Replies

Been following Smith for quite some time. They always seem to have these ups and downs. Their bacon was saved in the late 1800’s by big orders from Russia. They did OK in the heyday of the revolver, the 20’s and 30’s, but were in bad shape following WWII despite producing a ton of Victory models. Carl Helstrom got them back into shape in the 50’s and 60’s, but things got sketchy once again (particularly in quality) during the Bangor Punta days. Then the fiasco with British ownership and the Clinton deal nearly killed them off.

A couple observations. They make too many products. I’ve never met anyone who can remember the number designations for all the 2nd and 3rd generation autos. Their record with long guns is abysmal, rifles from Howa, pump and auto shotguns, and their recently made Turkish double guns. Their A-15 line is good, but as with their 1911’s, they were jumping on a bandwagon that was already well down the road. Crowded fields, and they can’t compete in price with some makers, or quality with the Les Baers. So they’re stuck in the middle.

They always seem to be a bit late to the party, as with the polymer guns. The M&P is OK but the Sigma stunk on ice. The new bodyguards are “me too” with Keltec and Ruger for the small .380 and the plastic revolver.

Their limited run guns, especially from the Performance Shop are very good, but pricey. They are more “collectibles” than working guns. They seem to make a big splash with innovative items, such as the 329PD lightweight .44, the 500 and 460 Magnums, but these are not items that sell in quantity. Their J frames have sold well in the past year or two, but so has everything that goes bang. Even in a steel frame, these are not “fun guns”.

Smith needs to find itself, and not just try to reinvigorate a moribund and scattered business model by mergers and acquisitions. All that usually does is kill the entity being acquired.