No More S&W Mag Compatibility

[Mike Irwin]

Let's get something straight here, folks.

Smith & Wesson didn't "play a game."

THIS is what Smith & Wesson did

Text of Smith & Wesson's agreement with the Federal Government


That's NOT a game, ladies and gentlemen.

That was Smith & Wesson acting in complicity with the Clinton Administration to endrun the Constitution of the United States and pass by fiat what the Clinton administration couldn't pass by legislative action.

For all of Ruger's faults, at least Bill Ruger worked INSIDE the Constitutionally mandated system to help craft a bill that was one HELL of a lot less onerous that what was originally proposed, and what almost became the law of this land.

I've said this many times, and I'll say it again.

This issue is NOT about key locks on guns. If safety devices were the issue, none of you would touch your Colt 1911s.

This issue is NOT about smart guns. Advancements in technology have always been a given in ANY industry. The fact that they're being driven by legislative mandate is ugly, but the truth remains that the quest for "smart guns" predates this latest round of issues by DECADES.

This issue is, at its very heart, a company turning its back on its constituency to allow an unprecedented amount of governmental interference into the Second Amendment and the operations of a privately owned corporation.

This issues is about a private corporation becoming a de facto enforcement arm of the Federal government, interfering into the daily business affairs of independent businesses.

Or aren't any of you aware that the S&W Agreement gives BATF a seat on S&W's board, and cities hostile to the Second Amendment a virtual controlling interest over the operations of the company?

Pardon me, but that sort of micromanagement and trade repression went a long way towards moving a group of men to action 200 years ago. We call them the Founding Fathers.

Is that the kind of Second Amendment legacy you envision for your children?

Is that the kind of Constitutional legacy you envision for your children?

How about it, Chris?

Want Abby to grow up into a world where the BATF & city representatives that control S&W's marketing and sales say she can't buy a certain handgun to protect herself, and possibly your Grandkids, simply because that kind of gun isn't suitable for a woman between the ages of 25-40?

How about the rest of you with kids or grandkids? Is that the personal legacy that you want to leave for them?

That's the kind of micromanagement that the S&W agreement could foist off on gunowners.

Think about that for a little bit.

And think about what the next anti-gun Democrat in the White House might decide to do with that agreement if he, or SHE, finds the need to make some political hay with other gun haters.

See the problems?

If you don't, then you're not part of the solution.

You're just dead wood cluttering the path.

 

[Tamara]

The fact remains, Mike, that you vigorously responded, without looking for a shred of corroborating evidence, to an unsubstantiated internet claim that S&W's autos would henceforth no longer accept preban mags.

Onerousness of The Agreement aside, that claim is patently false, rendering somewhat silly the resounding denunciations that followed.

 

[SnWnMe]

Thank you for enlightening post Mike.

Maybe I am shortsighted but... For me to hate a company because of corporate politics is like me hating my country because I don't like the president.

 

[WonderNine]

S&W makes junk nowadays anyways. Not hard to boycott them.

I'm more than content shooting my FN/Browning pistols and Winchester rifles anyways.

Who needs Taurus and Smith's crap.

 

[Alan Fud]

Posted by Tamara: ... This is how stupid internet rumors like the one about Colt "no longer selling to the public" get started ...

Where can I get a NIB Colt Magnum Carry? I'm serious. I really want one of those and none of the gunshops that I shop at can order one for me.

 

[WonderNine]

Where can I get a NIB Colt Magnum Carry? I'm serious. I really want one of those and none of the gunshops that I shop at can order one for me.

I'll like to order a pocket nine from Colt, can you help me?

Oh that's right, Kahr sued their butts off over that one over a stolen patent, never mind.

 

[Mike Irwin]

And when have you ever known me to drop a chance to address the agreement, Tams?

Whether or not it's happening at this very minute up in S&W land, it's still part and parcel of the agreemnt, and it's coming. Whether it's today, or next week, or next year, this will happen. I've come to accept it. I won't go gracefully, but I've come to realize that far too many people just don't give a flying three fingered damn, and so they're going to let it happen.


