Clint Smith Loses It in Jan-Feb '05 American Handgunner
- Thread starter P. Plainsman
- Start date
- Status
MeanBone
Member
Clint done good . . .
Five years from now if we're able to buy .45 Colt, .45 ACP, .44 Spl/Mag, .41 Mag, or .357 Mag in a large frame fixed sight revolver we'll all be thanking Clint for his efforts.
I find the logo gaudy (not Clint's idea BTW, but rather S&W's). However, recognizing the gun for what it is (ie. the first step in the right direction to getting some really neat revolvers back on the shelves) does not put me in the TS category, so no offense to the article.
Some might say that Clint should have refused to allow his logo to be used in that way. Let's see, allow the logo to be used and hopefully it'll be the first of a whole slew of large bore large frame fixed sight revolvers or refuse and potentially see the whole thing shut down? I glad he went ahead.
Thanks, Clint!!
MB
Five years from now if we're able to buy .45 Colt, .45 ACP, .44 Spl/Mag, .41 Mag, or .357 Mag in a large frame fixed sight revolver we'll all be thanking Clint for his efforts.
I find the logo gaudy (not Clint's idea BTW, but rather S&W's). However, recognizing the gun for what it is (ie. the first step in the right direction to getting some really neat revolvers back on the shelves) does not put me in the TS category, so no offense to the article.
Some might say that Clint should have refused to allow his logo to be used in that way. Let's see, allow the logo to be used and hopefully it'll be the first of a whole slew of large bore large frame fixed sight revolvers or refuse and potentially see the whole thing shut down? I glad he went ahead.
Thanks, Clint!!
MB
So, does any one remember when he mocked fat Computer Science majors who wanted to be 'commandos' and showed up at TR with full commando gear on? Fat CS majors are the mainstay of some training outfits. I won't comment about other majors who like to train - ahem. 
However, I did meet him once and he was pleasant. BTW, the logo on the fence at TR is gone. I wonder if he took it or it is in a garage in TX?
However, I did meet him once and he was pleasant. BTW, the logo on the fence at TR is gone. I wonder if he took it or it is in a garage in TX?
carebear
Member
I hope it DOES cause a resurgence of S&W big bore, deep-blued fighting revolvers with classic stocks.
But I hope it is by Taurus and I hope they undercut S&W by their usual 15-20%.
Smith, Colt et al. have been trading on their "American-made" name cachet with little to back it up but memories of the golden years before foreign competition for far too long. To ask the consumer to suck it up because "we're S&W" doesn't fly in the modern marketplace.
But I hope it is by Taurus and I hope they undercut S&W by their usual 15-20%.
Smith, Colt et al. have been trading on their "American-made" name cachet with little to back it up but memories of the golden years before foreign competition for far too long. To ask the consumer to suck it up because "we're S&W" doesn't fly in the modern marketplace.
P. Plainsman
Member
I think we're having a little topic drift here, so I'll jump back in. The subject wasn't whether one likes or dislikes the 21-4. I think it's got some definite, avoidable aesthetic glitches, but I like some things about it, and others can think it's the bee's knees without offending me or impinging on my views in the slightest. And it's doubly true that no one would be criticizing Mr. Smith for simply defending the design of his revolver. That's all fine, and none of it was the point.
The point was that Mr. Smith's tirade in defense of his design was surprisingly unprofessional, scatological, and ad hominem (even though the bulk of the criticism of the 21-4 was not directed at him personally). It was unpleasant to read and, honestly, it had no place in a widely circulated national magazine. In a word, tacky.
Not "blunt", not "straightforward" -- tacky. A distinction worth keeping.
That was the topic. If folks want to talk about a new topic, obviously, who am I to object? However, it seems to me, to say you're "with Clint", in the only sense relevant to the topic of this thread, does not mean you like the TR 21-4. Rather, it means you do think it's generally appropriate behavior for a grown man and professional teacher to throw a potty-language tantrum in print because some customers were disappointed by something he helped design.
The point was that Mr. Smith's tirade in defense of his design was surprisingly unprofessional, scatological, and ad hominem (even though the bulk of the criticism of the 21-4 was not directed at him personally). It was unpleasant to read and, honestly, it had no place in a widely circulated national magazine. In a word, tacky.
Not "blunt", not "straightforward" -- tacky. A distinction worth keeping.
That was the topic. If folks want to talk about a new topic, obviously, who am I to object? However, it seems to me, to say you're "with Clint", in the only sense relevant to the topic of this thread, does not mean you like the TR 21-4. Rather, it means you do think it's generally appropriate behavior for a grown man and professional teacher to throw a potty-language tantrum in print because some customers were disappointed by something he helped design.
Otony
Member
I have been following this thread with a great deal of interest, as for some time I have thought that the editors of both Guns and AH (specially AH) have fallen victim to believing that rudeness and foul language somehow is indicative of maturity and wisdom. Perhaps, in some way, they feel being "cool" is more convincing than being polite. Sitting in those clouds is a heady experience it would seem.
