flooding the firearms market with used S&W guns.[4][5][6] After a 40% sales slide,[7] the sales impact from the boycotts led Smith and Wesson to suspend manufacturing at two plants.[8] The success of the boycott led to a Federal Trade Commission anti-trust investigation being initiated under the Clinton administration,[6] targeting gun dealers and gun rights groups, which was subsequently dropped in 2003.[9] This agreement signed by Tomkins PLC ended with the sale of Smith and Wesson to the Saf-T-Hammer Corporation. The new company (Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation), which publicly renounced the agreement, was received positively by the firearms community.[10]
[edit] Acquisition by Saf-T-Hammer

CDW4ME
May 29, 2012, 09:20 AM
Wakipedia on S&W boycott (in part):

[I] Agreement of 2000

In March 2000 Smith & Wesson was the only major gun manufacturer to sign an agreement with the Clinton Administration.[4] The company agreed to numerous safety and design standards, as well as limits on the sale and distribution of their products.

Thank you!

I was 27 years old in 1994 when the "assault weapons ban" happened, thanks to the Clinton administration. I wished that I had stocked up on "high capacity magazines" for my 2nd generation Glock 19 & 23, although I did have about 4 magazines for each.

Also, I remember having an assinine 5 day waiting period at some point in the past; what's the point in making me wait for a new pistol when I already have 3 or 4. (I won't end that statement with a question mark)

The "assault weaponds ban" did nothing except make the price of "high capacity" magazines skyrocket for 10 years; it did not stop crime. That IL stuck in the side of a S&W revolver reminds me of the stupidity I've had to endure in the past.

If Ford had been a supporter of the hypothetical 2000 PETA campain but Dodge sponsored the NRA convention then I would buy my vehicle accordingly. Some current gun owners who were not out of middle school in the year 2000 would not care now, or they would say I don't drive a Ford, I drive a Mercury (which is made by Ford). (IMO a fairly good analogy)

MagnumDweeb
May 29, 2012, 09:28 AM
after a 40% sales slide,[7] the sales impact from the boycotts led Smith and Wesson to suspend manufacturing at two plants.[8] The success of the boycott led to a Federal Trade Commission anti-trust investigation being initiated under the Clinton administration,[6] targeting gun dealers and gun rights groups, which was subsequently dropped in 2003.[9]

So if a boycott is successful you can somehow, if you are the government, penalize and prosecute people for not buying a product or them going and utilizing their first amendment right to share their political beliefs about not buying product. Essentially spitting on the face of the spirit of the Revolution, where it got ramped up with boycotts (why we mostly drink coffee instead of tea). Learn something new about Slick'Willy sometimes.

19-3Ben
May 29, 2012, 09:40 AM
Even if you want to say the boycotts made a difference at some point, my guess is that the number of people who are still boycotting is so low as to be statistically irrelevant.
Heck, I purposely seek out guns made by Ruger and S&W because they are darn fine guns. My primary carry guns a Ruger and a S&W.

BSA1
May 29, 2012, 10:00 AM
The reality is in today's political and legal climate there is a legitiment need for gun manufacturers to reduce the number of lawsuits and judgments.

Those of you with the excellent memory of old Bill Ruger's actions in the '90's must also remember the hugh lawsuit payout the company had when someone managed to shoot themselves with a oriiginal Blackhawk. As a direct result Ruger redesigned it to the New Model Blackhawk. A whole product line was discontinued because of one lawsuit.

The complaints against S&W's ILS are frankly old as I, at least, have not read of any confirmed reports of ILS failures for several years. I do have two complaints; 1. the dang hole and 2. mistrust of adding small parts (Murphy law).

However the solution is very simple. If you don't like the ILS why don't you just ADD THE PLUG??? Gee no hole and no more small parts.

JohnBT
May 29, 2012, 10:08 AM
In other news, Bill Ruger died July 6, 2002.

Yes, that's ten years ago in round numbers.

