View Full Version : Assessment Of Manufacturers Who Still Have Yet To Act
Let's coordinate who it is we need to be focused on as of this date.
1. Colt.
We endorse them like there is no tomorrow here, I couldn't begin to imagine the revenue they have generated as a result of this specific forum.
2. Smith & Wesson.
Always a big player, also endorsed here often.
3. Glock.
Almost the cherished baby of the majority, almost always endorsed here.
I'll let others add the rest so they see it comes from the group. We are all obligated, don't be a bystander when you can make a real difference.
Add two of my favorites, SIG & HK.
The big diference I see between the companies listed above amd thise that habe taken a stance is that NONE of the above companies have any presence on the "forums". What I meet by presence is there is no one from the company actively posting and engaging conversation with forum members and most certainly not the owners/presidents.
The big diference I see between the companies listed above amd thise that habe taken a stance is that NONE of the above companies have any presence on the "forums". What I meet by presence is there is no one from the company actively posting and engaging conversation with forum members and most certainly not the owners/presidents.
When you choose to remove your trusty limited-but-easier view glasses come back and rejoin the discussion. You are always welcome if of good intent, I promise.
Moose-Knuckle
03-02-13, 18:45
Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal (FN).
I know, I know . . . they mainly have DOD contracts.
No doubt that FN, HK and Sig need to be included. Very worthy suggestions.
So from here, beyond establishing other now essential holdouts we establish who are the most viable contacts within each company. From my time working at SHOT, SOFIC and a few other venues not so long ago I have a few cards, but current contacts should be verified.
We'll start a list, all contributions welcome. I'll see what I have here, meantime let's see what level of firepower this community of 60,000 plus dedicated members has to offer.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=119352&highlight=forget+screwed ...What, too much???:p I really cant say anything, half my guns are made by that list...Glock and Colt will never join IMO.
No doubt that FN, HK and Sig need to be included. Very worthy suggestions.
So from here, beyond establishing other now essential holdouts we establish who are the most viable contacts within each company. From my time working at SHOT, SOFIC and a few other venues not so long ago I have a few cards, but current contacts should be verified.
We'll start a list, all contributions welcome. I'll see what I have here, meantime let's see what level of firepower this community of 60,000 plus dedicated members has to offer.
Sadly I think we would be tilting windmills.
Colt complied with the AW Ban before there was one. I think it was in 1991 that they removed bayonet lugs from all their rifles and only offered carbines with fixed A2 stocks. There was no law requiring them to do so.
HK has a checkered past of doing the same crap. I think it was 1982 when they decided they would no longer provide "dealer sample" machine guns to dealers UNLESS it was for a verifiable LE purchase. Colt would later adopt a similar policy regarding their factory machine guns several years before FOPA.
Glock was the sole driving force behind ballistic fingerprinting nonsense.
S&W jumped right in bed with the Clinton Administration and forced dealers who wished to obtain their products to agree to a list of anti gun prohibitions.
Basically most of these companies were first in line to **** us over before the government had the power to do so. And in some cases showed them the best way to **** us. And all the while they are screwing us they are doing their best to suck up to the LE and MIL community and in some cases THEY are responsible for creating the distinction between "suitable for military and law enforcement" and "civilian approved."
I distinctly remember right after the sunset in 2004 that I got my initial batch of Colt 6920s, 6520s and 6450s without incident as I was an established LE dealer. And then "suddenly" I was informed that I would need to submit a LE authorization for purchase letter for any additional "LE marked" Colt rifles I may want to order.
That meant I was not permitted to establish any kind of inventory and sales to civilians was not allowed. It took several months for this "policy" to go away and Colt eventually came up with an excuse that they were simply giving priority to LE and MIL orders. That is of course absurd because for 10 years LE and MIL were the ONLY ones who could have ordered a 6920 so the major demand was created by civilian orders following the sunset.
I also seem to recall Colt was going through very hard times (nearly bankrupt around 2002) and it was civilian orders that saved the company as everyone scrambled to get a genuine, non neutered Colt rifle for the first time in 10 years in 2004.
