TSA handgun contract draws ire of firearms makers.

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

[Atlas Sneezed]

Dan Wesson is a different company from S&W. My understanding is that they are comparable to those of the best days of S&W.

[Poohbah]

Nowhere did a JUDGE say that.

S&W said that.

HUD said "we just won't enforce it right now." They have NOT said "we're throwing it out."

Boston decided to drop its suits because the other players were saying "millions for defense, not one penny for tribute," and S&W asked Boston for the same treatment, and BOSTON agreed to do so.

No judge issued a ruling.

This ain't over yet, not by a long shot.

[Dead Corpse]

Different owners now. The "offenders", as you put it, went back to Britain where they belong. Why continue to punish them when those who did the deed are no longer there?

[frostbit]

Stock revolvers have longer and heavier trigger pulls than a Glock by a considerable margin. That actually does make a big difference. Sorry, but the Glock is less forgiving of carelessness than most other action types...Why Glockophiles always feel the need to deny the obvious...
______


Wasn't aware I was a 'Glockophile.' I'm required to teach the safe and effective use of firearms, whatever we are issued, which (until recently) included revolvers. I would argue that a shooter predisposed to 'oops' the trigger on a Glock would be just as likely to 'oops' a revolver.

I agree with your physics-based assessment of the trigger system. The post I responded to, however, was on the issue of the installed safeties on a Glock. Again, anyone that pulls the trigger on ANY weapon should expect it to fire, regardless of how far the trigger has to travel to do so.

I am neither pro nor con on individual weapon types. As you said, each has it's own unique handling characteristics, and I instruct accordingly. But taking your argument to the logical conclusion, a gun with a 100 pound trigger (or one that won't fire at all) is much, much, safer. Why not issue those?

Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight - I agree with your basic premise. My only point here is that the weapons are designed to FIRE when needed. The trend has been to design weapons that are hard to get operational under stress, and holsters that are impossible to draw the gun out of. It seems to be an easy solution for departments because it is an equipment based solution to the AD (Oops - 'Negligent discharge', sorry..) and weapon retention problem, and not a training solution which is much more difficult to weigh and measure.

How much is enough? How far to you go to protect the shooter from his/her own inadequacies?

[Atlas Sneezed]

My post to which you reply has the answer to your question.

[caltrop]

I agree with you. Even if they had repudiated the agreement, there are plenty of maufacturers who stood up to the government and deserve my business. I won't own an S&W and I won't buy any of the gear they sell either.

[flashbunny]

Wrong. They got out of the boston agreement. Their take on the HUD agreement, but their take on it is that 'there is a republican in office now so it will just go away'. Nothing goes away with the government. Unless it is struck down, president hillary can resurrect it at will. S&W tries to spin this, but the truth still is that the worst agreement, the HUD agreement, still is legally binding.

[Dead Corpse]

All this has already been hashed out elsewhere on the Web.

Like over here. Legally speaking, the HUD and Boston agreements are dead as the time sensitive portions, and those relating to now defunct lawsuites as stated in the pfd I linked to, are now past with neither side taking action on the contract.

[flashbunny]

The new owners bought the company, and the agreement. See the post above this. Boston agreement is dead, this one is in a coma. S&W has chosen to do a 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' on this, thinking that if they ignore it and use their PR people to spin it, it will go away. It won't. It's still a dangerous and odious agreement. I will not reward a company with my money that is still bound by such an agreement, and tries to lie about it to the gun buying public.

[Shooter 2.5]

I am so tired of hearing about this Smith and Wesson stuff. Who here thinks that S&W actively wanted to be sued? It's the same as if someone broke into your house and demanded money. Did the former owners handle it badly? Yes, they're aren't heroes by any means. Now there is a group of new owners who had nothing to do with the old agreement. They bought the company at bargain basement prices and I'm sure they would rather the old agreement went away.

It's the governemt that should bury the agreement. I wonder how many people have written their reps to dissolve the agreement. Honestly, I haven't and should.

[heckler]

Excellent idea, couldnt agree more.

[harpseal]

Berettas are manufactured in Maryland.

[Space Wrangler]

the HUD agreement, still is legally binding.

I there take is more along the lines of "there's a republican in office now, and if even if someone else takes it up, we will we argue in court that we aren't responsible for it". It does our cause no good at all to try and run a company out of business for the sins of it's former owners. The gun industry learned a valuable lesson out of all this. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

.460 Roland ? Now you've made me reach for my Blue Book of Gun Values...
Isn't this a long gun cartridge ?

[Dead Corpse]

Another article with some more particulars.

I do agree though that the original company that signed the agreements with the Klinton administration, Tompkins plc (whatever the heck they make....), should remain under boycott.

[novacation]

Swith and Wesson makes great revolvers. Just because they were trying to save their business by making a deal with Clinton is no reason to boycott S&W.

[Space Wrangler]

The former owners did more than handle it badly. They turned traitor against the American gun buying public, or better known to them as their customers. The AZ company bouth S&W for a song, and is now trying to rehabilitate the image. I know some will forever be burned on S&W, but I see no reason not to support the company. As Flashbunny pointed out, they are still legally bound by the HUD agreement, but have vowed to fight it if it's ever brought up again. I don't have a problem with that, and I feel content to sit back and watch what they do if and when the HUD agreement ever comes back. The years they will have spent bringing S&W back into the fold amongst the gun buying public can be erased in a day if they make the wrong move regarding the HUD agreement, and likewise, the same can be said for ANY other gun maker out there. I'll give S&W another chance. I see no good at all in the company ceasing to exist.

[crazykatz]

They belonged to my late dad. He loved them and so does my husband. Sentiment, I guess. But, they could get the job done if needed.

We also several blackpowder weapons that date to to the American Revolution. They are on loan to two American museums. I am leaving them to them in my will. They just don't know it yet. :^ )

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I have to agree. I'm the owner of several S&W revolvers and find nothing else as smooth (mod 17, mod 34 in .22 and a five shot revolver in .38).
I also have a .357 Colt Python and while the blueing still looks a quarter inch deep and accuracy is tops, it doesn't have that S&W feel.

[NYFriend]

Smith makes at least two pistols that meet most of the criteria named in the article. They have a Sigma line and a Walther P99 clone that both are hammerless and have 10 round magazine capacities. I honest don't know how many coils are in the magazine springs, but that can be solved with a contract only magazine , call it the Sigma Model whatever Mod 1.

If I were an air marshal I'd like a hammerless revolver in .38+p or .357. You can shoot one in your pocket without the hammer or slide being fouled by the clothing. I know glazer's, which I assume they carry, are supposed to feed through a automatic, but a revolver hardly ever fails to fire. I know the marshals are supposed ot go through these complicated training senarios, and that's great. I sure do want them trained and prepared to engage multiple terrorists who are shielded by hostages. BUT, the most likely senario's can probably best be solved by sitting there in the seat until the bad guy walks past you and shooting him in the back. Not very John Wayne, but when you look at hostage senarios, especially with one or two bad guys per incident or per room, an armed hostage usually would have an oportunity to shoot one of the bad guys in the back. For that, give me a hammerless snubnose .38.