Oh, by the way...

Some months ago I was told by a little mouse friend of mine, someone who's in a pretty good position to know, that S&W is, in fact, working on the modified engineering drawings necessary to make this very scenario a fact.

Looks like they're planning for the day when the agreement is enforced, too.

Just food for thought while you're busy rolling your eyes, my dear.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Maybe I am shortsighted but... For me to hate a company because of corporate politics is like me hating my country because I don't like the president."

Bad analogy, SnWnMe.

If you don't like the president, you take steps to ensure that he's not reelected, or that his supporters aren't reelected.

In essence, you withhold your support from that individual(s) to effect necessary change.

The same is true in the case of Smith & Wesson.

S&W's new management inherited the agreement from the previous owners, and have done nothing to have it dissolved at the Federal level despite having a very friendly Justice Department in place with which to work.

We're coming up on the end of Bush's first term in office, and unless I miss my guess, the end of the Bush presidency.

Do you think the Dean presidency is going to be more or less amenable to breaking the agreement?

How about more or less amenable to enforcing it strictly?

S&W's management is squandering the opportunity they have.

And by boycotting the company and not buying S&W products, you're punishing them as surely as you're punishing the hypothetical president that you don't like by voting for his opponents.

Do the right thing.

Stand up for your rights, and tell S&W that you want them to do that, too.

 

[LawDog]

He read it in the Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson, Second Edition by Jim Supica and Richard Nahas, a book that is in no way authorized, published or endorsed by Smith & Wesson

Ah. I had wondered if it was something like that.

LawDog

 

[Zundfolge]

Well I'm glad all this has been cleared up.

The only little problem that is tugging on a little corner of my brain is that, even though this time its just a rumor ... "The Agreement" is still in effect and I fear someday that this rumor will be true unless the leadership of S&W grows a pair and rips up the agreement and extends their middle finger to the government (which is what I'm hoping for).


That said, I don't think "The Agreement" will be the end of the second amendment, or gun ownership in the US, it will just be the end of Smith & Wesson (and any other manufacturer that joins in), because I don't know of any gun dealer that lives off of their S&W sales ... they will just drop the S&W line because of the restrictions placed on their business by remaining an "Authorized Dealer" of S&W products.

It won't be US boycotting them, it will be the nations FFLs.

 

[ceestand]

He read it in the Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson, Second Edition by Jim Supica and Richard Nahas, a book that is in no way authorized, published or endorsed by Smith & Wesson, and is (to boot) two years old by copyright date, and therefore probably three years old as far as when the copy was actually written. IE, Supica & Nahas had probably just gotten their hands on a copy of THE AGREEMENT (uttered in a sort of Vincent Price tonality) when the actual text in question was written...

Yes, that is the book. The text in question is on page 215 and reads (of course my scanner craps out as I am posting this): "S&W is at the time of this writing moving towards redesigning their full-sized semi-autos so that they will not accept the pre-ban high capacity magazines."
The published date is 2001, and the last year for which they include serial number data is 2000.

I didn't mean to start any kind of fight here, I just wanted to confirm or contradict if the above was true. I never read the agreement but I will tomorrow. I had heard of the locking mechanism thing and of collusion with the gov't. I hadn't heard of a deliberate redesign to prevent existing mags from operating in new guns. That just sounds straight up malicious to me.

 

[clubsoda22]

S&W doesn't make anything special when it comes to autoloaders. The only autoloaders of theirs i liked were their 10mm's....but they don't make those anymore.

Manufacturers that make better autoloaders than S&W (IMHO)
-HK
-Colt
-Browning
-Springfield
-Beretta
-Kimber
-Taurus
-Glock
-Kahr
-CZ
-Ruger

And the list goes on. You have a wide selection of other guns. What's gonna be funny is watching S&W keep up with the new gun market as their selection was already below average.

 

[Nightcrawler]

RE: Internet Rumor Mongering

I'm reminded of a Penny-Arcade comic.