But some companies simply refuse to learn and believe they are "too big to fail" (which is how Colt lost the M16 contract to FN) and will never miss an opportunity to sell us out if it will please their .gov masters.
Alaskapopo
03-02-13, 21:41
Sadly I think we would be tilting windmills.
Colt complied with the AW Ban before there was one. I think it was in 1991 that they removed bayonet lugs from all their rifles and only offered carbines with fixed A2 stocks. There was no law requiring them to do so.
HK has a checkered past of doing the same crap. I think it was 1982 when they decided they would no longer provide "dealer sample" machine guns to dealers UNLESS it was for a verifiable LE purchase. Colt would later adopt a similar policy regarding their factory machine guns several years before FOPA.
Glock was the sole driving force behind ballistic fingerprinting nonsense.
S&W jumped right in bed with the Clinton Administration and forced dealers who wished to obtain their products to agree to a list of anti gun prohibitions.
Basically most of these companies were first in line to **** us over before the government had the power to do so. And in some cases showed them the best way to **** us. And all the while they are screwing us they are doing their best to suck up to the LE and MIL community and in some cases THEY are responsible for creating the distinction between "suitable for military and law enforcement" and "civilian approved."
I distinctly remember right after the sunset in 2004 that I got my initial batch of Colt 6920s, 6520s and 6450s without incident as I was an established LE dealer. And then "suddenly" I was informed that I would need to submit a LE authorization for purchase letter for any additional "LE marked" Colt rifles I may want to order.
That meant I was not permitted to establish any kind of inventory and sales to civilians was not allowed. It took several months for this "policy" to go away and Colt eventually came up with an excuse that they were simply giving priority to LE and MIL orders. That is of course absurd because for 10 years LE and MIL were the ONLY ones who could have ordered a 6920 so the major demand was created by civilian orders following the sunset.
I also seem to recall Colt was going through very hard times (nearly bankrupt around 2002) and it was civilian orders that saved the company as everyone scrambled to get a genuine, non neutered Colt rifle for the first time in 10 years in 2004.
But some companies simply refuse to learn and believe they are "too big to fail" (which is how Colt lost the M16 contract to FN) and will never miss an opportunity to sell us out if it will please their .gov masters.
Don't forget Ruger who wanted a 15 round mag limit for the first AWB because the pistol he made held 15 and they would not sell 20 or 30 round mags for their Mini 14 to non leo's back then.
Pat
I think it is nearly impossible for a gun company (that is located in a "ban" state) to restrict LE sales in other ban states. They would first have to tell the LE in THEIR own states NO first and that just isn't going to happen. It would also be a bit hypocritical IMHO.
C4
Don't forget Ruger who wanted a 15 round mag limit for the first AWB because the pistol he made held 15 and they would not sell 20 or 30 round mags for their Mini 14 to non leo's back then.
Pat
The only reason I didn't mention Ruger is they are on board this time already and Bill Ruger policies are no more.
I think it is nearly impossible for a gun company (that is located in a "ban" state) to restrict LE sales in other ban states. They would first have to tell the LE in THEIR own states NO first and that just isn't going to happen. It would also be a bit hypocritical IMHO.
C4
I don't think it would be hypocritical. I think there would be backlash and that is why Magpul is prepared to move if needed. Quite honestly, Colt should have bailed on Conn. when the state restricted "their" product. But I don't think that the powers at Colt think along those lines.
I think it might be a stretch for non-American companies like Glock, SIG, H&K, and FN to really care. We're just another market for them, and since the majority of their sales is to LE/GOVT...
I purposely shop from companies that are not in blue states. It has as much to do with not wanting to do send my money to the states and unions as anything else. That applies across the board, not just to guns. I have a Smith 15-22 because It is the best 22LR AR analog out there, but would not get a Smith AR or pistol because I can get something that performs as well from a free state.
