TSA handgun contract draws ire of firearms makers.

GovExec.com ^ | July 16,2003 | Richard H.P, Sia

[heckler]

Through a series of missteps, the Transportation Security Administration has run afoul of the world's leading gun manufacturers in an attempt to award a three-year, $5 million contract for the semiautomatic handguns it plans to give commercial airline pilots to defend their cockpits.

The agency drew the heaviest fire after it appeared to bow to pressure from the office of Rep. J. D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., to drop a possible deal with the Austrian gunmaker Glock and focus instead on buying guns from venerable Smith & Wesson, an American-owned firm based in Hayworth's district.

[flashbunny]

I don't know the exact details of the buy-out, but Saf-T-Hammer could have ditched the HUD agreement by simply buying the assets of S&W piece by piece.

That's correct --- and that's one reason I wouldn't mind S&W going bankrupt. Someone would be able to buy the patents, designs, and machinery used to make the guns without being burdened by the agreement. The agreement would die, the guns would live on.

This is also the one fact that renders the "we can't lose another gun maker" point moot. Any void left by S&W's demise would be filled, one way or another.

[spunkets]

"deputized as federal law enforcement officers after their training"

Thanks. That makes sense. Then folks like Chicago's king richard can't hassle them.

[tortoise]

I don't believe "fell short" is quite accurate. My understanding is that Glock did not compete in either of the two M-9 trials because they did not meet the specification issued by the procuring agency, specifically the requirement for a manual safety lever independent of the trigger, and that Glock refused to modify his guns to meet that requirement.

Glock did not enter the trials because of production and legal issues specified in the contract if they won. It had nothing to do with the design. Nonetheless, some small early trials did highlight a number of design deficiencies in early production models. These problems have long since been dealt with to some extent or another, and the current versions are pretty good.

I carry Glocks and own Glocks, but the Glock legend is a bit larger than reality. They are nice pistols, particularly with the all the engineering changes over the years, but they probably wouldn't be my first choice as a serious combat weapon. Glock essentially represents a very nice mix-n-match of ideas taken from other companies and integrated into one platform, with a stiff dose of savvy marketing on top.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Today's Colt isn't the old Colt. Sames with Winchester and several others...

[Dead Corpse]

And if we continue the boycott until the company is dead, future prospective buyers of/investors in sell-out companies will know that they will lose all of their investment, and thus the sell-outs will not even get 50 cents on the dollar.

Then Bankrupt Tomkins plc. They are the ones that signed the agreement. As it stands, unless you have completely FAILED to read any of the links I posted, S&W is in the clear on both of them.

[epow]

The agreement is STILL there, awaiting a liberal Democrat in the Oval Office to bring it back to life.

Even so, how can you blame the new owners for what the old owners did? If a future Dem administration decides to enforce the old agreement, that would not be the fault of the new owners. As far as I am concerned the new S&W is an entirely different company than the one which surrendered to the Clinton scum.

I wouldn't have bought a Smith while it was owned by the UK company. I will now buy from S&W if I happen to need something it makes. The first centerfire handgun I owned was a GI surplus S&W 1917 .45acp revolver I bought in 1961. I have several other Smith revolvers which I have owned for many years. There has never been a finer sidearm made than the K and N frame Smiths IMHO, and I don't see any point in punishing myself or the new owners for something neither of us had any part in doing.

[Poohbah]

Even so, how can you blame the new owners for what the old owners did?

They gave aid and comfort to the old owners.

The industry needs to know that giving aid and comfort to the gun-grabbers means that the company goes to Chapter 11, not that they can end the boycott just by cashing out.

[epow]

. S&W tries to spin this, but the truth still is that the worst agreement, the HUD agreement, still is legally binding.

SO FREAKIN WHAT??? Why should we punish the new ownership just because the old owners were cowardly fools? And don't refer me to Beezlebub's posts, his reasoning makes no sense either.

There is no sensible reason not to buy from S&W unless you just have a hard on for the brand name. I know some shooters who do, just like some Ford people hate Chevy no matter what, and vice versa. I suspect the people who are still advocating a boycott are locked into that same kind of mindset.

If the new owners make some stupid new deal with the devil, then I'll help you guys boycott them out of business. But not until then.

[El Gato]

Why not just either require the pilots to supply their own firearms, or give them an allowance and let them buy and pick what they want. Maybe specify a few choices of calibration. I.E. Anything they want in .38 spl, .357, .44 spl, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. Or any other .38 or larger centerfire catridge available commercially with whatever style of loading (ie. low velocity fragmenting bullet) that TSA will "allow". Save a lot of paperwork that way, and not PO any manufacturer.

[El Gato]

Unless you are 7 feet tall, the only way to carry the SOCOM is in a thigh holster, which is hardly concealed, or accesable to a seated pilot.

