Talk:Smith & Wesson/Archive 1

Untitled
Removed the bit about smith and wesson's announcement that it will be the "first time" the company has entered the market for shotguns, as they unsuccessfully tried to do this back in the 70s with the 916 series shotguns. and the 1000 and 3000 series shotguns.

Gslaterp

Well I added a section. Please improve it as I'm not that great of an editor.

Has anyone considered adding a section about the controversy sparked by the internal locks? I know a good deal of gun owners are unhappy about them.

Wikipedia text:


 * The Sigma series of recoil operated, locked breech semi-auto pistols was introduced in 1994, with the Sigma 40, followed by the Sigma 9. Sigma pristols bore so much similarity to GLOCKs, that a lawsuit was raised against S&W by GLOCK. Smith & Wesson paid an undisclosed sum (some millions of dollars) to GLOCK for infringement of their patents, and then S&W received the rights to continue the production of Sigma line.


 * The gun frame is manufactured from polymer, while the slide and barrel can be manufactured from either stainless steel or carbon steel. The Sigma series was improved in 1999, including shortening the barrel and slide, addition of an accessory rail under the barrel, incorporating more comfortable grip checkering and enlarging the ejection port.

Text from Modern Firearms:


 * ''The Sigma series of pistols was introduced in 1994 by its first model, Sigma 40F in .40SW, following with 9x19mm version. Sigma pistols bear so much similirality to Glocks, that the lawsuit was rised against the S&W, so Smith & Wesson finally paid undisclosed sum (some millions of $$$) to Glock for violation of their patents, and then S&W received the rights to continue the production of Sigma line.


 * ''...Gun frame is made from polymer, the slide and the barrel can be manufactured from the stainless steel or from the carbon steel (in so called "Value" models).


 * In 1999 S&W improved the Sigma series. Main change was shortening the barrel and the slide by .5 inch (12.7 mm). Other improvements included more comfortable grip checkering, slightly enlarged ejection port and addition of the acessory rail at the front of the frame (under the barrel). 

The text is quite similar despite being cleaned up a bit; is this a copyright issue?Kurivaim 5 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

No, he was just keeping alive the spirit of the S&W Sigma.

Oh, come on. Nobody has put "Smith & Wesson : the original point & click interface" on this page? Geez (Seriously, I don't know if it's appropriate, but it's funny :) Sword 05:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs cleaning up
The "Problems in Marketplace" section is unencyclopedic and more related to current events. The "Agreement of 2000" needs to be relocated and whittled down. Izaakb 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the "History of S&W" actually be a timeline of the company rather than some smattering of un-chronological info. What about Oliver Winchester? What happened to Bangor-Punta? I'll do some research and post it. Also, the intro paragraph should be meatier, IMHO.. Izaakb 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How about:

* 1.1 Beginning * 1.2 Horace and Dan's invention * 1.3 Sale to Winchester * 1.4 War Production years (Spanish American thru WW2   * 1.5 Sale to Bangor Punta    * 1.6 Sale to Tomkins PLC    * 1.7 Back in American Hands (Saf T Lock)
 * 1) 1 History of Smith & Wesson

ETC.. I will refine later....

Izaakb 03:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is very unorganized.67.142.130.38 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree too, and let me go further. I think that this article would be vastly improved if the cumbersome lists of handgun models were moved elsewhere. This article should be about the history of the company. I suggest creating a separate article about each major subcategory of handgun (i.e. "Smith & Wesson Top-Break", "Smith & Wesson J-frame", "Smith & Wesson Metal Frame Semi-Automatic", etc.) and putting the lists of models there. Right now, the lists aren't even close to being comprehensive, and they're already too long. If every single S&W handgun model were added, the lists would overwhelm the historical content of the article. If everyone thinks this is a good idea, I'll get started on the project. Carguychris (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No arguments here. It should be a monumental and tedious--Mcumpston (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC) project

A very self-congratulatory article
I'm surprised as a gun lover that an article on S&W doesn't have half it being criticism. Some major cleanup issues:

-Listing out all the products is ridiculous. That reads like an advertisement. -In fact, the entire article reads like an ad for S&W. -There should be a criticism section in this article, S&W has made so many terrible firearms, so many mistakes both in production and in corporate handling.

