Guns blazing: Polished image boosts 'new' Smith & Wesson

Phoenix Business Journal ^ | 3-1-02 | Eileen Brill Wagner

[SJackson]

The company is in ongoing discussions about moving to Arizona, which Saltz said, "makes a lot of sense from a labor-cost standpoint."

A lot of irony here. I remember S&Ws employees being pleased about the buyout, in fact I think one even posted about giving the company another chance for the sake of the employees. Guess they lose their jobs anyway.

Does anyone know the status to their government agreement?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

They HAVE NOT renounced the agreement with the Clintons. S&W can move to the moon.

[SJackson]

They HAVE NOT renounced the agreement with the Clintons. S&W can move to the moon.

That's what I assumed, never having read about it.

[glc1173@aol.com]

"The Sept. 11 terrorist attack did create a surge in sales for October, but that was not what has sustained them, Saltz said." (Phoenix Business Journal)

9/11 cannot save S&W's butt - as the panic buyers it produced are almost all one-gun-one-time buyers who will not produce continuing business for the gun industry.

Think Ford could survive if the car industry had been an industry of one-car-one-time buyers, very few of whom would ever "get into cars" - and Ford was facing a continuing boycott from its mainstream repeat buyers?

Add to that problem the fact that those panic buys now have the gun market near saturated - if it wasn't already. Future 9/11s aren't likely to find potential first-time-only-time buyers to push into gun ownership for gunmakers.

GUN REVIEWS free from ad-money bias - with emphasis on woman-friendliness of tested guns!

[Publius6961]

It was a name the powerful gun lobby had perceived as tarnished by the company's willingness to capitulate to anti-gun sentiment in the face of a slew of lawsuits.
That raises the question: what, clearly and briefly, is the status tof the coerced agreement that caused S&W's downfall in the first place?
Is it null and void?
Does it affect the new company in any way?

The company is in ongoing discussions about moving to Arizona, which Saltz said, "makes a lot of sense from a labor-cost standpoint."

Makes a lot of sense from the PC-hostile environment too, which in the long run is more important to the company's survival.
If it capitulates to the gun grabbers again, Smith and Wesson is toast.

[Redbob]

"...some of the people have worked in the plant for generations, and it might be difficult to replicate their level of expertise."

I knew those Connecticut Yankees were clever folks, but I never suspected they did it by inheriting their "expertise."
How DO they do that?

[Destructor]

I'm still not buying it! They're still the same traitorous bastards that they were before!!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Agree. No new Smith till the old S&W is exorcised.

[Destructor]

""It seems that the gun industry has had considerable success in the past year, and a number of lawsuits have been dismissed," said Dan Larson, a partner with Phoenix law firm Gammage & Burnham PLC, which is involved with Smith & Wesson's securities and transactional work."

Yeah, the Gun Industry has had considerable success- in spite of the Smith & Wesson deal with Clinton!

[Kermit]

"Less than a year after Saf-T-Hammer acquired firearms giant Smith & Wesson, ...

When Saf-T-Hammer purchased the company in May 2001 from the British conglomerate Tomkins PLC for $15 million,..."

How can $15 million be called a giant? That's half of Rush Limbaugh's annual contract.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I think the $15 million was spread over several years. Could be Tomkins won't see the whole 15 mill.

[gnarledmaw]

Same agreement still in full force and present management has made absolutely no effort to get out of it. Vin Supryowicz had an interesting article about it in his last newsletter. Bob Scott went to great lengths to attempt to weasel out of answering Vins direct questions and admitted that everything is still in effect. Bob then went on to insinuate that anyone who doesnt buy from S&W must be spending their money on tinfoil.

Ill try to bring it in and post it tomorrow...

[Shooter 2.5]

It was my understanding that the agreement with the federal govenment died with the clinton administration. Smith and Wesson still is being sued by various counties and cities. I think all the suits have been thrown out of court with the exception of Chicago.

The CEO who made the deal was thrown out of his job, the company sold for the same amount that they made last year and you people are still angry at the employees as if they loved the idea of being sued by the Federal Government.

That makes a lot of sense. < sarcasm >

[William Tell]

Shooter 2.5 said: "It was my understanding that the agreement with the federal govenment died with the clinton administration. Smith and Wesson still is being sued by various counties and cities. I think all the suits have been thrown out of court with the exception of Chicago."

S&W got themselves into this mess and they will have to get themselves out. I need to hear that they adamantly refuse to put restrictions on their dealers who are otherwise obeying the law. We are having trouble enough with unConstitutional gun laws, we can't afford to have coerced companies saddling us with even more infringements.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I think you're on to something.

[Shooter 2.5]

"we can't afford to have coerced companies saddling us with even more infringements."

That coerced company doesn't exist anymore. It's under new management that by contract can't get out from this agreement.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

If they bought the assets of the company they can do anything they want...including getting out of any agreements to buy parts, pay wages, use the name or otherwise. A Justice Dept. agreement with the previous owner wouldn't necessarily be binding on the new owners. I think Safe T Hammer is talking out of both sides of their mouth.

[Doomonyou]

I bought this S & W 686+ just months before they kissed Klintons ass. I contemplated gettig rid of it, but it's too nice a gun!

[Charles Martel]

A Justice Dept. agreement with the previous owner wouldn't necessarily be binding on the new owners. I think Safe T Hammer is talking out of both sides of their mouth.

In this case, I'd be inclined to think that as long as the corporation is intact, so is the agreement. The "sale" to Saf-T-Hammer smells a corporate maneuver by Tompkins, as part of an effort to re-cast the company as "American owned". Nice try, fellas... but you can't polish a turd.