Should I buy this gun?


PDA






rock jock
December 28, 2002, 09:44 PM
The local Academy sports store has all their handguns for 20% off. With the discount, I can get a NIB S&W Model 60 for $311. I am on the fence for this purchase, mainly because I just bought a used 629 V-Comp, but also the whole boycott thing. I certainly don't need this gun, but, hey, when did that ever stop me? Is this a too-good-to-pass-up price? Help me out with some advice.

If you enjoyed reading about "Should I buy this gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
December 28, 2002, 09:50 PM
I recently purchased a used Smith & Wesson model 60. It's a dandy gun, and dandier still for Badger stocks and Magnaporting. I expected recoil to be a problem with full house .357 magnum loads in a J frame revolver, but it was less than I'd feared.

Personally, I'll reconsider doing business with Smith & Wesson when a.) it repudiates the agreement it signed with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore régime, and b.) it resumes selling firearms without integral locks.

alamo
December 28, 2002, 09:55 PM
$311 is a good price. I've got a Model 60 which I like a lot. I've gotten over the boycott business. They are under new management and I know they are trying to get out of the deal the prior ownership/management put them in. I hear some people say that they should renounce the agreement and get out of it. Well, it's not that easy. The agreement has the effect of a court order, that's the way it was set up and for S&W to simply renounce it WILL NOT make it go away. Both parties have to agree to that and as of now the government hasn't done so. The agreement is not be enforced by either party and hopefully the government will put an end to it one day soon. S&W can't make it go away on their own and I'm not holding that against the new ownership/management. If S&W had their way, the agreement would be dissolved.

beemerb
December 28, 2002, 09:57 PM
I like the J frame S&W.I have a old 36 with no dash number.
I allso agree with standing wolf.I will not buy a new smith till the agreement is voided by them.
Bob

10-Ring
December 28, 2002, 10:12 PM
$311 is a pretty good price for a used one, for a new one, I'd jump on it! ;)

AR-10
December 28, 2002, 11:39 PM
I would not buy it because of the agreement issue.

The agreement is not going to go away until Smith and Wesson becomes a squeeky wheel in court. The government can't make it go away until Smith forces them to. It is a two party agreement. One of the parties must petition the courts. Why would the government do that?

Smith has no incentive to go to court as long as we are willing to give them our money.

rock jock
December 28, 2002, 11:46 PM
I've gotten over the boycott business. They are under new management and I know they are trying to get out of the deal the prior ownership/management put them in. I hear some people say that they should renounce the agreement and get out of it. Well, it's not that easy. The agreement has the effect of a court order, that's the way it was set up and for S&W to simply renounce it WILL NOT make it go away. Both parties have to agree to that and as of now the government hasn't done so. The agreement is not be enforced by either party and hopefully the government will put an end to it one day soon. S&W can't make it go away on their own and I'm not holding that against the new ownership/management. If S&W had their way, the agreement would be dissolved.
Yeah, I'm startingto come around to that way of thinking also. I have not purchased a new S&W since 2000 but the new mmgt argument seems to hold some water.

The agreement is not going to go away until Smith and Wesson becomes a squeeky wheel in court. The government can't make it go away until Smith forces them to. It is a two party agreement. One of the parties must petition the courts. Why would the government do that?
AR, do we know for sure that S&W has not tried to do just that and met with some resistance?

AR-10
December 29, 2002, 12:30 AM
Show me a court docket indicating Smith and Wesson has a date with the judge. Anything less is spin control.

They are intwined in a contract that they inherited as part of the assets of the company when they purchased it. A contract between two parties that can only be broken if one of the parties goes to court and convinces a judge that there is a valid reason to terminate that contract without the consent of the other party.

The HUD branch of the government can say "we will not enforce it at this time" (which they have said) all they want. Untill one of the parties goes to court, objects to the legal document they are obliged to uphold, and convinces a judge that there is something substantially wrong with the arrangement, the contract is valid.

Why would the government go to court to do this when it would be bad public relations to do so, and the terms of the contract are not hurting them? Why would Smith NOT do this? Who stands to gain from the money spent and the publicity that would follow? Smith, not the government. Yet they do nothing.