If we witness their responses to correspondents in virtually any issue's letter section, apparently sarcasm and outright putdowns are thought to convey weight and learnedness. If you disagree with them, no matter what the reason or subject, you will experience scorn and ridicule. Obviously, we lesser mortals have no right to voice even a civil opinion.
I realize in this somehow "new" found era of free speech and personal liberties that the right of the common man to call a spade a spade has never been more pronounced, however managing to do so with a modicum of dignity affords us the ability to reach a higher ground, one of benefit to more than a select few of the in crowd of "famous gun writers". It is apparent from what I have read that Guns/AH has decided that pandering to a lower, more common, reader somehow has benefits.
Whether or not children witness objectional words or pictures in their magazines, as has been oft complained about in letters to the editor, is neither here nor there. We, as adults, do have the ability, nay, the obligation to censor to some extent, our childrens reading material. We also have the ability to do so for ourselves.
This being the case, if we find the language included therein crude, debasing, or raw (and frankly, Mr. Smith's "turd suckers" is beyond the pale in my less than humble opinion), then we owe it to ourselves to simply vote with our wallets. I, for one, have no need to experience this type of journalism. Others may find it amusing, shocking, or just plain silly, as the case may be. You don't have to read it if you don't want to, and whats more, you can demonstrate this in a way calculated to have a far reaching effect. Perhaps the editors would then consider toning down the articles, but I sadly think that what is included finds more favor than dissapproval.
I used to think that Mr. Smith was a fairly intelligent individual, perhaps gifted as a teacher and shooter, which somehow conveyed more gravitas to what he had to say. I have now heard mention of his less than happy involvement with Jeff Copper. I have now read his columns. I can see now, that he unfortunately is as so many of us are, simply a man with feet of clay and a dirty mouth.
I won't be wasting my time with him, or any of the other writers there, in the future.
If we witness their responses to correspondents in virtually any issue's letter section, apparently sarcasm and outright putdowns are thought to convey weight and learnedness. If you disagree with them, no matter what the reason or subject, you will experience scorn and ridicule. Obviously, we lesser mortals have no right to voice even a civil opinion.
I realize in this somehow "new" found era of free speech and personal liberties that the right of the common man to call a spade a spade has never been more pronounced, however managing to do so with a modicum of dignity affords us the ability to reach a higher ground, one of benefit to more than a select few of the in crowd of "famous gun writers". It is apparent from what I have read that Guns/AH has decided that pandering to a lower, more common, reader somehow has benefits.
Whether or not children witness objectional words or pictures in their magazines, as has been oft complained about in letters to the editor, is neither here nor there. We, as adults, do have the ability, nay, the obligation to censor to some extent, our childrens reading material. We also have the ability to do so for ourselves.
This being the case, if we find the language included therein crude, debasing, or raw (and frankly, Mr. Smith's "turd suckers" is beyond the pale in my less than humble opinion), then we owe it to ourselves to simply vote with our wallets. I, for one, have no need to experience this type of journalism. Others may find it amusing, shocking, or just plain silly, as the case may be. You don't have to read it if you don't want to, and whats more, you can demonstrate this in a way calculated to have a far reaching effect. Perhaps the editors would then consider toning down the articles, but I sadly think that what is included finds more favor than dissapproval.
I used to think that Mr. Smith was a fairly intelligent individual, perhaps gifted as a teacher and shooter, which somehow conveyed more gravitas to what he had to say. I have now heard mention of his less than happy involvement with Jeff Copper. I have now read his columns. I can see now, that he unfortunately is as so many of us are, simply a man with feet of clay and a dirty mouth.
I won't be wasting my time with him, or any of the other writers there, in the future.
Last edited:
Clint Smith says a whole bunch of things that need to be said, and as such gets to have a rant occasionally. I find the logo a little bit overbearing, but the M21 is overall a really good idea.
I especially like the fact that the it seems to be incapable of mounting all of the picatinny rail compatible ninja accessories that everybody else seems to think are so necessary on a pistol these days.
I especially like the fact that the it seems to be incapable of mounting all of the picatinny rail compatible ninja accessories that everybody else seems to think are so necessary on a pistol these days.
I'd like to read the article and also the letters.
That said, I have had the feeling for a while that the gun magazines were just sales tools by the companies making this stuff. Just once I'd like to see someone put out a new caliber or something and have the gun mags can it as unnecessary and duplicative.
That said, I have had the feeling for a while that the gun magazines were just sales tools by the companies making this stuff. Just once I'd like to see someone put out a new caliber or something and have the gun mags can it as unnecessary and duplicative.
Texian Pistolero
member
I read the article. It is offensive. But apparently, the editors of AH went for scatological content BEFORE CM's article. In the letters to the editor, some writer applauded their use of the word "fart" in a previous issue.
This is just too weird to process. I'm not wasting any more time on it.
