CNBC:

I haven’t seen any of those “aggressive promotions” in my area.  The S&W revolvers, M&Ps and other guns are the same as they’ve always been.  And anything from the performance shop at S&W will be very pricey.  I have a E series 1911 and S&W .357 magnum R8 revolver, both from the performance shop, both very nice, but both very expensive.

For some reason S&W feels that they need to expand their product line to include whatever is produced by Battenfeld Technologies rather than either (a) become more competitive with the prices of those they already produce, or (b) move to another location where they don’t have the high cost of union labor.

Since Colt dropped out of eyesight and off of the consumer map by focusing all of their energies on military contracts for the M4 (which has now dried up) and letting their revolver program perish, the reputation is that if you want a good revolver, you buy S&W.  My two S&W revolvers are very good.  But Ruger has laid the smack down and taunted S&W with its Ruger GP100.  I have held this weapon, although not shot it, and it balances nicely and its trigger action is smooth.  It will prove to be a worthy competitor to any .357 magnum / .38 Smith wheel gun.

S&W is probably relying on becoming the supplier of choice for the new U.S. military pistol.

For gun manufacturers, no customer rivals the Pentagon for prestige and revenue potential. That’s why, after years of anticipation, firearm makers are mobilizing for the U.S. Army’s imminent competition to replace the Beretta M9 pistol, the American soldier’s standard sidearm since 1985.

The procurement process for several hundred thousand new pistols formally begins in January and is expected to last about two years. Based on more than 15 years of reporting on the gun business, I’d identify the early favorites as a much-improved Smith & Wesson (SWHC), which enjoys a made-in-the-USA marketing edge, and the formidable Glock of Austria.

For a second opinion, I asked longtime industry consultant and former National Rifle Association organizer Richard Feldman for some snap handicapping. “Beretta starts with a 30-year history of supplying the Army, and that counts for something,” said Feldman, now the president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association, an advocacy group based in Rindge, N.H. “S&W, which lost a lot of police and civilian business to Glock in the 1980s and 1990s, has transformed itself into a modern firearm manufacturing enterprise with much better quality than in the past. Glock, barely in existence the last time this contract was up, is undeniably a powerful contender.”

S&W is fielding a ported version of their M&P .45 (if I am not mistaken), and it would suit me just fine if they won the contract.  My son Daniel (a SAW gunner) thought his Beretta was a piece of crap and the 9mm an underpowered cartridge.  He never used it, and even in combat he avoided actually needing it.  I have never liked the boxy design of the Glock or the slant of it’s frame.  But oh, my friends at S&W, watch it.

As I have said before, “To S&W, I say again like I have to every gun manufacturer.  Don’t even start down the path of relying on government contracts to keep your company solvent.  It’s like shooting heroin once.  Just say no.  Just don’t do it.”  It never works out quite like you intend.  The Marines want a version of the Colt 1911, Cerakote flat dark earth with a tactical rail, if sold on the open market to the civilian population, worth less than what the Marines are paying for it (it has night sights, a tactical rail and Cerakote finish – my S&W E Series 1911 has Melonite coating, a tactical rail, and Trijicon night sights, and sells for less than what the Colt 1911 sells for to the public).  The Army will prove to be finicky and fussy, and the orders won’t stack up to as many as you had bargained for.  The phase-in will be slower than you wanted, and the demand that it does place on your production capabilities will change forever your attention, programs and dedication to QA for other customers.

I’ve had my run-ins with S&W before, but I’ve been kind and understanding to a company that – I admit – I really love.  But S&W’s commitment to stay in labor union territory and a badly anti-gun state, flirt with law enforcement contracts to the exclusion of custumer rights, and now to chase after military contracts and buy out companies in strange moves that I cannot discern or understand, makes this all very troublesome for me.

It’s probably an exaggeration to say at the present that Smith & Wesson is going to go under.  I say this thankfully because I would regret a world without S&W.  But it doesn’t speak well of the current state of the company strategy to buy out other manufacturers to expand your line from your core business, to do so while sustaining higher debt, and to continue to ensconce themselves in an anti-gun, pro-union state.

