Should I buy this gun?

[rock jock]

The local Academy sports store has all their handguns for 20% off. With the discount, I can get a NIB S&W Model 60 for $311. I am on the fence for this purchase, mainly because I just bought a used 629 V-Comp, but also the whole boycott thing. I certainly don't need this gun, but, hey, when did that ever stop me? Is this a too-good-to-pass-up price? Help me out with some advice.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I recently purchased a used Smith & Wesson model 60. It's a dandy gun, and dandier still for Badger stocks and Magnaporting. I expected recoil to be a problem with full house .357 magnum loads in a J frame revolver, but it was less than I'd feared.

Personally, I'll reconsider doing business with Smith & Wesson when a.) it repudiates the agreement it signed with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore régime, and b.) it resumes selling firearms without integral locks.

 

[alamo]

$311 is a good price. I've got a Model 60 which I like a lot. I've gotten over the boycott business. They are under new management and I know they are trying to get out of the deal the prior ownership/management put them in. I hear some people say that they should renounce the agreement and get out of it. Well, it's not that easy. The agreement has the effect of a court order, that's the way it was set up and for S&W to simply renounce it WILL NOT make it go away. Both parties have to agree to that and as of now the government hasn't done so. The agreement is not be enforced by either party and hopefully the government will put an end to it one day soon. S&W can't make it go away on their own and I'm not holding that against the new ownership/management. If S&W had their way, the agreement would be dissolved.

 

[beemerb]

I like the J frame S&W.I have a old 36 with no dash number.
I allso agree with standing wolf.I will not buy a new smith till the agreement is voided by them.
Bob

 

[10-Ring]

$311 is a pretty good price for a used one, for a new one, I'd jump on it!

 

[AR-10]

I would not buy it because of the agreement issue.

The agreement is not going to go away until Smith and Wesson becomes a squeeky wheel in court. The government can't make it go away until Smith forces them to. It is a two party agreement. One of the parties must petition the courts. Why would the government do that?

Smith has no incentive to go to court as long as we are willing to give them our money.

 

[rock jock]

I've gotten over the boycott business. They are under new management and I know they are trying to get out of the deal the prior ownership/management put them in. I hear some people say that they should renounce the agreement and get out of it. Well, it's not that easy. The agreement has the effect of a court order, that's the way it was set up and for S&W to simply renounce it WILL NOT make it go away. Both parties have to agree to that and as of now the government hasn't done so. The agreement is not be enforced by either party and hopefully the government will put an end to it one day soon. S&W can't make it go away on their own and I'm not holding that against the new ownership/management. If S&W had their way, the agreement would be dissolved.

Yeah, I'm startingto come around to that way of thinking also. I have not purchased a new S&W since 2000 but the new mmgt argument seems to hold some water.

The agreement is not going to go away until Smith and Wesson becomes a squeeky wheel in court. The government can't make it go away until Smith forces them to. It is a two party agreement. One of the parties must petition the courts. Why would the government do that?

AR, do we know for sure that S&W has not tried to do just that and met with some resistance?

 

[AR-10]

Show me a court docket indicating Smith and Wesson has a date with the judge. Anything less is spin control.

They are intwined in a contract that they inherited as part of the assets of the company when they purchased it. A contract between two parties that can only be broken if one of the parties goes to court and convinces a judge that there is a valid reason to terminate that contract without the consent of the other party.

The HUD branch of the government can say "we will not enforce it at this time" (which they have said) all they want. Untill one of the parties goes to court, objects to the legal document they are obliged to uphold, and convinces a judge that there is something substantially wrong with the arrangement, the contract is valid.

Why would the government go to court to do this when it would be bad public relations to do so, and the terms of the contract are not hurting them? Why would Smith NOT do this? Who stands to gain from the money spent and the publicity that would follow? Smith, not the government. Yet they do nothing.

Think about those nice fluff pieces the NRA gave them in American Rifleman. Did either party complain about the unfairness of the contract? The difficulty of having it negated? Not a peep. Just some sunshine blowing about how it was no longer an issue. That is a lie.

Smith and Wesson needs to address this issue in a serious fashion. They have so far failed to do that .

 

[rock jock]

They are intwined in a contract that they inherited as part of the assets of the company when they purchased it. A contract between two parties that can only be broken if one of the parties goes to court and convinces a judge that there is a valid reason to terminate that contract without the consent of the other party.

What valid reason might they show for cause?

 

[alamo]

AR-10 wrote: "Untill one of the parties goes to court, objects to the legal document they are obliged to uphold, and convinces a judge that there is something *substantially wrong* [my emphasis] with the arrangement, the contract is valid."

Therein lies the problem, there is apparently nothing "substantially wrong" with the agreement from a purely LEGAL standpoint. True, it is a completely stupid agreement for S&W from a business standpoint but they (the previous ownership/management) entered into it willingly and they can't get out of it until the government decides to void it also.

