What she said. And on that note.
Dear S&W,
Remember when the company was bought for $112 million back in '87? Then you bribed that alligator Clinton to eat you last and your customers noticed and didn't like the new changes your new boyfriend made you put up? He made you do things, things that seemed like a good idea at the time, but were really just self destructive. (That couldn't have been that good a business decision, otherwise you'd have sold for more than $15 million in 2001.) It was a bit dysfunctional, your relationship with that Slick Willie dude, and like a lotta wives going back to their abusive husbands all we could do was watch and hope you wised up and got the hell out of that pairing. And we gave you the silent treatment...
Then you did! Yay! You got out. You've denounced all those horrible things you said and did. AND, you've done a good job, bidness-wise, in the past 10 years than you did in the 15 before that, and I'm rooting for you, and the success of that polymer M&P is great even if it isn't my cuppa tea. I bet ou'd sell for more than $15 million now! Look at you!
But... one thing....
You wanna know how to cut production costs AND make your customers happier? Get rid of that little zit of a lock on the side. It's a revolver, not a handcuff. The only people that like it are those folks that were trying to destroy the entire firearms industry back in 1997. Just say it was an ill-conceived British innovation that doesn't add any value, and after all what do the Brits know about firearms anymore anyway?
Sincerely,
Your Friend,
T-Bolt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
When I bought my 642 this spring I made a point to get one without the Hilary hole. It was a new production gun, as well, so I know they are out there.
Concur T-Bolt
Merry Christmas!
Yes, the CAN make them without the Zit and actually ARE, bluesun. They weren't making new zitless 640s when I was shopping a year and half ago..
Reality Check: The "zit" came from S&W's current owners, Saf-T-Hammer.
While Tompkins PLC screwed the pooch on the Clinton deal, they should be praised for saving S&W from the downward spiral of their days under the thumb of Bangor Punta and Lear Siegler. Tompkins funded a massive moderization of S&W's production equipment.
And for those with short memories, Bangor Punta had their own Quisling moment on the issue of handgun control and registration during the 1970s.
NJT,
The problem is that, the way the Saf-T-Hammer lock design on those revolvers works, they'd have to basically do two runs of each and every make and model (IIRC, some states require the lock.)
It's just better, in a cold, "green eye shade" sense, to leave 'em on there and piss off a few old timers and retrobuffs (who generally aren't going to buy stainless, MIM-filled revolvers anyway.)
What I find interesting is the passion generated by "the zit" (which I, too, dislike on aesthetic grounds) in a world where everybody and their brother from Bersa to HK is shipping guns with built-in locks, but none of them draw the opprobrium Smith does.
My Springfield Armory 1911 has a lock in the mainspring housing. I don't read reams about that thing.
The zit has presented zero issues in my 640. The recoil has presented more issues in my sore wrists.
My Springfield had a lock there, too, McThag. It had it until I swapped it out less than a week later.
I'm also told (and so you should believe this as much as any other hearsay on the Internet) that the internal lock is popular with casual gun owners who think it's a prudent safety feature. I don't know what percentage of S&W's customers are hardcore gunnies, but the tastes of the forumgoers and blogreaders very often don't represent the majority of customers.
So, I can swap out parts on the S&W, too, and eliminate the possibility the zit will lock up at an inopportune time (as has been documented)? Who would tell me what parts to swap out, or is it a case of if I have to ask it is beyond my capabilities?
Post a Comment