The way to make money is to be a proud craftsman at your work for a competitive price, be loyal to your base, and respect their rights and their choices.  Why is this so hard to understand, and why do some U.S. gun manufacturers have so much trouble stepping up to the plate to show themselves worthy of the title?

I ran across this fairly informative podcast late last week.  If you want to listen to it I encourage you to do so.  It is just short of twenty minutes.  If not, I will summarize for you.

The law passed several years ago in California forced all new firearms to be microstamped with laser etching right at the time of firing, with spent cartridge casings showing the serial number of the firearm used – ridiculous technology that no professional engineer would seal (this is my judgment, not that of the podcast).  It would be too expensive, it wouldn’t last, and it would be subject to removal by anyone.

The law stipulated that the law becomes effective when the attorney general deems that the technology exists.  The attorney general of California is a liar because she deems the technology to exist even though it doesn’t.  Therefore, all new firearms sold in California must include this technology which doesn’t exist.

Here is the operative phrase: new firearm.  Gun makers can continue to sell existing firearms if they have previously been approved by California, including the silly limited capacity magazine.  But because a new firearms is defined as any firearm that has had any change at all made (part tolerance, alloy specification, gun color, etc.), and because even small changes routinely made by manufacturers would be included in that list and necessarily involve approval which included microstamping (which doesn’t exist), gun manufacturers are no longer selling guns in California.

We’ve discussed this before in slightly less detail, and noted that Smith & Wesson will continue to sell to law enforcement (or at least, they won’t commit to me that they won’t), thus providing weapons to LEOs that other citizens can’t have.

You can let Smith & Wesson know how you feel about this.  I have.  At the same time, remind them that it is way past time to remove themselves from the communist state in which they are ensconced and come South like most other gun manufacturers.

Their customer base is watching – carefully.

Ms. Elizabeth Sharp, VP of Investor Relations (Lsharp@smith-wesson.com)

In Smith & Wesson Rejects Microstamping, we covered and commented on the fact that Smith & Wesson will be removing many of its semi-automatic model firearms from the market in California due to the recent gun law, specifically citing microstamping as one of the barriers to compliance.

I applauded their move, as Californians must live with the government they have helped to create.  Elections have consequences, and if Californians cannot change California, or at least persuade the state to leave their firearms alone, then it is time to move from California to a free state.

But it isn’t that simple, I said.  It never is.  Smith & Wesson stated that they were pulling many of their models from the market.  What they did not say is that they will not be distributing those specific firearms to law enforcement in California.  After all, for Smith & Wesson to sell firearms to law enforcement that the citizenry cannot have is obscene.

I have contacted the individual on the press release, Matt Rice (matt@blueheroncomm.com), multiple times concerning this question, and he has forwarded me to Ms. Elizabeth Sharp, VP of Investor Relations (Lsharp@smith-wesson.com).  Smith & Wesson has had adequate time to assess and provide a response to my question, or at least inform me that they need additional time (I did pose that question too).  Thus far, Smith & Wesson has summarily ignored my overtures.

By now it has become common knowledge that Smith & Wesson has rejected microstamping and will revise they way they distribute in California.  The author of the bill has called their position baloney.

Feuer is the one whose position is baloney.  It would be a profoundly bad idea for any gun maker to engage in such a practice.  First of all, if a manufacturer ever crafts guns that are microstamped, the entire gun community would know within a day what firearm it is, and would never expend the effort necessary to ascertain whether the specific gun they want to purchase has been microstamped.  Sales of used firearms of that make would plummet and the value of the gun would go to about zero.  Second, the gun community would within short order let that manufacturer know exactly where we stand.  Smith & Wesson has been there and done that.  They won’t be going back.

But it isn’t that simple.  Read some of Smith & Wesson’s statement.