I'd rather run with the big boys.
This is just too weird to process. I'm not wasting any more time on it.
I'd rather run with the big boys.
Last edited:
I didn't read the article (my opinion of AH is about on a level with my opinion of UFO stories on The History Channel and tabloid reports of six-headed babies), but if the quotes are accurate, there is no reason for that kind of language in any publication. One can certainly express an opinion or disagree with critics without resorting to what amounts to profanity.
As to people who are unhappy with big heads on ego trips, I can only advise cancelling subscriptions to most gun magazines. I can name several writers who have a .600 Nitro ego and a .17 caliber brain. And also a few whose "vast experience" exists only in their own imaginations.
As for the logo on the revolver, S&W puts on whatever is given them, and work with the customer to provide exactly what the customer wants. They use a laser cutter that can inscribe any picture or text that can be scanned into a computer.
Jim
As to people who are unhappy with big heads on ego trips, I can only advise cancelling subscriptions to most gun magazines. I can name several writers who have a .600 Nitro ego and a .17 caliber brain. And also a few whose "vast experience" exists only in their own imaginations.
As for the logo on the revolver, S&W puts on whatever is given them, and work with the customer to provide exactly what the customer wants. They use a laser cutter that can inscribe any picture or text that can be scanned into a computer.
Jim
targetshootr
member
Mine came today so I could finally see what all the fuss was about. I thought it was funny. I watched the threads on his gun on various forums and there were a lot of the remarks he mentioned so I understand his reaction to it all. My overall reaction was, he probably isn't familiar with message boards and how they get sometimes. And I like the way he writes. It's spot-on and real. Like you're listening to your grandad who's been everywhere and seen everything twice.
seeker_two
Member
1. Smith & S&W would have done a lot better in the practical big-bore revolver department had they re-introduced the 696 w/ fixed sights, a $500 price tag, & the TR logo laser-etched on the side than trying to re-invent Elmer Keith's wheel...
2. Calling the potential customer base for your revolver AND your training academy "turd-suckers" will eventually hurt your feelings (& pocketbook) more than it will hurt theirs ....
3. Moving his operation from Texas (w/ its right-thinking gun laws & good climate) to Oregon (liberal & wet) was the first indicator of just where his mindset is trending... :banghead:
Clint...I'm worried about you, son...
2. Calling the potential customer base for your revolver AND your training academy "turd-suckers" will eventually hurt your feelings (& pocketbook) more than it will hurt theirs ....
3. Moving his operation from Texas (w/ its right-thinking gun laws & good climate) to Oregon (liberal & wet) was the first indicator of just where his mindset is trending... :banghead:
Clint...I'm worried about you, son...
Last edited:
Peter M. Eick
Member
I got into it over at the S&W forum with Mr. Smith about the logo/cost/lock stuff, so I tried to stay out of it here.
But,
Since I have had some time to think about it, I think it the "T. S." comments is what galls me the most. I would have thought that a professional writer who makes his living by trying to teach us, the end user or his knowledge and skills would have more respect for his audience.
Ok, Did I like the Logo, no, but I could get it buffed out.
Did I like the lock, no, but I could remove it or bypass it some why.
Did I like the grips or all of the extra letters on the barrel, no, but I could live with it.
Did I get on the web and complain call Mr. Smith and S&W "T. S." and "Idiots" or worse? NO, because although I did not like what they did I had at least a mild bit of respect for them. Thats the big difference. Mr. Smith used his pulpit of the magazine to complain about us, meaning the all of us who read and discuss things on the web. That is what really galls me about the whole deal.
Now having had time to think about it, look at it, consider the gun and everything, I feel that it will not have a place in my safe. Suffice it to say the gun and those things associated with it are "tainted".
So, I again wish Mr. Smith well in his endevors, and hope that S&W keeps up the idea, and maybe instead of a "bunt" in my mind they can go for a "homerun".
But,
Since I have had some time to think about it, I think it the "T. S." comments is what galls me the most. I would have thought that a professional writer who makes his living by trying to teach us, the end user or his knowledge and skills would have more respect for his audience.
Ok, Did I like the Logo, no, but I could get it buffed out.
Did I like the lock, no, but I could remove it or bypass it some why.
Did I like the grips or all of the extra letters on the barrel, no, but I could live with it.
Did I get on the web and complain call Mr. Smith and S&W "T. S." and "Idiots" or worse? NO, because although I did not like what they did I had at least a mild bit of respect for them. Thats the big difference. Mr. Smith used his pulpit of the magazine to complain about us, meaning the all of us who read and discuss things on the web. That is what really galls me about the whole deal.
Now having had time to think about it, look at it, consider the gun and everything, I feel that it will not have a place in my safe. Suffice it to say the gun and those things associated with it are "tainted".
So, I again wish Mr. Smith well in his endevors, and hope that S&W keeps up the idea, and maybe instead of a "bunt" in my mind they can go for a "homerun".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