I'm a Glock fanboy through and through. I would rather give business with a foreign company than one in a commie state. But if Smith moved to a free state?
I don't think it would be hypocritical. I think there would be backlash and that is why Magpul is prepared to move if needed. Quite honestly, Colt should have bailed on Conn. when the state restricted "their" product. But I don't think that the powers at Colt think along those lines.
They would have to move honestly. Colt has a facility in FL and believe they will (eventually) move there.
One of the issues with SOME of these companies is that they are grandfathered in with the EPA and basically couldn't replicate what they have now. So moving simply isn't an option.
C4
I think it might be a stretch for non-American companies like Glock, SIG, H&K, and FN to really care. We're just another market for them, and since the majority of their sales is to LE/GOVT...
Actually FN seemed to care enough to be one of the first to step up in 2004 and offer civilian versions of their P90 and FN2000.
And Glock in GA and SIG US and HK US should care. But I don't think they care enough to make a difference. They are definitely more concerned with LE/GOVT sales.
They would have to move honestly. Colt has a facility in FL and believe they will (eventually) move there.
One of the issues with SOME of these companies is that they are grandfathered in with the EPA and basically couldn't replicate what they have now. So moving simply isn't an option.
C4
Hadn't considered that. But I don't think Colt would have any problem in FL.
Why not spend more time contacting and interacting with the morons running this country into the ground? They are the ones that need a wake up call.
I think it is nearly impossible for a gun company (that is located in a "ban" state) to restrict LE sales in other ban states. They would first have to tell the LE in THEIR own states NO first and that just isn't going to happen. It would also be a bit hypocritical IMHO.
C4Yes admittedly, small companies that cant just move from their state wouldn't/couldn't do it. Maybe if they were to only sell to local LE instead of other 3alphabet agencies. Or how ever that stuff works... I dunno probly could start "get us the hell out of here" donation drive. And probly get up some $; everybody in the current (as of now)free states, feel for everyone in ban states and would prob make contributions.
Actually FN seemed to care enough to be one of the first to step up in 2004 and offer civilian versions of their P90 and FN2000.
And Glock in GA and SIG US and HK US should care. But I don't think they care enough to make a difference. They are definitely more concerned with LE/GOVT sales.
SIG and HK have VERY little LE sales these days and are fully supported by the commercial market. So I think it would be easy for them to do it (if they wanted to). From what I know, Euro based companies typically have a "Civy firearms ownership is not something we really like, but it pays the bills" attitude. I think that if these companies could survive on JUST .Gov sales (restricting sales to commercial) they would.
C4
A stretch that any of the current tides will pull the likes of a Colt, FN or the others mentioned? No doubt about it, only a possibility as of now.
But let's be perfectly clear, if this momentum continues then at some point they will only be selling to law enforcement and military American venues. That means not only a loss in revenues but also a loss of respect among die-hard civilian advocates who will suddenly realize just how capable some of the other, more patriotic options are. It also means a new, unfamiliar and likely unwelcome sense of adversity.
No, I don't recall seeing a Colt, Glock or S&W banner ad here for whatever reason. But not for a second should that force us to believe we can't be heard. Other forums watch what goes on here and for the most part we are respected, therefore something can be accomplished if we all choose to make it so.
Why not spend more time contacting and interacting with the morons running this country into the ground? They are the ones that need a wake up call.
They are awake and purposefully implementing their vision of the country.
Why not spend more time contacting and interacting with the morons running this country into the ground? They are the ones that need a wake up call.
As sensible as it may be, what you suggest has now become the equivalent of asking an Al Sharpton or Maxine Waters why they aren't doing more to hold inner city blacks accountable for their behavior than they are guns and other deflectables.
It makes waves. It goes against the grain. It's just not right. The editor won't approve. You'll make someone mad who shouldn't even factor into the equasion. Mom-mom doesn't like meanies. Etc.
How about turn up the heat on the reps for those companies?
How many folks are out there playing gun games with the big names paying some of the bills. If they are interested enough in civie matters that they are sponsoring guys/gals in civie gun games, then they need to tow the line.