Smith & Wesson Corp. announced today that although it continually seeks ways to refine and improve its firearms so that consumers have access to the best possible products, the State of California is making that impossible when it comes to California residents.

Under California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” any new semi-automatic pistol introduced into that state must comply with microstamping laws. In addition, California asserts that anything other than a cosmetic change to a handgun already on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, including performance enhancements and other improvements, requires it to be removed from the roster and retested. For semi-automatic pistols, this means it must comply with the microstamping requirements, as well.

Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms. A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes. The microstamping mandate and the company’s unwillingness to adopt this so-called technology will result in a diminishing number of Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistols available for purchase by California residents.

This is not a problem unique to Smith & Wesson. The microstamping legislation and California’s position regarding performance enhancements and other improvements creates the same challenge for all firearm manufacturers, since presumably all of them refine and improve their products over time.

Smith & Wesson currently produces a California-compliant version of its M&P® Shield and SDVE™ pistols. Both of these new products were launched last week at SHOT Show® in Las Vegas and are expected to begin shipping within 90 days. They are expected to more than offset the impact of those M&P pistol models that will not remain on the Roster. Both the M&P Shield and the SDVE pistols are expected to remain on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale as long as no changes are made to those models and the company does not plan to make changes to them for this reason. All other Smith & Wesson handguns are at risk of eventually falling off the roster over time. The company expects that any current production revolvers that fall off will be re-tested and returned to the roster, since microstamping does not apply to revolvers. Without some change in position by California, however, any semi-automatic pistols (other than the California-compliant models referenced above) that are removed from the roster will not be returned and law-abiding citizens will not be permitted to buy them from a licensed dealer in California.

Absent in this statement is what Smith & Wesson will do about sales to law enforcement of M&P models and any other model that interests LEOs.  Law enforcement is specifically exempted from any microstamping requirements.  It would be an abominble and obscene position to sell to law enforcement what the common citizens cannot legally have.

I have sent a note to Matt Rice for clarification.  I’ll keep readers informed on what Smith & Wesson says about this issue.

News from what was once the land of liberty, the home of the venerable John Adams, who along with Abigail fomented a revolution against the tyrant.

State lawmakers looking to balance safety with the rights of gun owners and the state’s burgeoning gun industry spent Friday listening to folks from both sides of the issue.

Michael J. Ball is a Marine Corps veteran and head of the student shooting club at the University of Massachusetts. He said everyone wants safety, and gun owners are willing to work to make sure the mentally ill and criminal can’t get their hands on firearms.

“I think there is common ground,” Ball said.

The hearing, held at the American International College’s Griswold Theatre, is the latest in a series of public forums on a number of proposed changes to the state’s gun laws. Proposals include requiring gun owners to buy insurance, limiting magazines to seven rounds, down from 10, and limiting gun buyers to just one gun purchase in 30 days.

Massachusetts legislators filed 60 pieces of legislation in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting. This legislative committee’s job is to whittle that down to a package of workable laws, probably by fall.

About 150 Smith & Wesson employees had lined up outside the theater for seats nearly an hour before the forum began. The venue seats 500.

William Innocent, of South Hadley, whose grandson Sheldon Innocent was gunned down in a Springfield barbershop in 2011, called for the state to search for a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and away from the mentally ill or suicidal. The shooter, an escaped inmate, was trying to kill someone else out of revenge.

“I just hope we all, gun owners and non-gun owners, can work together to stop gun violence,” Innocent told the packed auditorium.

[ … ]

On Thursday Smith & Wesson president and CEO James Debney told The Republican the company wanted to ensure its voice — and the voices of its 1,500 employees — were heard at the forum.

In remarks to the panel Friday morning, Debney described Smith & Wesson as “… an industry leader that is committed to safety,” selling only through federally licensed dealers and including a lock with each firearm. Citing the company’s large number of employees, Debney said the company hopes to remain in the city for a long time.