 

[dsk]

I remember in '94 when the AW ban was eminent, and Ruger Mini-14's were impossible to find at gun dealers, I was repeatedly told that Ruger had stopped production of detachable-mag rifles, and was redesigning both the Mini-14 and 10/22 to only use a fixed non-detachable mag to "beat the ban". I'm still waiting to see one of these new creations.....

 

[Mike Irwin]

I'll only say this...

My little mouse friend wasn't either Supica or Nahaus, nor was it anyone connected to them.

It was, however, someone in the industry (interpret that any way you wish)who is in a position to know.

Back to Supica and Nahaus.

No, their book was not "authorized, published or endorsed by Smith & Wesson, and is (to boot) two years old by copyright date, and therefore probably three years old as far as when the copy was actually written..." as Tams so eloquently put it.

But what IS the case, however, is that Supica and Nahaus had, in the production of thier books, more access to Smith & Wesson the company, the archives, the employees, etc., than any other two non-S&W employees.

The statement that the text in question was "therefore probably three years old as far as when the copy was actually written" is, however, incorrect.

The book was released in December of 2001. I know for a fact that Rick was providing galley updates to the text in August of 2001. He told me that when I talked to him at a gunshow and pestered him (for the umteenth time) about the book.

Now, if we DO step back 3 years from today, as per Tam's statement on the possible writing of the actual copy, that's December 2000, or 9 months AFTER the agreement was signed.

The statement in the book coincides PERFECTLY with the information that I have regarding the redesign of magazines and the firearms.

Knowing what I do of Supica and Nahaus, their involvement in the research into the book, their levels of access into Smith & Wesson, the time frames involved, and my own information, I have absolutely NO doubt about the books validity.

The Penny Arcade cartoon is quaint, but it's simply not applicable in this situation. It describes a situation where someone with absolutely no knowledge into the workings of a company makes a statement which, on its face, sounds conceivable.

This is far, far above that sort of foolishness.

 

[M58]

Yup!
Let us drive every gun company in the USA out of business. I am sure each has done something to offend someone at one point or another.
We can live with just the guns left.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Mike: Well, yeah, if there's indeed more to this than simply internet rumor (i.e., a credible S&W source) then you're absolutely right.

 

[Tamara]

Alan Fud,

Where can I get a NIB Colt Magnum Carry? I'm serious. I really want one of those and none of the gunshops that I shop at can order one for me.

From the same gun shop you can get a NIB Ruger Hawkeye or S&W 1076 from. You and I have been over this before, yet you still seem to be having a hard time grokking the concept of "discontinued model."

BTW, if your offer of a ten percent finders fee on a NIB 4" SS Python is still good, better break out the checkbook. I'll put one on our order tomorrow if you'd like. You can, of course, renege if the offer was just hyperbole used to make a point.

 

[DrDremel]

S&W was working on the provisions in the agreement at the time of the printing of the book. They now have a new owner, new management, and a new outlook. The agreement has some huge loopholes. The Government was supposed to give contracts to S&W for handguns in exchange for the agreement. Since the Government did not hold up their end, it is safe to say that S&W will not have to uphold theirs.

There is a big risk in announcing publicly that the Clinton agreement is dead. It will bring the wrath of the anti-gun groups upon them in the form of lawsuits, and proclamations that the gun industry is illegally breaking their promises to the Government. The news organizations would twist the story to sound as if S&W is catering to criminals and children. The public on the fence about the issue would only hear one side to the story and it would not be S&W’s side. The lawsuits would start again from anti-gun groups to try to shut down S&W. The current owners, trying to build up a company that was on it’s knees due to the agreement and the boycott from the gun culture that followed their agreement would be hurt financially again through lawsuits. It would simply be more costly to proclaim the deal dead, as there are more people that would attack them through legal measures than there are people that will not buy their firearms.

