User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 12:28:23 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Demand #3 is pretty ballsy: "3. Turn over to Smith & Wesson your inventory of the Infringing Product, or any Smith & Wesson product modified by you in the first instance that bears any mark owned by Smith & Wesson" S They should have read the EULA I guess 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 12:29:04 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I realize that the gun was to be a display model at SHOT. I thought they were going to sell them? But maybe not. I'll edit my OP again to try to make it clear. I can't really blame smith for asking them to stop, I understand why they want to defend their trademark, and it looks like they are in the right legally. Its still going to reflect poorly on them in the future. As for SSVI and Blown Deadline making that misleading instagram post, that was shitty. No argument here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 2:55:15 AM EST
[#3]
Best part about this is there's case law quoted and most of Arfcom isn't capable of reading, let alone comprehending.
No wonder Obama is president 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 2:57:33 AM EST
[#4]
Just curious to see where this goes....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 3:22:39 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That will not go as planned for S&W Yeah, a law student could have told them this was a stupid idea. Even if they somehow managed to "win", they'd just piss everyone off. "Hey, let's attack the aftermarket that supports our product!" Brilliant! Everything about this screams that this is not a company that is smart enough to manufacture firearms that I wish to own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 3:36:26 AM EST
[#6]
damn, i go to work and this thread just keeps kicking...
seems like this just opens a bad can of worms... why didn't S&W have a problem with this? 
there are dozens other companies that modify and then resell M&Ps, I'm pretty sure most of those companies don't scratch out the logos of those guns, either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 3:37:48 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Glock factory trigger is excellent. He meant to add, for a staple gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 3:39:29 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: damn, i go to work and this thread just keeps kicking... seems like this just opens a bad can of worms... why didn't S&W have a problem with this? http://i.imgur.com/AsVdeVi.png there are dozens other companies that modify and then resell M&Ps, I'm pretty sure most of those companies don't scratch out the logos of those guns, either. Just a guess, they have a deal/contract/agreement with S&W. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 3:43:58 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just a guess, they have a deal/contract/agreement with S&W. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
damn, i go to work and this thread just keeps kicking... seems like this just opens a bad can of worms... why didn't S&W have a problem with this? http://i.imgur.com/AsVdeVi.png there are dozens other companies that modify and then resell M&Ps, I'm pretty sure most of those companies don't scratch out the logos of those guns, either. Just a guess, they have a deal/contract/agreement with S&W. but doesn't all that work done to the M&P 'void the warranty and cause the gun to be unsafe' like S&W claims in their letter? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 3:47:24 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: but doesn't all that work done to the M&P 'void the warranty and cause the gun to be unsafe' like S&W claims in their letter? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: damn, i go to work and this thread just keeps kicking... seems like this just opens a bad can of worms... why didn't S&W have a problem with this? http://i.imgur.com/AsVdeVi.png there are dozens other companies that modify and then resell M&Ps, I'm pretty sure most of those companies don't scratch out the logos of those guns, either. Just a guess, they have a deal/contract/agreement with S&W. but doesn't all that work done to the M&P 'void the warranty and cause the gun to be unsafe' like S&W claims in their letter? Not if the lawyers all sat down and hashed it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 3:50:34 AM EST
[#11]
How about those pistols that are modified by their owners, they want them too? Fuck'em. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 3:51:02 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not if the lawyers all sat down and hashed it out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
damn, i go to work and this thread just keeps kicking... seems like this just opens a bad can of worms... why didn't S&W have a problem with this? http://i.imgur.com/AsVdeVi.png there are dozens other companies that modify and then resell M&Ps, I'm pretty sure most of those companies don't scratch out the logos of those guns, either. Just a guess, they have a deal/contract/agreement with S&W. but doesn't all that work done to the M&P 'void the warranty and cause the gun to be unsafe' like S&W claims in their letter? Not if the lawyers all sat down and hashed it out. hmm.... i went on the ATEi website and they don't mention S&W as a sponsor nor provide a link to them, and they provide a link to a lot of other companies such as BCM, Geiselle, and even arfcom.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 3:57:18 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: hmm.... i went on the ATEi website and they don't mention S&W as a sponsor nor provide a link to them, and they provide a link to a lot of other companies such as BCM, Geiselle, and even arfcom.. Like I said, just a guess. The impetus for the letter could also be partially due to it being "unveiled" at SHOT show. The nail that sticks out gets the hammer.