VogonFord 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Lock Issue
On August 27, 2007, Michael Bane, author, producer and media representative for the shooting industry, published this blog about his personal experience with spontaneous engagement of the Safe-T-Hammer internal locking device: http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2007/08/s-revolver-safety-failure.html These events have occured since the present owners of the company incorporated the lock in the revolvers. They were dismissed as "urban legend" at first but S&W revolver purchasers encounter them frequently. At this time, only Bane and Massad Ayoob, among the established industry writers have published confirmations that there is a problem with the locks.--Mcumpston (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Breathalyzer
Apparently, Smith & Wesson manufactured the Breathalyzer. It's right up there in the Breathalyzer article, but unsourced. If anybody can confirm it, we probably ought to add it to the S&W article as well. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 11:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See State of the Art Breathalyzers: A History. I added it to the Breathalyzer article - there are other sources available as well. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

K frame variants needing coverage
I've taken it upon myself to begin improving Wikipedia's coverage of the S&W K frame series, to include a K frame master article and features table. (Check back soon!) However, before I start adding Wikipedia articles about missing K frame variants, I would like to hear opinions regarding whether the following M&P revolver variants deserve their own articles or should be included in the article for the Smith & Wesson Model 10. Out of all of these revolvers, I think that the .32-20HE may warrant its own article because it was catalogued as a seperate model, its production run extended for several decades, and well over 10,000 were produced. However, the others seem to be great candidates for inclusion here. Thoughts? Opinions?Carguychris (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * .32-20 Hand Ejector
 * .38 Military & Police Target (special-order adjustable rear sight M&P offered prior to introduction of postwar K-38 series)
 * .32 Military & Police (special-order .32 S&W Long version of basic M&P, sold poorly)
 * Model 11 .38/200 M&P (postwar special-order continuation of .38/200 Victory in .38 S&W, sold poorly)
 * Model 45 .22 Military & Police "Post Office Model" (special-order .22 Long Rifle version of basic M&P)


 * How about the Model 547 in 9mm? There's just over 10,000 of these around, produced around 1980s. Quite an interesting revolver since it did not require moon clips to chamber rimless 9x19mm cartridges. IMHO the Model 547 can be a candidate to your list...175.141.107.75 (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

CEO
James Debney replaced Michael Golden as CEO some time ago. I can't place a date on it but Golden is gone. That needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.140.140 (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing info in "Ammunition types introduced ..."
The .44 Russian, also known as the .44 S&W Russian, is a blackpowder center fire metallic revolver cartridge developed by Smith & Wesson in 1870. The .44 Russian design marked the first use of an internally lubricated bullet in modern firearm ammunition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Misleading section on the Agreement of 2000
The assertion that the NRA boycott was a significant factor in the drop of S&W sales is misleading. See further and sourced discussion at http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1ndx8n/til_that_smith_and_wesson_agreed_to_work_with_the/cchxb4d. Recommend re-writing the section to include a better and less biased explanation of the drop in sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.164.110 (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR and references
Despite the general policy, I thought the references were an infernal mess. I have boldly changed the formatting and citation style, and added a lot of links. I sincerely hope you will see the utility of the changes. I think it is much improved. I hope I did not step on anyone's toes. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Smith & Wesson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080608094057/http://www.policeone.com:80/police-products/apparel/duty-boots/press-releases/1641849/ to http://www.policeone.com/police-products/apparel/duty-boots/press-releases/1641849

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

History?
Apparently nothing happened regarding Smith & Wesson between the end of the Civil War and the year 2000? 71.80.204.169 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Lots of things happened. Start typing. ;-) Mike Helms (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charges that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
User: NeilN, I noticed in this edit that some seemingly credible and well sourced data was removed. Why? 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Accepting that the editor was a WP:Sockpuppet, this still might belong here. Even a sock can be right.  Like a stopped clock?  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Article of the S&W No 2 tip-up missing
An article of the Smith & Wesson Model 2 .32 Rimfire tip-up Revolver on which the barrel pivoted upwards is missing. It was the most important S&W “back-up” revolver used in the Civil War. Total production 77,155 manufactured 1861-1874. -- hmaag (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Which civil war? Dimadick (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smith & Wesson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722051641/http://www.americanrifleman.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1743&cid=0 to http://www.americanrifleman.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1743&cid=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Internal Lock-related source was a hoax
The part about the Internal Lock mentioned that S&W announced that the Internal Lock was to be phased out and cited an article by American Handgunner but said article DOES NOT EXIST, it was a hoax, and S&W NEVER announced said move; you can find more info on this article. I removed that part from the article (1/5/2018).