Founded in Springfield in 1852, Smith & Wesson has more than 1,600 employees, including 1,500 production workers at its sprawling firearms plant on Roosevelt Avenue. The company has a $77.5 million annual payroll.

In terms of any new gun regulations, Debney asked the state not to infringe on residents’ Second Amendment rights. Instead, the executive suggested that Massachusetts report mental health data to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Massachusetts requires the collection of mental health records for an in-state database, but does not require those records to be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Other Smith & Wesson employees also spoke against laws that could erode gun owners’ rights. David Findlay, of Athol, an engineer for the company, said, “The real issue is how we deal with mental health in this country.”

A revolver assembly worker for the company told the panel that he makes objects that either function or fail. “Violence is from the heart,” he said, making the argument that only people can be blamed for gun violence.

Springfield Mayor Domenic J. Sarno called for limits on magazine capacity, but prefaced the request with a nod to Smith & Wesson. “They are a responsible employer,” Sarno said of the company. “They are a good corporate citizen.”

“No one is looking to take away anybody’s Second Amendment rights,” Sarno said.

And another state lawmaker said the same thing: “One thing we want to stress,  it’s no one’s intent to step on anyone’s 2nd Amendment Rights,” said State Representative Harold Naughton.

Debney also said in his prepared remarks that:

“Massachusetts is our home,” said Debney at the company’s sprawling Roosevelt Avenue factory. “All you have to do is look behind you at the hundreds of (computer numerically controlled ) milling machines. They are not going anywhere.”

Earlier this year, Texas Gov. Rick Perry specifically lobbied gunmakers in Connecticut and New York state to relocate to Texas. Debney said he gets numerous solicitations form states all over the union.

“We are not listening,” he said. “It all happens here.”

But Debney acknowledged that any firearm restrictions would further cement Massachusetts’ reputation as an “anti-gun” state. There could be a consumer backlash against Smith & Wesson similar to the hate which flowed from gun owners after Smith & Wesson cooperated with Clinton-era gun restrictions.

“It almost took down the company,” he said. “We won’t make that mistake again. At the end of the day, shooting is a passionate sport.”

First of all, a quick note to Sarno and Naughton.  Stepping on second amendment rights is exactly what you intend to do, and you’re both liars.  As for Debney, his issues are more complicated.

He has his feet in two worlds.  He makes it clear that S&W is staying put.  They are in Massachusetts to stay, says he.  On the other hand, S&W won’t make the same mistake again.  Of course, the mistake to which he is referring is aligning themselves with Bill Clinton’s gun control, a mistake which almost killed the company.

But times have changed.  Firearms companies can no longer simply make it clear that they oppose additional gun control.  Magpul knew better and is moving from Colorado, and so did Beretta who is moving from Maryland (and they had better not lollygag and delay as they seem to be doing – we’re watching).

Gun owners won’t send money to companies who will give tax revenues to totalitarian states.  This is the reason Remington will eventually have to move from New York or perish in spite of the silly article they persuaded National Review to do praising the company.

Here’s a note to Debney.  You won’t win.  Massachusetts is too far gone, and the statists have too much sway to turn back the tide of gun control.  Gun owners won’t approve, and Smith & Wesson will suffer from the decrease in revenue.  Gun owners never forgive and never forget.  Our actions are based on principle and well grounded in the soil of moral economics.

Make your decision now.  You can relocate to a free state where the workers are non-union, the people loyal and the land vibrant, or you can stay put and die on the vine.  As for me, I have two Smith & Wesson weapons, both of which I love.  I had intended to buy more, but if Smith & Wesson stays in Massachusetts, I won’t spend another penny of my hard earned money on revenue for Massachusetts to enact more gun control.

Time is of the essence.  South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas and a host of other free states beckon you.  You will soon reach the point of no return, where you have spent too much energy and time on trying to ameliorate an unmanageable situation in Massachusetts.  Your time is better spent on calling the board of directors together and forming a strategy for survival.  Your future depends on it, and you must move quickly.