 

[AR-10]

My first reaction is to say that how they prove to a judge that the contract they agreed to purchase along with the Smith and Wesson logo should be declared invalid is not my concern. Only that they do it soon.

Can they convince a judge? I don't know. Neither do they. They haven't tried.

You do remember what the contract dictates, don't you?

More expense incurred by shop owners for more extensive record keeping, rigorous storage requirements, yearly training courses for all employees, being held accountable to regional boards of appointed individuals who have the power to pull their FFLs for "infractions".

A percentage of every sale of a Smith and Wesson product to be forwarded to the government to be disbursed to organizations that will use the money for anti-gun advertising and gun control legislation.

The prohibition of sales of any firearms that use a magazine with a capacity greater than ten rounds in a store that sells Smith and Wesson products.

BATF say on how future firearms will be designed for the marketplace.

The little addendum at the bottom that says if anyone else signs a contract with HUD that is more stringent, Smith and Wesson must abide by those requirements as well?

Is any of this going to lower the price of firearms? Will any of it promote free trade or a free market?


I don't care how the contract becomes invalid. The fact is it must. If Smith can't find a way to do it in court, then they must go, before the whole gun industry is affected.

 

[alamo]

Since the agreement will not be enforced as long a Bush is President, I suspect that the government won't formally void it until the very end of W's Presidency when it can be done quietly in 6 years (hopefully not 2 years!).

 

[Mike Irwin]

Given Bob Scott's recent comments in several interviews, it's painfully obviously that Smith & Wesson is doing nothing towards extricating the company from the agreement.

So S&W is again owned by an American company.

Well woo hoo and spiffy whiffy.

From where I sit they don't look, or smell, a lot different than the previous owners.

S&W's action on this issue is really a calculated program of INaction.

Since when should inaction be rewarded?

As near as I can tell, some of the same people who want to reward the "new" S&W for it's inaction and apparent apathy toward your and my rights are the same people who are the first to go absolutely apeshit when they perceive NRA inaction on a rights issue.

Still scratching my head over that...

 

[teombe]

I dunno. S&W has been under new management for what, a year now? I say give the folks some time before casting stones. It is reasonable and customary to allow a company to remove itself from the financial red zone before blowing through their money in court trying to fight an agreement that is for the most part ineffective. At the end of the day, it is still a business, and I don't have the cash to bail them out because they went bankrupt trying to win me back as a customer. Do you?

 

[rock jock]

Well, certainly the "why" is a good question. Obviously S&W has much to gain by having the contract voided. They have admitted themselves that their business has dropped off significantly since the agreement was signed. From a purely business standpoint, it seems that they would want to correct this mistake ASAP. Can you explain why they haven't tried? I don't accept the answer that "it doesn't matter". The only logical answer I can think of is that their lawyers have told them it would be worse for business to fight this now than the loss of revenue from the boycott crowd (which at this point still includes me - I haven't bought a new S&W since early 2000). Now, I don't know why it would be worse. Could be that by fighting the agreement it might draw attention to the fact that it is not being enforced, could be that the long drawn out legal battle might put the company in a financially precarious situation, could be that the lawyers have advised they have no legal leg to stand on. I do think it matters, though. And, without knowing these things, I have a hard time assigning blame to the new mmgt.

 

[chaim]

Um, around here that is what a Taurus 605 would go for. If I could get a S&W 60 for $311 and I had the money available I'd jump on it.

 

[chaim]

Personally, I'll reconsider doing business with Smith & Wesson when...and b.) it resumes selling firearms without integral locks

Hey, I can understand the agreement thing but why would you begrudge MDers the ability to buy guns (any gun without a built in lock made after Jan 1 cannot be sold in this state- S&W is one of the only new guns that will be available).

 

[ruger357]

YES buy it!!!!!!!

 

[Tamara]

You folks may have noticed...

...that this is the "Handguns" forum.

Just up the list, there is a forum called "Legal & Political".

If you wish to discuss the politics and legalities of the Agreement/Boycott, the Legal & Political (surprise) forum would be the place to do so.

 

[rock jock]

Tamara,

Duly noted. I am just as guilty for letting this thread digress into a political debate as anybody.

 

[Redlg155]

I've never seen a NIB Smith Model 60 for that price. Sounds like a great deal.

Good Shooting
RED

 

[Standing Wolf]

Here's a snap shot of my model 60 with Badger stocks and Magnaport refinishing in a bowl of rocks on my kitchen floor.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Let me try this again! I just posted the snap shot to another site, and it went through without a hitch.

 

[telewinz]

Since when does need have anything to do with it? Besides why get a stinless steel. I paid $125 for a used M36 with holster wear and had it parkerized for $30. Been 10 years now and it looks like a new gun.

 

[WESHOOT2]

NO

It's kinda like buying a gun from thieves..........regardless of Forum.