--189.192.211.125 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
I am informed that the following doesn't belong in the article. −	A Smith & Wesson manufactured rifle was used by the perpetrator of the February 2018 school shooting in Parkland, FL. They built it. As far as we all know, it was manufactured, sold and acquired legally under the laws presently in effect. To be sure, they were not directly complicit in the shooting, beyond making the gun, and nobody has said otherwise. They have a connnectin for sure, for better or worse.

Why Not include it? 7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a question that should probably be posed on a project page, like WP:Firearms, with an RfC to gain the widest consensus possible. If we're going to start documenting every single shooting on the article of the manufacturer of the gun involved in said shooting, these pages are going to quickly fill up with massive sections of entries of the sort you just noted above. These shootings are already well-documented, almost always with their own, lengthy and detailed articles which also always include the type of weapon used, and if it`s a firearm, the type, brand and manufacturer. Do we need to duplicate this info on the company`s article? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  20:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Project consents is against inclusion of crimes in gun articles. This came up recently in the S&W MP15 article and consensus didn't support inclusion. This is a parent article of the MP15 article. If support was lacking at the rifle's page then it's reasonable to assume it shouldn't go into the parent article either. [][] Springee (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is way beyond a "single shooting." I will not apologize for taking a stand here.  Assault rifles and AR-15s perform as they were designed.  But blaming this on "mental illness" and pretending that the the availability of the product are not related to the consequences of their use is disingenuous at best.  There is credible and substantial research whichi suggests a causal connection; the epidemic of school shootings (and the Las Vegas massacre) are not mere coincidence.  Let manufacturers reap the profits and the blame; we should not bowdlerize history here.  There is no consensus to remove this material here.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 01:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you have a strong POV on this subject. I don't recall mentioning mental illness or gun availability and I'm not sure how those are relevant to the discussion.  Please keep in mind that it is up to you to get consensus for the change when others are opposed.  Also keep in mind that the history of similar articles is against such inclusions (see the RFC I linked to that was all but the same subject).  About a year back there were some discussions about what is notable in context of an article (not WP:NOTE but what would belong in an article).  The primary focus was mentioning crimes that involved a car on the car's article page.  A Ford medium duty truck played a critical roll in the Oklahoma City bombing but consensus was even though the bombing was notable and the roll the truck played was notable, the truck was not known for it's use in that crime and thus the crime wasn't in the truck's article.  That same thing applies here.  To include the crime even on the S&W MP15 page you need to show that external sources about the gun associate it with the crime.  In this case we aren't even talking about the article about the MP15 but the article about the parent company.  Sorry, the crime doesn't have due weight for inclusion in this article. Springee (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * @ 7&6=thirteen - I'm not sure who you are replying to, but I certainly didn't ask you to "apologize" for anything. I also didn't make any comments about "mental illness" or the "availability" of firearms. In fact, I really only made two points; 1. I suggested that this discussion should be held at a different venue and 2. that mass-shootings and other notable firearms related incidents haven't typically been documented on any firearm manufacturer articles, if they were they would likely over-whelm the page and further, that these incidents almost always have their own pages already anyway and are well documented. I haven't taken any position on the production, sales, access, availability, licensing, ownership or usage of firearms. So, I hope we're cool. Cheers - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "pretending that the the availability of the product are not related to the consequences of their use is disingenuous at best" Nonsense. That rifle did nothing by itself. There are millions of weapons in civilian hands, including thousands of AR-15s, and none of them have harmed anyone. This is the usual gun confiscator garbage. It has absolutely no place at all on S&W's page. It's akin to blaming Ford for a bank robbery if the getaway car is a Fusion, or the Chicago Bulls if the robber wears a Bulls jacket. Balderdash.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  03:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

