Brushhunter: to paraphrase, in a way of sorts, and to probably add more fuel to a fire that should have grown cold long ago, S&W under liver lipped, weak-kneed liberal British ownership caved into the Klinton administration's overtly slimly push by the even more slimy HUD director andrew cuomo, son of the even slimier, former NY governor mario the cuomo, to demand/mandate and subsequently endorse the sale of ultra safe but low/poor quality firearms and locking devices to police at the expense of the shooting public, who then became so enraged as to economically strap the company into bankruptsy. The lesson was learned, the ownership defaulted and sold off the entire company for $15 million to a new, pro-gun rights company that promptly moved out of the state of massivetwoschmidts. However, even the most noted minds on these forums, as well as those less noted, and those most opined will prolly admit the main issue of the agreement between HUD and S&W is only tabled, not invalidated, and may well be resurrected by the slime currently inhabiting New York's senatorial seats, to name a few.
Ruger - many speak well of him but my perspective is that during a time of gun-owner need for leadership in the on-going war 'twixt the pro's and the anti's, caved into the anti's with a 10 round limit in pistol magazine. True, he was a major force in the field throughout his lifetime but ill prepared to move from that forum into a national leadership position for gun rights. Regrettably, it takes only one misreading or one misleading of a major voice to turn the field, one way or the other, and to this day we suffer a 10 round magazine limitation for pistols.
S&Ws however remain my favorite revolvers and I have enough to last me for the rest of my life, hopefully, so I can maintain my anti agreement position and not be a hypocrite. I do own Ruger firearms, but won't buy anymore.
So much for paraphrasing, huh?
That's my take on it and my dos centavos. Mikey.