It is a dangerous game they are playing, as if we continue down this path, who's to say Colt won't be nationalized in 5-10 years and then there won't be any money to be made.
Just like LAV said, we have all got to stick together. There are too many ducking the storm, hoping it will pass when they need to be crying from the hill tops.
Another company that is glaringly silent about taking a stand is Daniel Defense.
Another company that is glaringly silent about taking a stand is Daniel Defense.
When I read Safety's opening post DD immediately came to mind. Long time user of them. While I have no doubt of Marty's views it would be ever more great if he would say it out loud.
-Jax
Larry Vickers
03-03-13, 14:55
First thing to do is get our house in order - contact each firearms company that has a banner on M4C that has not made a public statement to see where they stand
Then start working on the rest.....
First thing to do is get our house in order - contact each firearms company that has a banner on M4C that has not made a public statement to see where they stand
Then start working on the rest.....
Yep. Dang straight Larry. Will be doing this over the next few days.
-Jax
I have personally contacted each of these companies asking for their support. So far, none have responded. :rolleyes:
I think it is nearly impossible for a gun company (that is located in a "ban" state) to restrict LE sales in other ban states. They would first have to tell the LE in THEIR own states NO first and that just isn't going to happen. It would also be a bit hypocritical IMHO.
C4
Why not? With the exception of existing contracts, what's to stop them from applying the same restrictions on future contracts in their home state and in every other ban state that citizens are subjected to? Other than cutting into their profits, is there any other reason?
SIG and HK have VERY little LE sales these days and are fully supported by the commercial market. So I think it would be easy for them to do it (if they wanted to). From what I know, Euro based companies typically have a "Civy firearms ownership is not something we really like, but it pays the bills" attitude. I think that if these companies could survive on JUST .Gov sales (restricting sales to commercial) they would.
C4
Ok, but what's the percentage of their sales worldwide when you include military, both here and abroad, and Law Enforcement in other countries. Maybe their U.S. branches are supporting themselves through the commercial market, but what about the company as a whole. They're not separate from their parent companies, are they? And IMHO, the reason it makes a difference is because I believe they're attitudes or lack of support might be due the fact that, overall, a large percentage of their company profits come from government contracts around the world. So they don't care because they don't need to care. I'm guessing, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like HK could support themselves on private sales alone. Their past attitude towards private consumers doesn't scream this is our base market.
Magic_Salad0892
03-03-13, 19:35
Yep. Dang straight Larry. Will be doing this over the next few days.
-Jax
I'm gonna start sending e-mails around too. Starting tomorrow.
Just started working on confirming good and also likely responsive contacts, most of the ones I have saved are three years old (which isn't too bad). Focusing on the initial companies mentioned but am reluctantly encouraged by the decision to talk with the advertisers as well.
Obviously many here know exactly who we should be talking to, both in terms of influence and responsiveness. However their interests are likely better served to remain silent and therefore we won't look to press the issue. Too much at once will surely cause defensive reactions.
However somewhere inside each and every one of there is a degree of understanding. We implore that they consider not just today, but also the future.
Quick update. I found the cards but along the way realized it isn't wise to exploit past business contacts for a cause. I know not all would know me via the screen name anyway but some would and that isn't why they gave me their information.
So with that...
Colt: Tel: 800-962-COLT (2658)
Colt’s Manufacturing Company LLC
P.O. Box 1868
Hartford, CT 06144
No readily available email address provided.
Smith and Wesson: qa@smith-wesson.com
1-800-331-0852
Smith & Wesson
2100 Roosevelt Avenue
Springfield, MA 01104
Glock: GLOCK, Inc.
6000 Highlands Parkway
Smyrna, GA 30082
770 - 432 1202
Fax: 770 - 433 8719
Econtact page: http://us.glock.com/customer-service/contact-us
H&K: HECKLER & KOCH
5675 Transport Boulevard
Columbus, Georgia 31907 USA
Tel: (706) 568-1906
Fax: (706) 568-9151
E-mail: cs@heckler-koch-us.com
Sig: SIG SAUER, Inc.