straw poll

 * OPPOSE The above comments "Let manufacturers reap the profits and the blame; we should not bowdlerize history here." clearly indicate that the demand that we include mass shooting information into this article is 100% political in nature, and has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia. This is a clear violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX.--Limpscash (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT The above comment "This is the usual gun confiscator garbage" clearly indicates that the demand that we do not include mass shooting information into this article is 100% political in nature and has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia. This is a clear violation of WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE (I guess we're doing this here) - My reasons are posted above. My primary concern is not the politics of the gun issue either way, but the project. If we start adding every single gun-related incident to the page of the gun manufacturer (as "controversy"), and we'll have to if we add this one, then those pages will fill up rather quickly with massive controversy sections and will become completely unbalanced. Articles here about companies should be about the company, not what someone unaffiliated with the company has done, illegally, with something that company made and was not the company's intended purpose for that product. Further to that, all of these gun-related incidents are already well documented on WP, usually with their own articles, and the company, though indirectly involved, is almost always noted in those articles already anyway. This is needless duplication. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  14:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The source mentions that the suspect posted photos of a Smith & Wesson firearm on his Instagram account, but makes no mention of that weapon being used in the shooting . Correction: Other sources state that the weapon used was a Smith & Wesson M&P 15. –dlthewave ☎ 16:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - really? If this belongs anywhere out of the shooting's own article, it would be on the individual weapon's page, where there is no consensus for it. I'm all for better gun control but this is just ridiculous and not helping anything. ansh 666 17:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC) (note: I came from WT:GUNS, which has a note explaining normal community consensus on the matter)
 * Oppose --RAF910 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Reliable sources often mention the prevalence of "AR-15 style" firearms in mass shootings, but I have yet to see any source that specifically mentions Smith & Wesson as having any connection beyond being the manufacturer of the weapon. It would be appropriate to mention the shooting in this article if there was some sort of controversy specifically involving Smith & Wesson and this shooting. –dlthewave ☎ 17:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is clearly a a politically motivated statement attempting to shame a firearm manufacturer, the article contains no other such references. However the reference would not be out of place in the Smith & Wesson M&P15 article, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln is mentioned in the Derringer article, and there is a mention of Lee Harvey Oswald in the Smith & Wesson Model 10 article. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * comment - not to take away from the Florida shooting in any way, but Lincoln and Oswald are singular, notable, historical figures. AFAIK, no single person (so far), whether it be victim, culprit or responder, in any of the mass shootings taking place on an almost monthly basis now, is individually notable outside the circumstances of the shooting. Like I said above, if we start adding every single firearms-related incident to the page of the firearm type, firearm brand or firearm maker, those pages will fill up very fast and quickly outweigh the rest of the article's content. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  21:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting a simple (reliability sourced) statement such as "an M&P15 was involved in the notable shooting one and notable shooting two." Any further detail rightly belongs in the crime's article. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC).
 * But do you think it would only be "one" and "two"? There are far more notable shootings already documented and it's not as if they're going to stop anytime soon. Or at all. What happens when that list reaches notable shooting 101 and notable shooting 102? Like I said, no matter how much you minimize these entries, the lists will continue to grow and at some point, outweigh the rest of the article. These notable shootings almost always have their own articles, or their own section in the articles of the culprit, the victim, the location, etc. These articles (and sections) always list the type, brand and maker of the firearm involved, and with that, always link to articles of the firearm type, brand or maker. I think that is sufficient. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Either way, that's out of scope for this discussion. ansh 666 03:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you came to that conclusion, or why you felt the need to tell us about it, but we're not removing or striking our comments thus far, and if wishes to reply further, he can, and if his reply warrants another response from me, I will. We haven't violated any policy here. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  19:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not suggesting that you should strike or remove your comments. You're discussing whether content should be placed on a different article (Smith & Wesson M&P15), and that can't be decided here in any case. Focus on this article, Smith & Wesson. ansh 666 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My position remains that the firearms manufacturer's page is not the place for such material, but instead individual firearm pages (or a firearm type page) where simple, unemotional, unemboldened by statistics, prose form cross referencing should link that page to those of notable crimes. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And my position remains that while I agree "firearms manufacturer's page is not the place for such material", neither are "individual firearm pages", for as I as I said, the "Controversy" section or "List of shootings involving this firearm" or whatever addition you propose, will quickly, and heavily, outweigh the rest of the content of the article. Linking is sufficient. It's one of the reasons why we link between articles on here. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  20:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose This is more garbage, blaming the gun for the crime & trying to make the manufacturer at fault. This doesn't belong anywhere. If you want it, why aren't you supporting mention of every Israel car bomb at the vehicle maker? Or the shoe company for every bank robbery & mugging? Stop being hypocritical. Better yet, just stop.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  07:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the short unvarnished statement of fact has no support. This was never about pinning the blame on one manufacturer; but whitewasing their involvement is suppression of relevant facts.  But to opine that "guns don't kill" is to over siimplify and just put your head in the sand. There are over 5 million AR-15s out there, and even more of the variants.  While some choose to characterize this aa "politics", I would suggest that it is one of public health, public safety, and the right to be free from predatory actions in society, and schools in particular.  But this proposal as it stands is D.O.A..  Maybe there is a better way? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A question that would probably be better asked at the WP:WikiProject Firearms talk page. All discussion on this is being centralized there. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  22:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)