Somebody else can do the math on the English company that ran S&W into the ground. They tried to blame it all on the boycott, but it was really their mismanagement and extravagant home office spending that forced them to sell the company.

cemjr
May 29, 2012, 10:13 AM
Even if you want to say the boycotts made a difference at some point, my guess is that the number of people who are still boycotting is so low as to be statistically irrelevant.
Heck, I purposely seek out guns made by Ruger and S&W because they are darn fine guns. My primary carry guns a Ruger and a S&W.
Agreed: My last hand gun purchase was a S&W revolver, the one before that was a S&W 1911sc. My most recent rifle purchase was a Ruger 10-22 take down.

JERRY
May 29, 2012, 10:32 AM
if the lock on a defensive gun doesnt both folks, i offer them a trade of my locked LC9 for an Iver Johnson TP-22 in better than average shape.

the only thing i have against ruger is their built in lock, and no choice for the consumer. S&W now offers locked and non-locked guns, because they left the choice to me i will still buy one of their new non-locked guns.

Ben86
May 29, 2012, 11:44 AM
If you are still hung up over that old news you are needlessly limiting the variety of firearms available to you. S&W and Ruger make great guns. They have new owners now with very pro-gun attitudes.

Why not still hold a grudge against Democrats since a Democratic president saw to the Cuban trade embargo that denies us those fine Cuban cigars?

Get over it.

psyopspec
May 29, 2012, 12:39 PM
IMHO some people take the your with us or against us thing a little too far.

I'm in that camp. One of those wackos who take shall not be infringed to mean, well, shall not be infringed.

I'm one of those gun owners that will never express a look of disdain at another shooter at the range, so long as what they're doing is safe and legal. Even in the face of hobby hunters calling for bans on my guns, I absolutely will not attempt to dictate to law abiding citizens what they can and cannot own.

I expect my gun companies to manufacture whatever they want to, so long their products are safe and only go off when mechanically induced to do so. I don't expect any manufacture to produce anything they don't want to. I DO expect them to support 2A, or if they think otherwise, to keep their thoughts to themselves. To do otherwise would be silly, like a newspaper that's all for censorship, sedition laws, and government-controlled media.

DPris
May 29, 2012, 01:37 PM
S&W only offers the J frame revolvers without locks, to the best of my knowledge, and every time I ask if that'll spread to larger guns they say no.
Still not really much choice about the lock.
Denis

eye5600
May 30, 2012, 12:54 PM
It amuses me that people complain so vociferously about the S&W gun locks but never mention the internal lock on the New Vaquero. Out of sight, out of mind.

rajb123
May 30, 2012, 02:52 PM
I'm not sure why this thread was moved from the Strategies section of THR since all other threads concerning other boycotts remain in that section.

Anyway, a boycott is a consumer action strategy that is intended to economically damage a company and change its behavior or beliefs. ...And that is what has ocurred for the boycott against both Ruger and S&W.

JohnBT
May 30, 2012, 04:38 PM
Surely you've noticed that there's no active, effective boycott in place. Planning a boycott might belong in S&T, but discussing the history of ancient complaints doesn't fit there.

"Bill Ruger died July 6, 2002." - me

John

surveyor
May 31, 2012, 12:05 AM
while i'm not a fan of the ils, and it did lock up one of my j frames, I did buy a new j frame with one..

i just don't prefer it..still too many used ones without it to choose from.

exavid
May 31, 2012, 01:27 AM
The great Ruger boycott is kinda similar to how Liberals tend to boycott WalMart. Both Ruger and Walmart are doing right fine thanks. I always wondered why there never was a boycott against the VW Beetle? Designed by Ferdinand Porche at the order of Adolf Hitler for a scheme that swindled a lot of Germans out of their savings you'd think that would be reason enough. The whole boycott idea is just plain dumb. If you don't like a company for any reason don't do business with them, but don't expect too many others to feel the same way.

jon_in_wv
May 31, 2012, 01:26 PM
The only reason I don't like their guns is because they make alot of guns with...lets say "borrowed" designs.

I don't suppose you own any Glocks, or XDs, or any 1911s or an AR not made by Colt, right? If you are going to be intellectually honest with that philosophy there are very few guns you are going to own.

If you enjoyed reading about "Has the boycott of S&W and Ruger ended?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!