18 Industrial Drive
Exeter, NH 03833
Phone: 603-772-2302
Fax: 603-772-9082
LEO Related: publicsafetysales@sigsauer.com
FN FNH USA
7918 Jones Branch Dr.
Suite 400
McLean, VA 22101
703-228-3500
Fax: 703-228-1830
info@fnhusa.com
Good luck and thanks to all that take the time. Already have here.
Sadly I think we would be tilting windmills.
Colt complied with the AW Ban before there was one. I think it was in 1991 that they removed bayonet lugs from all their rifles and only offered carbines with fixed A2 stocks. There was no law requiring them to do so.
S&W jumped right in bed with the Clinton Administration and forced dealers who wished to obtain their products to agree to a list of anti gun prohibitions.
This is why I will not purchase a Colt firearm. I refused to purchase a S&W firearm while it was owned by British owned company Thompson, Ltd. When Safety Lock Hammer purchased S&W, I started purchasing their products again.
Sadly I think we would be tilting windmills.
Colt complied with the AW Ban before there was one. I think it was in 1991 that they removed bayonet lugs from all their rifles and only offered carbines with fixed A2 stocks. There was no law requiring them to do so.
HK has a checkered past of doing the same crap. I think it was 1982 when they decided they would no longer provide "dealer sample" machine guns to dealers UNLESS it was for a verifiable LE purchase. Colt would later adopt a similar policy regarding their factory machine guns several years before FOPA.
Glock was the sole driving force behind ballistic fingerprinting nonsense.
S&W jumped right in bed with the Clinton Administration and forced dealers who wished to obtain their products to agree to a list of anti gun prohibitions.
Basically most of these companies were first in line to **** us over before the government had the power to do so. And in some cases showed them the best way to **** us. And all the while they are screwing us they are doing their best to suck up to the LE and MIL community and in some cases THEY are responsible for creating the distinction between "suitable for military and law enforcement" and "civilian approved."
I distinctly remember right after the sunset in 2004 that I got my initial batch of Colt 6920s, 6520s and 6450s without incident as I was an established LE dealer. And then "suddenly" I was informed that I would need to submit a LE authorization for purchase letter for any additional "LE marked" Colt rifles I may want to order.
That meant I was not permitted to establish any kind of inventory and sales to civilians was not allowed. It took several months for this "policy" to go away and Colt eventually came up with an excuse that they were simply giving priority to LE and MIL orders. That is of course absurd because for 10 years LE and MIL were the ONLY ones who could have ordered a 6920 so the major demand was created by civilian orders following the sunset.
I also seem to recall Colt was going through very hard times (nearly bankrupt around 2002) and it was civilian orders that saved the company as everyone scrambled to get a genuine, non neutered Colt rifle for the first time in 10 years in 2004.
But some companies simply refuse to learn and believe they are "too big to fail" (which is how Colt lost the M16 contract to FN) and will never miss an opportunity to sell us out if it will please their .gov masters.
You've got a great memory. Remind me to never piss you off.
Joe Mamma
Rmplstlskn
03-05-13, 16:27
This is a great idea, IMO.... I'm not holding my breath for Colt, HK, S&W, etc..., but I will send out a letter none the less. Maybe LAV can make inquiries into Daniel Defenses to publicly express their stance, or lack of one...
I would also hope that companies OUTSIDE of the firearm industry but in related industries, could be contacted as well... Like ammo makers (Hornady, Black Hills, etc...)
I know with me, if I had a choice of a dealer new Colt or a dealer new BCM, I would buy the BCM in support of their bold stand... Not that I am boycotting Colt, rather my purchase is just a way of showing my support to those who take a stand...
Rmpl
Magic_Salad0892
03-05-13, 16:51
You've got a great memory. Remind me to never piss you off.
Joe Mamma
I was thinking the same thing when I read that. Lol.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.