Think about those nice fluff pieces the NRA gave them in American Rifleman. Did either party complain about the unfairness of the contract? The difficulty of having it negated? Not a peep. Just some sunshine blowing about how it was no longer an issue. That is a lie.

Smith and Wesson needs to address this issue in a serious fashion. They have so far failed to do that .

rock jock
December 29, 2002, 12:37 AM
They are intwined in a contract that they inherited as part of the assets of the company when they purchased it. A contract between two parties that can only be broken if one of the parties goes to court and convinces a judge that there is a valid reason to terminate that contract without the consent of the other party.
What valid reason might they show for cause?

alamo
December 29, 2002, 01:00 AM
AR-10 wrote: "Untill one of the parties goes to court, objects to the legal document they are obliged to uphold, and convinces a judge that there is something *substantially wrong* [my emphasis] with the arrangement, the contract is valid."

Therein lies the problem, there is apparently nothing "substantially wrong" with the agreement from a purely LEGAL standpoint. True, it is a completely stupid agreement for S&W from a business standpoint but they (the previous ownership/management) entered into it willingly and they can't get out of it until the government decides to void it also.

AR-10
December 29, 2002, 01:22 AM
My first reaction is to say that how they prove to a judge that the contract they agreed to purchase along with the Smith and Wesson logo should be declared invalid is not my concern. Only that they do it soon.

Can they convince a judge? I don't know. Neither do they. They haven't tried.

You do remember what the contract dictates, don't you?

More expense incurred by shop owners for more extensive record keeping, rigorous storage requirements, yearly training courses for all employees, being held accountable to regional boards of appointed individuals who have the power to pull their FFLs for "infractions".

A percentage of every sale of a Smith and Wesson product to be forwarded to the government to be disbursed to organizations that will use the money for anti-gun advertising and gun control legislation.

The prohibition of sales of any firearms that use a magazine with a capacity greater than ten rounds in a store that sells Smith and Wesson products.

BATF say on how future firearms will be designed for the marketplace.

The little addendum at the bottom that says if anyone else signs a contract with HUD that is more stringent, Smith and Wesson must abide by those requirements as well?

Is any of this going to lower the price of firearms? Will any of it promote free trade or a free market?


I don't care how the contract becomes invalid. The fact is it must. If Smith can't find a way to do it in court, then they must go, before the whole gun industry is affected.

alamo
December 29, 2002, 01:37 AM
Since the agreement will not be enforced as long a Bush is President, I suspect that the government won't formally void it until the very end of W's Presidency when it can be done quietly in 6 years (hopefully not 2 years!).

Mike Irwin
December 29, 2002, 01:40 AM
Given Bob Scott's recent comments in several interviews, it's painfully obviously that Smith & Wesson is doing nothing towards extricating the company from the agreement.

So S&W is again owned by an American company.

Well woo hoo and spiffy whiffy.

From where I sit they don't look, or smell, a lot different than the previous owners.

S&W's action on this issue is really a calculated program of INaction.

Since when should inaction be rewarded?

As near as I can tell, some of the same people who want to reward the "new" S&W for it's inaction and apparent apathy toward your and my rights are the same people who are the first to go absolutely ape**** when they perceive NRA inaction on a rights issue.

Still scratching my head over that...

teombe
December 29, 2002, 03:18 AM
I dunno. S&W has been under new management for what, a year now? I say give the folks some time before casting stones. It is reasonable and customary to allow a company to remove itself from the financial red zone before blowing through their money in court trying to fight an agreement that is for the most part ineffective. At the end of the day, it is still a business, and I don't have the cash to bail them out because they went bankrupt trying to win me back as a customer. Do you?

rock jock
December 29, 2002, 04:18 AM
Well, certainly the "why" is a good question. Obviously S&W has much to gain by having the contract voided. They have admitted themselves that their business has dropped off significantly since the agreement was signed. From a purely business standpoint, it seems that they would want to correct this mistake ASAP. Can you explain why they haven't tried? I don't accept the answer that "it doesn't matter". The only logical answer I can think of is that their lawyers have told them it would be worse for business to fight this now than the loss of revenue from the boycott crowd (which at this point still includes me - I haven't bought a new S&W since early 2000). Now, I don't know why it would be worse. Could be that by fighting the agreement it might draw attention to the fact that it is not being enforced, could be that the long drawn out legal battle might put the company in a financially precarious situation, could be that the lawyers have advised they have no legal leg to stand on. I do think it matters, though. And, without knowing these things, I have a hard time assigning blame to the new mmgt.

