Good question. Actually, there's a lot of variety out there in the firearms world, and I appreciate and enjoy most of it. But here are several things I rather vehemently disagree with:
1. The decision of the U.S. military to adopt a 9mm handgun. The Thompson-LaGarde tests of a century ago rather conclusively proved that bigger is better, and that .45 is optimum for power and control. This 9mm decision was political correctness (bowing to NATO interchangeability), and resulted in our service men and women having to deal with a caliber that's really pathetic in its required hardball form. Lives should not have to be sacrificed for dumb-assed decisions like this. Special Forces and some Marine units have stuck with .45 caliber handguns, and they have done this for a reason. Physics hasn't changed in the last century.
2. I have observed short bayonets being fitted to handguns having an accessory rail. This engendered a "What the hell" reaction on my part. This has to be the epitome of uselessness.
3. Smith and Wesson: I've said it before, and I'm saying it again. Your internal lock is a nothing but a bow to political correctness, and when it malfunctions (which it has proven to do from time to time in spite of your assertions) it endangers lives. This stupid device has no place on a gun, particularly one which may have to be relied upon for self protection. You may get sued within an inch of your corporate life someday when that lock malfunctions at the worst possible moment. If you have to have an inactivation device, place it out of sight and make it foolproof. Other firearms manufactureres have done this, and yes, you can too. In short, get rid of the damned internal lock.
P.S.: you might also experience a nice sales boost by doing this.
John
)
