Will Lew Horton get the hint?

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by shawn mccarver:
1. No legal agreement. Perhaps some states require locks - of that I am not sure. I believe they added the lock as a way to defend against civil suits where some idiot left the gun available and someone had a negligent discharge.

IIRC, Maryland is the only state that requires built in locks on new handguns.

If liability were the issue, locks would be standard on all S&W handguns. But they are not. They are optional on M&Ps and not available on Sigmas and 1911s. Last I checked getting shot with a semi auto sucks just as bad as with a revolver.

 

[pinkymingeo]

Maybe they should just print a book on the barrel ala Ruger. That might keep us safer than the lock. More entertained, anyway.

 

[ladder13]

Originally posted by pinkymingeo: I also don't think they're producing no-lock guns. The current crop is, they say, based on left-over J-frames.

4000 leftovers??? Where have they been hiding, in a shoebox???

 

[Broadside]

Originally posted by jjones33:
After S&W shot all us stock holders in the foot they need to do something to get the company going in the right direction. Our boy Golden turned out to be brass.

jjones33,

Could you expand on your comment? I've never watched S&W stock. So I have no idea how it is performing?

 

[YeshuaIsa53]

When inquiring to LHD about the 642-1 with no internal lock, my sales rep had no idea. The 37s he had no idea. They had the same codes in their system as the ones with the locks. I asked him to check further and he said he could not find out anything different. He asked to be sent the page on this forum I was talking about, which I did. He found them and I bought a few, like others did. Told him we were trying to send S&W a message clearly defined. The consumer can speak to a distributor and manufacturer, but actions speak louder than words. Buy. Buy.
No telling how many folk it took to get their attention. Maybe the sales on the 642 and 37 got their attention. Sales will get their attention.
They know the reason now, as if they didn't before. I really do not think stocks have anything to do with this. JMO

 

[akviper]

FWIW, three years ago I sent a nickel no lock 442 back for repair to the flaking finish. In the process of stripping the old finish they said they ruined the frame. They offered a new lock 642 to replace it. I asked if they had any old no lock frames to replace my gun and the rep said they had run out long ago. Now they find 4,000 laying around? You'd think they would notice 4,000 extra centennial frames in the back room.

 

[The Highlander]

Contrary to what seems popular belief, you can buy S&W stock and own a piece of the company.

The stock can be followed under the ticker symbol SWHC, which stands for Smith & Wesson Holding Company. It has been in somewhat of a holding pattern and closed yesterday at $5.48. The 52-week range is 3.72-22.00, which means we are currently just off the low for the period. 1-year target price is 7.70.

What all this means is that instead of spending $600-$700 on a new S&W, you can put the same amount of money into a round lot (100 shares) of S&W stock.

Incidentally, Ruger has the ticker symbol RGR. It is interesting to compare the stock prices of these two companies. 52-week ranges for the two are similar.

The Highlander

Originally posted by Broadside:

Originally posted by jjones33:
After S&W shot all us stock holders in the foot they need to do something to get the company going in the right direction. Our boy Golden turned out to be brass.

jjones33,

Could you expand on your comment? I've never watched S&W stock. So I have no idea how it is performing?