S&W got the picture from the boycott. The message was so strong that the company was sold at a loss. Now let S&W build itself back into the company they can be. If you want to boycott companies, boycott foreign cars, those companies give more money to gun banning and support UN gun grabs more than any gun company. Supporting them and the Governments they support hurts the Second Amendment more than anyone else. Boycott Chinese products. They send a ship of Full-auto AKs made by the state owned and run company of Norinco to sell illegally on the black market. This is a Government sanctioned attempt to hurt the gun culture here in the US. The Chinese illegally paid Bill Clinton off while he was in the white house. It was also the Clinton Administration that let the massive lawsuits against S&W continue with the hopes that they could extort S&W into the agreement in the first place.

If you are going to focus on something, that is what you should focus on. S&W has new owners. Ford built a car that would blow up if hit in the rear, the Pinto, yet you don’t hear people trying to boycott them because of a past mistake by people that are not involved with the company.

 

[mtnbkr]

How about it, Chris?

I think you misinterpreted my earlier post. I was merely pointing out how people claim to participate in a boycott, then follow up with "I don't like their products anyway".

It's not a boycott if you aren't a potential customer.

That's why I don't say I'm boycotting S&W. I'm not a customer. They don't currently make anything I'd buy. Now, if they made a gun I wanted to buy, but didn't due to their agreement, that would be a boycott.


Chris

 

[Mike Irwin]

"S&W was working on the provisions in the agreement at the time of the printing of the book. They now have a new owner, new management, and a new outlook."

Who has done WHAT DrDremel, to address the agreement with the Federal government?

I'll give you the answer.

They've done absolutely NOTHING.

We don't know, for a fact, whether or not S&W stopped working on provisions of the agreement when the new owners took over because the've pretty much steadfastly refused to say anything.

If, however, my source is correct, and I have no reason to think that he isn't, S&W never stopped work on firearms redesigns simply because the company changed hands.

A lot of people assume that simply because Smith & Wesson is under new ownership, American ownership, that all is love and peace and joy and happiness and harmony.

Those people are fools because they're making unfounded assumptions that aren't backed up by concrete actions.

The Democratic party has REALLY softshoed the gun issue over the past 2 to 3 years because it hurt them so badly in the last election.

Are we to infer from that that the Democratic Party and its followers are no longer largely anti-gun and we can finally vote for "reformed" candidates who hated guns in the past, but won't touch them now?

The situation with S&W is very similar. People are believing what they want to hear, and it's going to come back and bite them, and all gun owners.

Now, you say that there are huge loopholes in the agreement.

Care to enumerate them, and how they negate the bulk effect of the agreement?

I'll let Smith & Wesson build itself back into the company that it SHOULD be when the new owners grow a set of testicles and openly work to quash this agreement formally.

Until then, not a chance.

Anyone who supports the company in the interim is only complicit in endangering all of our rights, something for which they should be terribly ashamed.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I think you misinterpreted my earlier post."

Uhm... Really?

"I agree with Ala Dan.

My safety and the safety of my family is more important that a political statement. Dead people don't have civil rights to protect.

It just so happens that I haven't had a strong desire for any of the "boycotted" companies' new products...

Chris (MTNBKR)"

 

[mtnbkr]

And your point is...

That post is in line with what I've said in this thread.

Point 1: Claiming to boycott a company whose products you wouldn't buy in the first place is not a boycott.

Point 2: If a S&W was the best choice for the protection of my family, then that gun would be considered.

Let that sink in for a moment.

I'm not talking about buying a gun because I want a new toy or because I'm bored with my current ones. At that point, I'm looking for a new gun because the situation has changed to the point that my current holdings are not useful (assuming I still have them).

Is such a scenario likely to happen? probably not, but that was not my point. I am simply reserving the right to choose the best tool in order to ensure my family's safety in a time of extreme need.

Chris

 

[BevrFevr]

Well I heard back from S&W

They say it is pure BS.

Mike Irwin, Are you a generally happy person? Are you happy with life today? What about yesterday? Do You see hope for the future? Are there viens poping out of your temples as you read this?

Nothing personal, I just like to know who my neighbors are.

-bevr

 

[M58]

Mike is like Dean...an axe to grind...and no end in sight.
Really getting old.