As I understand it, they won't be carrying them in holsters anyway. So big and slow is the way to go, especially on an aircraft.

[flashbunny]

SO FREAKIN WHAT??? Why should we punish the new ownership just because the old owners were cowardly fools? And don't refer me to Beezlebub's posts, his reasoning makes no sense either.

Why? Because the 2nd amendment is more important than any gun maker - foreign or domestic. Because I don't like a company tinkling on my back and telling me it's raining. Because the agreement - if you've actually bother to read the whole thing - and I have, several times - is a horrible intrusion on our rights - through the back door, without going through the legislative process.

So what's the good part here? The agreement itself? That it's still legally binding? Or that S&W is lying to gun buyers and using weasel language to insinuate that the agreement is dead when it's just sleeping?

All of the above are true. You can't disprove them. So tell me what is positive about it.

I've had countless debates over this with die hard S&W supporters, and their case completely lacks logic. When confronted with the facts, it basically boils down to "I really want to buy their guns, so I will". I would actually appreciate the honesty if they just came out and said that. But I despise people making up facts or using faulty logic just because they're too cowardly to admit to their own true motivations.

[epow]

The industry needs to know that giving aid and comfort to the gun-grabbers means that the company goes to Chapter 11, not that they can end the boycott just by cashing out.

Thompkins was buying red ink by the barrel before it sold the company, and it took a major bath when it did sell. Why would any other firearms maker want to get itself into a situation like that? I don't believe any manufacturer will ever make that mistake again after seeing what happened to Thompkins.

I generally respect your opinions based on several years of reading them here, but I happen to think you're off base on this one.

[Poohbah]

Thompkins was buying red ink by the barrel before it sold the company, and it took a major bath when it did sell.

Not enough of one.

Why would any other firearms maker want to get itself into a situation like that?

Why is S&W leaving itself open to get into a situation like that?

[jmq]

Got one last saturday....factory loads @ $3.50 per. Makes my Desert Eagle 50 feel like a ladies gun. KABOOM!

[El Gato]

read "pilots" not "air marshalls"; my error.,

Actually you were nearly correct the first time, although "pilots" is also correct. The pilots who undergo the training become federal flight deck officers, IOW, agents of the TSA, albeit "reserve" officers. We can't have mere civilians (even if they are also reserve military officers) having guns you know. Only federal agents can possibly be allowed to have them </bitterness

[Trailerpark Badass]

A really good example of a police pistol is the Glock, which WAS specifically engineered as a police pistol to the specs of a police contract.

The Glock was developed to compete for a contract from the Austrian army. Says so on their website.

[Shooter 2.5]

Have you had any problems with it whatsoever and how many shots were fired?

Anything?

Even something you thought you had done?

[Petruchio]

Personally, I will not buy anything made by S&W. Biggest reason is that they make nothing I would want. I will admitt to owning one, but it was a gift and was made in the late 60's.

[epow]

if you've actually bother to read the whole thing - and I have, several times - is a horrible intrusion on our rights - through the back door, without going through the legislative process.

I've read it and it's just as bad as you say it is. But I still don't see what connection it has to the new owners. They disowned the entire mess Thompkins made of S&W. If they had thought there was any chance the agreement would have to be honored they would never have bought the company to begin with. Unless they are morons that is.

Or that S&W is lying to gun buyers and using weasel language to insinuate that the agreement is dead when it's just sleeping?

I don't see anything in the interview the new owner gave to American Rifleman that I would consider a lie. The guy said what I assumed he was told by his lawyers, and I'll take him at his word that he believes what he said about the agreement. If he was wrong that just makes him wrong, not a liar. Like I said before, if the new guys screw up I will be first in line to call for a boycott, but so far I don't see that having happened. But I admit I haven't kept up with that situation lately as well as I should. I've been a little taken up with my cardiologist for the past few months.

But I despise people making up facts or using faulty logic just because they're too cowardly to admit to their own true motivations

If you know more about it than has been shown so far, lay it on the table instead of calling people like me liars and cowards. I began fighting the antis with my time, my money, and my shoeleather back when the '68 GCA was being debated. I have spent considerable time, sweat, and money fighting the good fight for our gun rights for the last 35 years, so don't call me a liar or a coward unless you want to come out to my place and say it to my face.

In any case, I seriously doubt I'll ever buy another Smith or any other handgun. I'm 66 and I have far more guns than I need now, including a number of nice old Smiths. But if I do decide to buy one for some reason I will do it with a clear conscience unless something more comes to light about the deal than I know now.

[jmq]

The balance is very front heavy. The kick is similar to full load 44 mag. I'm getting some sights. Bought for 1K.