Disturbing news about S&W (not what you think)

[Cosmoline]

We all know about the criminal record of S&W's most recent CEO. But as I've thought about it, that wasn't HALF as disturbing as something that was mentioned as part of this discovery. THE CEO HAD NEVER TOUCHED A HANDGUN.

OK, fine. He's a felon. But what does it say that someone can rise to the head of S&W without ever having used or even put hands on the company's most famous product? Do these people even care that they're making firearms, or could they just as easily be making widgets?

It was a fascinating contrast to see, in Guns and Ammo this month, the head of CZ USA, Alice Poluchova, out in the field shooting a 550 Magnum. I also heard very positive reports about her from some local folks who went to the Shoot show. The CZ people know about their firearms, and they've certainly laid hands on them many times.

To me, this is indicative of the problem with American arms makers. They've lost touch with what they are--gun makers. Ruger seems more concerned with investment castings, and S&W can appoint a CEO with no hands-on experience with their revolvers. No wonder quality has been declining!

 

[jsalcedo]

He was the board of directors chief. Not the CEO.

The board of directors job is to look out for the stock holders interests.
They are concerned about audits, company holdings, compensation plans
investments, acquistions etc... The product was irrelevant except in cases
of liability and major lawsuits.


I worked for a similar sized company for six years and I did not ever see a
board member touch one of our products or step foot into our facility.

It is not surprising that the board chief would never touch a gun.

Anyone know if he sat on the board of any other corporations?

 

[ny32182]

On a related note...

I think it could have been more profitable overall for firearms makers yesterday if the gun legislation including immunity and AWB extension had passed. Gun makers really didn't have any reason to oppose it.

Sure, a lot of gun owners would be pissed if the awb was extended, but none of them would stop buying guns. The gun companies' profits wouldn't really be affected, and they would have immunity from many of the lawsuits that they currently have to spend a lot of money on defending themselves. Whats not to like from their point of view?

 

[Justin]

You aren't taking into account the fact that there are 10 years of pent-up 'need' for the firearms that were banned, as well as standard capacity magazines.

I'd rather wait to have a proper immunity bill passed at a later date if it meant getting rid of a law that can land you in the slammer because you posses a bit of stamped sheet metal that was made in the wrong shape after the wrong date.

 

[MMcCall]

I'll support the manufacturers legal efforts by buying their products.. just like every other company in America. The bill died as it should have.

 

[ny32182]

I'm glad the whole bill died, considering the amendments... I imagine there will be a rush on mags and whatnot if the AWB dies, but long term, I just don't think the gun makers are really affected one way or the other by the AWB.

Was it bushmaster that had one of their quotes twisted? A reporter printed something to the effect of their PR person saying that the ban would be just fine with them. When taken in context, it was clear he was only talking about how it would affect the company's finances, not what they feel from an idealogical standpoint. I think bushmaster sales were up 900% or something like that after the AWB passed. I bet other such companies experienced similar success.

 

[Cosmoline]

The board of directors job is to look out for the stock holders interests.

Sure, but I don't agree that this means they need have no involvement with the products the company sells. It's this sort of bottom-line thinking that led to the S&W sellout! IMHO nobody should sit on any gun maker's board unless they are a dedicated shooter and support the RKBA.

 

[Cosmoline]

Running the business these days does not seem to require expertise, or even knowledge, on the product. Just administrative training.

I agree that many US companies seem to BELIEVE this, but I don't agree that it's true. Certainly to be in a position of authority in a firearm company, you should know a great deal about the company. Otherwise it's easy to justify cutting corners on quality and swinging political deals with antis.

 

[c_yeager]

THE CEO HAD NEVER TOUCHED A HANDGUN.

How did he rob banks then?

 

[Cosmoline]

How did he rob banks then?

I believe he used a "sweet 16" shotgun. He actually had a gangster name like "shotgun so-and-so".

 

[4v50 Gary]

Guess he couldn't call himself a reenactor trying to protray the Barrow Gang.

 

[Parker Dean]

Running the business these days does not seem to require expertise, or even knowledge, on the product. Just administrative training.

I think General Motors is the biggest example of just how disastrous this sort of policy can be.

 

[Daedalus]

I heard about this man coming from a lucrative shirt manufacturing background who got involved in the firearms industry and bought a firearms company.

Oliver Fisher Winchester.

 

[mete]

The General Motors problem was also that the CEO wanted to turn GM into a finance company ! That did a great deal of damage. Our education system also has failed in part due to the idea that you don't have to know the subject matter, you only have to know how to teach ! Some companies do it right. Dillion reloading company (I hope they still have the policy) required that everyone hired be a shooter because they wanted a personal commitment.