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 3:58:22 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another reason to buy a Glock "Glock Perfection" Gen4 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 4:13:25 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not what the letter says. Basically, they don't want Alex selling stuff with the trademarks on it. You'll still be able to get the trigger. The answer will likely be for apex to stop selling whole guns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If this is true, they are done for me. I had an M&P Pro with an Apex trigger in it. The Apex made the gun go from okay to outstanding. I ended up selling it recently to fund the purchase of another handgun with the thought that a few months from now i would buy a newer performance center model or CORE model to replace it as i'd been wanting to upgrade to that anyway. Not being able to put an Apex trigger into that new purchase means i won't be buying anymore M&P pistols, period. If this is the way they plan to treat the shooting community, to ruin a thriving aftermarket support system, then i want nothing to do with them. That's not what the letter says. Basically, they don't want Alex selling stuff with the trademarks on it. You'll still be able to get the trigger. The answer will likely be for apex to stop selling whole guns. Not a lawyer, but this seems convoluted. At worst they are reselling weapons that they have purchased and modified. In any case, in my opinion Smith sells overpriced junk and survives by exploiting the good name they once had. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 4:20:20 AM EST
[#16]
Good for S&W. They have an obligation to protect their investment and their product. Everyone who wants to make money butchering a pistol should try making their own, not stealing someone else's design.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 4:29:28 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good for S&W. They have an obligation to protect their investment and their product. Everyone who wants to make money butchering a pistol should try making their own, not stealing someone else's design. So with that rationale should only one company make AR15s? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 4:29:31 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good for S&W. They have an obligation to protect their investment and their product. Everyone who wants to make money butchering a pistol should try making their own, not stealing someone else's design. ... You mean, not do exactly what Smith and Wesson did with Glock? 
“he [S&W CEO Melvin] took out the (unloaded) pistol and slammed it on the conference table. ‘If you can’t come up with a better handgun than the Glock, then copy the motherfucker!” --- Glock: The Rise of America's Gun by Paul M. Barrett, ISBN 978-0307719959. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 4:34:05 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I realize that the gun was to be a display model at SHOT. I thought they were going to sell them? But maybe not. I'll edit my OP again to try to make it clear. I can't really blame smith for asking them to stop, I understand why they want to defend their trademark, and it looks like they are in the right legally. Its still going to reflect poorly on them in the future. As for SSVI and Blown Deadline making that misleading instagram post, that was shitty. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just because the facts have become known there's no reason to end this thread. More please. I fully intend to bump this thread in the morning so maybe people who missed the whole story will pull their head out of their ass and figure it out. You guys keep saying that, have you read the Apex page at your own link? Where does it say that this gun is for sale, will be for sale, or that there are any plans for Apex, Brownell's et al to sell customized M&Ps? They're customizing an M&P as a showcase of their services and aftermarket products to display at SHOT. No where on Brownell's "Dream Gun" website is a firearm for sale. Only the aftermarket parts you would need to purchase if you wanted to duplicate it with YOUR factory gun. S&W is stepping on their dick here. No other way about it. They are turning something that would have driven sales of their M&P into a net loss. Real smart. I realize that the gun was to be a display model at SHOT. I thought they were going to sell them? But maybe not. I'll edit my OP again to try to make it clear. I can't really blame smith for asking them to stop, I understand why they want to defend their trademark, and it looks like they are in the right legally. Its still going to reflect poorly on them in the future. As for SSVI and Blown Deadline making that misleading instagram post, that was shitty. I am not sure that Smith has a leg to stand on. Given that this is a demonstration piece, Smith is essentially claiming that aftermarket parts and/or modifications are illegal. Now, I am no lawyer, but I am confident that this is completely incorrect. I can paint my new Ford rainbow, I can offer to paint yours that way as well, I can even call it my super rainbow package and I can do all that wit out pulling the Ford badges. I can also sell you the paint knowing that this is your intent. What I cannot do is tell you Ford painted it (unless they did). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 4:43:28 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good for S&W. They have an obligation to protect their investment and their product. Everyone who wants to make money butchering a pistol should try making their own, not stealing someone else's design. So you want to outlaw gunsmithing? Would you be okay with hunters or gun shops mounting scopes, or should companies force them to stay true to the design as originally sold? Or are you saying that it should be okay to repaint your car before you sell it, but only if you pull all the badging first? Or maybe Smith just needs to shut the hell up and worry instead about salvaging their reputation.Yeah, I think maybe they aught to do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 4:49:53 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you want to outlaw gunsmithing? Would you be okay with hunters or gun shops mounting scopes, or should companies force them to stay true to the design as originally sold? Or are you saying that it should be okay to repaint your car before you sell it, but