chaim
December 29, 2002, 04:26 AM
Um, around here that is what a Taurus 605 would go for. If I could get a S&W 60 for $311 and I had the money available I'd jump on it.

chaim
December 29, 2002, 04:28 AM
Personally, I'll reconsider doing business with Smith & Wesson when...and b.) it resumes selling firearms without integral locks Hey, I can understand the agreement thing but why would you begrudge MDers the ability to buy guns (any gun without a built in lock made after Jan 1 cannot be sold in this state- S&W is one of the only new guns that will be available).

ruger357
December 29, 2002, 10:50 AM
YES buy it!!!!!!!

Tamara
December 29, 2002, 11:02 AM
...that this is the "Handguns" forum.

Just up the list, there is a forum called "Legal & Political".

If you wish to discuss the politics and legalities of the Agreement/Boycott, the Legal & Political (surprise) forum would be the place to do so.

rock jock
December 29, 2002, 12:42 PM
Tamara,

Duly noted. I am just as guilty for letting this thread digress into a political debate as anybody.

Redlg155
December 29, 2002, 12:49 PM
I've never seen a NIB Smith Model 60 for that price. Sounds like a great deal.

Good Shooting
RED

Standing Wolf
December 29, 2002, 01:11 PM
Here's a snap shot of my model 60 with Badger stocks and Magnaport refinishing in a bowl of rocks on my kitchen floor.

Standing Wolf
December 29, 2002, 01:24 PM
Let me try this again! I just posted the snap shot to another site, and it went through without a hitch.

telewinz
December 29, 2002, 03:08 PM
Since when does need have anything to do with it? Besides why get a stinless steel. I paid $125 for a used M36 with holster wear and had it parkerized for $30. Been 10 years now and it looks like a new gun.

WESHOOT2
December 30, 2002, 01:42 AM
It's kinda like buying a gun from thieves..........regardless of Forum.

Kahr carrier
December 30, 2002, 05:59 AM
I would buy it ,As for the Boycott thing ,think about it thats what SARAH BRADY and company want you to do ,one less Gun Maker to deal with.:)

cratz2
December 30, 2002, 04:54 PM
I'd buy one at that price and have no use for one whatsoever.

Jeff OTMG
December 31, 2002, 01:01 AM
Buy it, it is a great price for a NIB gun.

As far as the boycott goes, it is over. Some people are still trying, but the groundswell of support that caused the layoffs and almost put the company out of business is long gone. S&W has gone into negotiation and teminated agreements with over a dozen government entities, the biggest being the City of Boston. Trying to rally people against S&W now is about as effective as the boycott that I have been trying to put together against Ruger for 15 years. I haven't bought a new Ruger product, but there are not enough people who care about it for it to be effective. It is nothing more than a waste of bandwidth. Neither is going to be successful. If you think that you are going to ever see S&W publicly cheer in advertising that they beat the govt and are not going to comply with the agreement then you better get over it because it will never happen. That would mean that S&W would be cheering that gun dealers don't have to lock up guns in a safe at the close of business, that the purchaser has completed a firearms safety program, amoung other things. If a death was caused by a stolen firearm or if an accidental shooting occurred S&W would be contributory in the liability IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

Gila Jorge
December 31, 2002, 12:27 PM
I just paid 400+ for a 60LS brand new. Sounds
good to me. Smith can't change without cash flow
to pay lawyers to effect changes. Buy the Smith.

rock jock
December 31, 2002, 03:58 PM
Well, I ended up not buying after all. I picked up a Ruger Mark II Competition Target .22 instead as it was only $320 after the discount. I can always use another .22 for silhouette matches anyway.

Coltdriver
January 2, 2003, 10:54 PM
A NIB Model 60 for $300 is a deal any day of the week.

I refuse to deny myself ownership of the worlds finest revolvers just because the Clintonistas coerced the former English owners into a non sense deal.

That is over.

In the past six months I have picked up two j frames because they are smaller, lighter and quicker to shoot than any semi I could carry.

Just learn to make your shots count;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Should I buy this gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!