How Long to Hold Grudge

Kind of like trying to get Eichmann to only go after the Chasidim...

 

It was about 2000 that S&W signed the agreement with the Clinton administration. Part of the agreement was to place safety locks in S&W revolvers. There was a boycott of S&W at the time. But when Clinton left office in Feb. 2001 and Tompkins sold S&W in May of 2001 the agreement was void.

The Saf-T-Hammer Corp (which was founded by executives of S&W and investors) bought S&W in May 2001. Saf-T-Hammer was a company that was built to buy S&W and place their locks in the guns. They did this once they took the company over. They still put their locks in S&W revolvers.

So yep the agreement with the Clinton administration was gone and dead in 2001. The locks are still there and that's how they got there.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2001/05/14/daily1.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/smit...-business-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-2013-1

So if you want to be mad at S&W for the agreement...it's a tad late.

tipoc

 

medic15al said:

As you like. My response was intended toward OP's topic of the company's relationship to gun control.

I have my preference on their mechanical designs, but to me bearing a grudge over that opinion is going a bit far. To hold a grudge is to let people (or corporations) live in one's head rent free; to do so over what boils down to a design characteristic isn't a good use of my mental energy.

 

Seriously? Best guns they've ever made? Hardly.

 

Grudges Will Eat You Alive

My father taught me to never wish bad karma on anyone.

He also taught me there are millions of people who have never even met me.

Lastly, he taught me never to judge anyone.

We are all here by the grace of our creator.

Grudges are a total waste of the time we are given.

Our lives are like water in the desert-please do not waste a drop...

 

You should never hold a grudge. It only makes you a grumpy old man/woman. Let it go.

 

I don't hold grudges for something as silly as a company raising prices according to demand. As for S&W, things change, companies are sometimes at the mercy of their upper management, and in many cases it isn't easy to get those people out. What's funny is both S&W and Ruger have pretty successful AR-10/15 lines now.

 

I was never one to hold a grudge. It just eats at you while the other party goes on with their life without a thought about you. Now about where I spend my hard earned cash-------I will reward those whose actions I agree with and not waste any resources/emotion on those that will act contrary to my core beliefs. If someone is not worthy of my continued attention I am over it and done with them. If they attract my attention for any good reason I am likely to reward/encourage good behavior as I see fit. Anyone can change their actions/beliefs IF they want to bad enough. YMMV

 

Then let him put his money where his mouth is and rid their revolvers of the key hole once and for all!

 

Smith & Wesson I have no beef with. Remington is another story. My R51 has been sent back from so long ago I can't remember. But, I learned last week they plan to send me a replacement soon. We shall see.

Forgiveness is a difficult and personal decision, if Rem handles this in a professional fashion I'll drop my grudge.

 

The comment was regarding the development of smart gun tech, and had nothing to do with the internal locks.

The only way we will see the locks possibly go away is if there is a total boycott of current production S&W revolvers. I'm guessing a few weeks of that would send the message. Would it be successful in getting the locks removed? There's no way to know without actually getting a boycott going.

 

Don't know if you'd call it a grudge, but the lock's still there. I will NEVER buy a new S&W revolver with a lock. Apparently S&W doesn't care whether people buy their product.

 

> Bill Ruger

...who also didn't like motorcycles, and told employees who rode them they wouldn't be covered under the company health insurance plan. I don't know how that came out in court, but along with his support of various anti-gun proposals, it was enough for me to never buy a Ruger firearm.

As far as I know he never apologized to those employees or to gun owners, not that it would have made his remarks unhappen.

 

How long to hold a grudge? How about a lifetime?

During the last 2 ammo/component shortages, there were vendors who price gouged while other vendors moderately increased their prices.

I won't buy from those price gougers, ever.

In the H&R section, THR members helped each other during the shortages locate much needed items and vendors who did not price gouge were well documented on this thread - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=707473

Now that ammo/components are more widely available, I continue to remember those vendors who did not price gouge and buy from them. Some vendors did not even raise prices during the shortages when other vendors were jacking up prices (see my signature line).

The way I see it, what goes around, comes around.

 

Well said, as usual.

 

I am not holding a grudge against S&W for their past actions. However, the real prime product S&W made were fine double action revolvers. They have discontinued many of their really fine revolvers - revolvers not being so popular these days - and dreadfully cheapened the remaining.

I could probably live with the firing pin in the frame. Locks are offensive; they are predicated on the idea that users are stupid, ignorant or both. Non-pinned barrels are a step cheaper to manufacture.

Ruger. I have no problem with Ruger from a political standpoint. I find the two-screw, "New Model" single actions are clumsy and inelegant. Not to mention a suggestion users are stupid, ignorant or both. The GP-100 revolvers are ugly, ungainly and clumsy in relation to the 'Six' series. The Redhawks are merely ugly and ungainly all by themselves.

I have several Ruger rifles, mostly bolt guns. I have little use for a semi-automatic rifle of any sort; and I already have a Garand and an M1 Carbine - which fill all the need I have in that regard.

So, no grudges, just personal desire and good taste.

 

I am not sure "grudge" is necessarily the best term to use either. I prefer conditioned aversion

If you sell me a piece of junk on accident and make it right, we are good. Even if it happens more than once, I will continue buying as long as you make it good. If you sell me a piece of junk then refuse to even acknowledge that the product has an issue, I will never do business with you again.

These days, there are so many excellent products being produced by so many different manufacturers that I see no reason to ever return to a particular brand after they screw me over.

 

Time to let that S&W grudge go....those owners have been replaced a long time ago.
Buy that S&W and enjoy using it.....it's OK, really !

 

There was a boycott on against S&W at the time of the agreement with the Clinton administration. That ended once the new owners took over in 2001.

Since S&W began putting the locks in their revolvers once the new owners walked in 2001, it seems a tad belated to talk about beginning a new boycott now.

tipoc

 

My problem with S&W is not with the company per se, but with the products.

There isn't a S&W revolver with an exposed hammer that I would even consider purchasing. Between the locks and the Buck Rogers esthetics of so many of them, I simply have no interest. And then there are just the weird quirks that nobody can seem to explain, like putting the front sight base all the way on the end of the muzzle of the M1917 repro, and the odd swooping shape of the front sight on the Model 22.

If I were to buy a NEW revolver these days, it'd be a Ruger with a half lug barrel or a Dan Wesson.

 

I won't buy a new S&W revolver that has the integral lock drilled into the frame. I'm sure there are others out there who feel the same, which means S&W is losing business. S&W should offer both lock versions and no-lock versions of its revolvers. That way, everyone can pick what they want.