Merwin Hulbert & Co.

[Jim Watson]

The Bren Ten fiasco(s) taught me all I need to know about giving money to somebody without a real product some time ago.

This bunch has added insult to injury by spitting on the names of fine old brands they just appropriated with no real connection... and no products.

"Status of Sharps Rifle Company LLC, Merwin, Hulbert & Co. LLC, A-Square of South Dakota LLC and A-Square of Wyoming LLCa nd related brands and divisions including but not limited to H H Heiser, Sharps MilSpec, Pope Barrels, et al."

 

[DPris]

Yep, made a lot of sense to adopt the SHARPS RIFLE COMPANY name & then make AR-15 stuff.
Takes more than just a familiar name to run a gun company & I don't think Blank ever understood exactly what it does take.

Management savvy (absent), financing (inadequate), and a viable product (missing) are three basics that worked against him from the beginning.

He probably would have done better to stick to the coffee mugs his original company (formed after his flashy & pointless bid to "SAVE WINCHESTER!" failed in '06) was selling off the Internet while he was looking for a gun to produce.

This one just had disaster written all over it all along the way.
Denis

 

[Jim Watson]

One writer (MLV?) showed a MH around to the various 20th century gun companies.
They agreed it could not be reproduced.
Not reproduced economically or reasonably, not reproduced. Period.
No doubt we have better machinery now, but it still stands as a complicated design dependent on skilled workmanship.

 

[DPris]

Even if Blank could have gotten them into existence beyond CGI & two or three machined parts to show off, they would never have gone into large scale sales.
The results would have been too expensive for most, even in CAS, and they could never be competitive in CAS.

Neat guns, but there is no mass market for them to begin with, and certainly not at the prices they would have had to charge.
Denis

 

[CraigC]

Agreed, Denis. I fell out of my chair when the initial price of $1200 was announced. That may sound like a lot of money to most folks but in reality, for such an intricate design so dependent upon hand fitting, it wasn't enough. While the world would be a better place with new M/H sixguns on the market at a quality level on par with USFA and a price of $1200, it really never stood a chance. Not at any price.

 

[LightningMan]

I believe the the price of $1200 was also too low for what is involved in making this revolver. Remember S&W reintroduced their top break Scholfield model which had a price tag of around $1800-$2000. Even the Italian made Scholfields are around $800 or more. (Haven't seen what they go for lately, but remember I bought one for $725 back when they first came out) LM

 

[oneclick]

So when the little "venture" goes bad, one creates a bigger one? Blank appears to still be involved and the new company based on romantic western companies with minimal market appeal.

http://www.truthisbinary.com/Sharp/home.html

"With an aggressive philosophy for quality, integrity and sustainability, Sharps Capital initiative endeavors to make a responsible impact by bridging old economy craftsmanship and new economy market practices. Sharps Capital integrates its core expertise for disciplined long term capital appreciation backstopped by a clear strategic vision to build durable value for its partners. The Sharps name is among the most powerful brands in the U.S. firearms market."

Hard to believe that a company taking deposits while posting false promises and less than credible product pictures could make such claims. As stated previously, a blight on the entire industry and historic names.

 

[DPris]

Gibberish.
The Sharps name IS a legend, but today it's only as good as the company behind it.

Shiloh Sharps & C. Sharps Arms are upholding the name value with solid high quality Sharps-pattern rifles.
Just because you attach "Sharps" to your under-capitalized and inexperienced startup venture does not mean people will flock to buy AR-15 parts or rifles from you.
Or anything else.
Denis

 

[StrawHat]

DPris Gibberish.
The Sharps name IS a legend, but today it's only as good as the company behind it.

Shiloh Sharps & C. Sharps Arms are upholding the name value with solid high quality Sharps-pattern rifles.
Just because you attach "Sharps" to your under-capitalized and inexperienced startup venture does not mean people will flock to buy AR-15 parts or rifles from you.
Or anything else.
Denis

While I agree with you, it seems a lot of folks are buying into a load of "stuff".

 

[Checkman]

I didn't believe it when the website first started up. The proverbial little voice and for once I listened to it - thank god.

 

[Hugo]

Nuts. Will some sane company that reproduces working antique firearm designs please buy the rights and make this? Not expecting Colt to do it but Cimarron or Uberti? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[DPris]

Cimarron doesn't make anything & I think Uberti isn't interested.
Denis

 

[Jim Watson]

The Schofield and other big S&Ws were a challenge to Italian makers.
I don't know if they could handle a M&H at all.

 

[Jim K]

I will repeat what I said two years ago - the M&H sounds good until you use one. There is no logical reason for anyone to invest in making a copy of a gun that failed originally because it was too expensive to make and too hard to use.

Jim

 

[StrawHat]

Jim K ... There is no logical reason for anyone to invest in making a copy of a gun that failed originally because it was too expensive to make and too hard to use... Jim

I agree with you Jim but have you seen how many Patersons, Henrys, LeMats, Spencers, etc have been sold. And now they are making the Burgess and a few other failed designs. They probably sell more Walkers in a month than were ever made originally!

 

[CraigC]

There is not "logical" reason for us to love and use single action revolvers of any kind........but we do.

 

[Jim K]

The Walker has some appeal and they were reasonably successful at the time. As to the Colt Lightning, the Burgess, and some others, I really fail to see the attraction of the repros and they really have not been very popular.

The repro maker has to be very careful in what he chooses to recreate. If it costs too much or doesn't sell, he loses his shirt. If it takes off, like the 1851 and 1860 Colt repros, he makes lots of money but soon has competition since he can't patent a 110 year old design.

As to loving SA revolvers, that love is a bit selective. We "love" the Colt Single Action Army but evidently don't "love" the S&W Schofield, or at least not at much. And we don't "love" the Remington 1875 enough to buy the few repros that have been made. No, it is not "love", it is nostalgia for the old movies and TV shows that creates that "love" for the SAA and the myth (and it is a myth) that the Colt SAA "won the West" and that from 1873 on, every adult male west of the Mississippi carried one if not two.

Jim

 

[CraigC]

Speak for yourself.