Smith and Wesson the only premium small arms manufacturer in the US?

[Min]

Of US firearms manufacturers that make their products here in this country, I realized that only Smith and Wesson is left. True, Ruger is another, but I would not consider them in the same premium class as Smith and Wesson. Don't get me wrong, Ruger makes some fine firearms, but their products do not reach the legendary status of the Smith and Wesson revolvers. Comparing Ruger to Smith and Wesson is like comparing Glock to HK. The heritage, the mystique, etc still belong to Smith and Wesson.

Other companies, like Browning and Winchester, though with US legacies, are now controlled by foreign interests. And they don't actually manufacture arms any more.

Springfield Armory makes some guns here in the US, but many of their models are contract from Brazil and imported from Croatia.

Colt is another premium arms maker, but the company does not match Smith and Wesson in terms of corporate size and products offered to the CIVILIAN market. Colt makes most of its profit from government/military sales.

Smith and Wesson have turned out some flops - like the Sigma pistols - but their revolvers continue to be the benchmark, and enjoy world renown. And they are ALL made in the USA.

That said, if you want to support the American economy, then the only guns you should buy are those made by Smith and Wesson!

 

[Kenneth Lew]

What about Kimber and Remington?

 

[Schuey2002]

Or Wilson Combat?

 

[Greg L]

Freedom Arms

 

[Min]

Of the two companies suggested - Kimber and Wilson - they are still relatively small. Some of Kimber's guns/frames/components are imported from other countries. Wilson started out as a 1911 tuner. They have expanded to shotguns etc but in my opinion they are still semi-custom, and not a premium manufacturer i.e. they outsource some components.

 

[J Miller]

That said, if you want to support the American economy, then the only guns you should buy are those made by Smith and Wesson!

BUNK!

Using yor criteria, that is the age of the company as a factor to determine wheather or not it is a premium manufacture is faulty.
Quality, quanty, durability, consistancy, inovation, is all part of the criteria that must be considered.
Another criteria is support of our gun rights.

I believe strongly that even though Ruger has stepped in it with the mag ban issue, it hasn't soiled itself near as bad a S&W has.

To support the American economy you should buy from an American owned, American run, American supplied company as much as is possible.
Weather or not it is S&W, or Ruger, or Kimber (I belive S&W makes their frames) or Dan Wesson, or Freedom Arms is not important.
They are all American.

S&W isn't the only game in town.

 

[hanko]

Freedom Arms (another vote), Armalite, Bushmaster, DSArms, the list goes on.

How can you recommend anyone spend money with a gun company that hopped into the bed of Bill & Janet??

Disgusting.

-hanko

 

[Min]

I'm not as hard on Smith and Wesson for that move as some of you guys. It was more of a PR tactic, in my opinion. They wanted to survive. They sought to make a deal with the devil. Okay, so they made a mistake. Their products have transcended to icon status in the American pop culture, however. I say forgive and go on.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Colt is another premium arms maker, but the company does not match Smith and Wesson in terms of corporate size and products offered to the CIVILIAN market.

Colt was a premium arms maker, but to judge by the quality of $1,000+ Pythons I've seen in the past six months, it thinks it's competing with Taurus and Charles Daly.

Smith & Wesson's quality is no higher than Ruger's, and the company hopped into bed with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore régime.

 

[bogie]

Premium small arms?

Methinx you've missed Kelbly's, Viper, Hall, BAT Machine, Farley, etc...

 

[cratz2]

I do believe that if I were to be stuck only shooting Colt's guns, I'd be pretty happy.

An AR15/M4 type gun, their Ultralight bolt guns were decent if a bit overpriced and a selection of my favorite handgun. All that's missing is a shotgun.

Ruger wouldn't be bad either... Not crazy about their pistols but they work. Smaller revolver for carry and tons of rifles and shotguns from which to chose.

I still stand by my statement that CZ is probably the best balanced gun company around. FN is amazing but I'm more in tune with the CZ offerings.

 

[Apple a Day]

American companies?
Pick one
http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/stats/afmer/afmer2001.pdf

 

[BigG]

I agree S&W is the only game in town for a DA revo. Like Cratz2, I would also be happy to stick with my Colt's pistols and rifles if I had to. Luckily, we are not yet on the horns of such a dilemma.

 

[Dave R]

Wow, according to the BATF site that Apple lists:

-Ruger outsold S&W in pistols 2-to-1 last year.
-BRYCO! Sold more pistols than S&W last year.

Ruger even sold more revolvers.

 

[Peetmoss]

MIN

What ever your smokin please share cause it must be good.

 

[hanko]

I'm not as hard on Smith and Wesson for that move as some of you guys. It was more of a PR tactic, in my opinion. They wanted to survive. They sought to make a deal with the devil. Okay, so they made a mistake. Their products have transcended to icon status in the American pop culture, however. I say forgive and go on.

Not a PR tactic, and not a matter of survival; they caved. I hold Glock with their penchant for BF-ing and WmRuger for his hi-cap magazine attitude in the same category. I'll vote with my $$, but you're obviously welcome to do the same with yours.

I'm not sure I'd brag about being an icon in American pop culture. I'd say true icons as far as weapons makers are concerned are Colt and Winchester.

Was your opening post on this thread serious, or a troll??

-hanko

 

[AR-10]

It was more of a PR tactic, in my opinion.

That statement leaves me nearly speachless. Maybe it's the whole internet/thought translation/getting the wrong impression/thing.


Signing the agreement was not a PR tactic.


Signing the agreement was more of a spineless/survive at any cost/ throw our customers to the lions tactic.

Buying the company with the agreement intact, that was a whole other list of sins. The New American Owners need to rectify that.

Ignoring the agreement and pretending it is not the five ton elephant standing in the middle of your living room is a PR tactic.

"Don't look it in the eye, maybe it will leave."

 

[The Rock]

Funniest title today...

The No Prize is in the mail.

Slick and Weasel must die.

That is all.

TR

 

[Zundfolge]

I agree S&W is the only game in town for a DA revo.

*cough* Dan Wesson *cough*

It was more of a PR tactic, in my opinion.

Have you actually read the agreement?

If so, go re-read it ... it was designed to use S&W's position as a leader in the industry to force other companies into the agreement too (thankfully the Clintons have no idea how the free market works).

 

[TechBrute]

Good god... there is so much wrong with your first post, I don't even know where to start, except to say "puff and pass, dude, puff and pass".

 

[rebbryan]

isn't springfield still American

 

[Gewehr98]

Looks like Marlin, Remington, and Winchester were pretty darned busy, too!

What, they're not American?

 

[Tamara]

...STI, Les Baer, Caspian...

 

[John G]

Don't feed the trolls, folks.

 

[rebbryan]

i like trolls, with their cute little hair you style it anywhere!