Smith & Wesson will become a standalone gun business
Looks like companies now want to stay away from gun due to probably how court allowed to sue Remington.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/busin...oor/index.html
London (CNN Business)American Outdoor Brands has announced plans to split its firearms unit, Smith & Wesson, from its outdoor products business, citing "changes in the political climate."
Maybe now that they don't have their politically conscious overlords they will finally ditch the stupid internal locks?
A guy can hope.
Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
I am not much a revolver guy myself, but damn....if they dropped the internal locks, I'd be in for a half dozen or so.Originally Posted by 45dotACP
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
Another press release regurgitation, mostly the same:
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/s...r-brands-corp/
I think this is waaay too fast to be a knee-jerk reaction to the Remington news. Probably been in planning for many months. The "draw me a picture" version of the "investing and political climate" language is that this will allow investors who shop at REI to hold stock in AOBC and make money from fishing gear and knives without owning "evil gun manufacturer" assets.
It also potentially allows them to just declare BK for S&W without dragging down all the currently bundled assets, which might-might-might enable them or some other investment group to make needed structural changes like getting the heck out of Massachusetts and with any luck escaping the rent-seeking stranglehold of a union labor force.
Remember that Vista Outdoors spun off Savage in the past year, and it's not like Federal/CCI/Speer are getting out of the shooting business.
In the mean time, I'm going to go tell some Lipsey's reps what Rugers I would buy if they made them.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
This. That ruling came down 72 hours ago. A lightning-fast divestiture would take at least 90 days. It would probably involve a minimum of 2-3 dozen very senior people plus their support staffs, and a mob like that probably couldn't even coordinate their calendars in 72 hours. I'd also be amazed if they'd do it in response to something as ephemeral as the SCOTUS letting a case proceed.
Okie John
“The reliability of the 30-06 on most of the world’s non-dangerous game is so well established as to be beyond intelligent dispute.” Finn Aagaard
"Don't fuck with it" seems to prevent the vast majority of reported issues." BehindBlueI's
This thread reminds me that I was sitting in the Bush International Airport in Houston in '93 reading a WSJ article on Sturm Ruger & Co. Great capital structure, niche investment casting model, strong cash flow and healthy dividend... Not buying the stock is one of the worst things I never did. I doubt S&W will be spun off without a disproportionate share of liabilities burred in the fine print of the prospectus... Just sayin'
Don't let hindsight bias mess with you too much. At that time Ruger leadership was beginning the transition from enthusiast founder to disinterested son and even the enthusiast father was pissing off half of the customer base with his "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds" lobbying for the AWB. Disinterested son thought making ornate over/under shotguns for his country club pals was the future of firearms and that golf clubs were the future of casting.
He wound up being right on golf clubs - that is until Calloway cut costs and moved production overseas exposing a steadily declining firearm business until Ruger Jr was finally ousted in the mid 2000s.
Unlikely. This was planned long ago. Notwithstanding CNNs viewpoint this has little to do with the SCOTUS or political views. My read is they want to cut expenses & increase investment in their non-firearms business, which is tough to do when someone’s boycotting your conglomerate. Splitting off S&W creates plausible deniability when the Big Money Investor gets skittish about the optics of “supporting a gun company”.
S&W still has plenty of viable business life left - if it didn’t they’d be shopping for buyers and laying off staff. Instead they’re retaining shares of the company stock.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
Really all they need to do is improve their quality control, and take those Goddamn locks out of their revolvers, and move out of Massachusetts, and they’d probably be fine..
I do wonder if companies doing longer term planning, will shy away from investment and expansion in lines that may be subject to bans. Being in NY, I see some horrible looking Frankenstein like AR thingees. I wonder if a compliant rifle based on the AR platform that looks decent might be developed. No pistol grip, standard rifle stock, etc. Currently in the 223 world the option for a 'normal' gun is a Mini-14. I have one and prefer the AR platform - so a compliant, 'nice' one (that doesn't look like a monstrosity - no offense to manufacturers of such, they do what they have to do - deciding if I want one) might be a product for the future. Kind of like the lower capacity, single stack additions to many lines (such as the Glocks).
I think advertising will change to tone down the blood lust. Ultimate man stopper might be a thing of the past. I once had a conversation with Jan Libourel of Handguns who told me how they had to adjust content for the UK market. The competition targets were also tamed not to present shooting someone.
Reply With Quote