only if you pull all the badging first? Or maybe Smith just needs to shut the hell up and worry instead about salvaging their reputation.Yeah, I think maybe they aught to do that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good for S&W. They have an obligation to protect their investment and their product. Everyone who wants to make money butchering a pistol should try making their own, not stealing someone else's design. So you want to outlaw gunsmithing? Would you be okay with hunters or gun shops mounting scopes, or should companies force them to stay true to the design as originally sold? Or are you saying that it should be okay to repaint your car before you sell it, but only if you pull all the badging first? Or maybe Smith just needs to shut the hell up and worry instead about salvaging their reputation.Yeah, I think maybe they aught to do that. Maybe S&W should stop selling AR-15 clones, 1911 clones, and Glock clones... Oh, wait, they stopped selling Glock clones, because they got sued and HAD to stop making Glock clones... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 4:55:32 AM EST
[#22]
Cliff notes please..........I can still buy the parts and put them into my personal gun..........what is the issue here?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 4:56:27 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read the full thread. This isn't the equivalent of selling aftermarket wheels or exhausts. This is the equivalent of Carroll Shelby doing what he did to the AC Ace, and then reselling it as a AC Ace without the permission or blessing of AC. Instead, he properly worked with AC and created the AC Cobra. S&W doesn't know if this modified gun is reliable and safe. Lets pretend that a ton of people bought these $2,500 guns and it turned out to be a complete jam-o-matic. Customers could think that it was S&W's fault because it had the S&W and M&P name and logo. The bad reputation could harm S&W profits.* *With the companies involved, I'm giving it a 99.87% chance the modified gun is reliable and safe, but S&W still has to maintain the integrity of their trademarks unless they want to lose it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That letter is bullshit. It would be like demanding that an aftermarket wheel company not sell Toyota wheels, or an exhaust company not sell mufflers for Chevys. Ridiculous. Read the full thread. This isn't the equivalent of selling aftermarket wheels or exhausts. This is the equivalent of Carroll Shelby doing what he did to the AC Ace, and then reselling it as a AC Ace without the permission or blessing of AC. Instead, he properly worked with AC and created the AC Cobra. S&W doesn't know if this modified gun is reliable and safe. Lets pretend that a ton of people bought these $2,500 guns and it turned out to be a complete jam-o-matic. Customers could think that it was S&W's fault because it had the S&W and M&P name and logo. The bad reputation could harm S&W profits.* *With the companies involved, I'm giving it a 99.87% chance the modified gun is reliable and safe, but S&W still has to maintain the integrity of their trademarks unless they want to lose it. Here's where I get confused. In all seriousness, can someone actually describe the difference in outcomes between these two situations. If I'm understanding this whole thing correctly, S&W has major issues with Situation #1 but has no problem with Situation #2. Situation #1 - Company A purchases a bunch of S&W M&P Pistols. Company A then performs a bunch of work on the guns to include physical alterations to the actual firearm (slide milling, stippling, etc.) as well as the addition of aftermarket parts (APEX Trigger Kit, Extractor upgrade, etc.) Company A then markets said modified S&W M&P Pistols as "Company A's Magnificent S&W M&P". Situation #2 - End user purchases a S&W M&P Pistol. End user decides he wants to modify his pistol for any number of reasons. He purchases a bunch of aftermarket parts and ships them off in a box with the pistol to Company A. Company A also offers custom work on S&W M&P's (slide milling, stippling, etc.) so our end user decides to have Company A perform these modifications as well. In both of these situations, the same exact gun is created by the same exact people. Both of these situations also have the possibility for reliability issues. There is no guaranteeing that our end user in #2 actually fires the pistol before he has these modifications done, so if any problems do arise, it could just as easily be blamed on the handgun instead of the modifications. I guess I'm just not seeing the difference here between a gunsmithing company selling pistols that they've already performed work on or offering a service where they perform the same exact work on a customers gun. I'll admit I haven't really dug into this thread all that much, but I'm pretty confused on what exactly S&W is wanting to happen in this situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 4:59:00 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cliff notes please..........I can still buy the parts and put them into my personal gun..........what is the issue here? People don't actually own anything if it has a company logo on it... Smith and Wesson reserves the right to demand guns back with no compensation if you modify them... Other companies are doing shitty things... Buy a Glock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 5:00:07 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People don't actually own anything if it has a company logo on it... Smith and Wesson reserves the right to demand guns back with no compensation if you modify them... Other companies are doing shitty things... Buy a Glock. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cliff notes please..........I can still buy the parts and put them into my personal gun..........what is the issue here? People don't actually own anything if it has a company logo on it... Smith and Wesson reserves the right to demand guns back with no compensation if you modify them... Other companies are doing shitty things... Buy a Glock. If I put an Apex trigger in my S&W...............S&W can force me to give it back to them!!?? 
Once the gun is mine I can do whatever I want with it...........or so I always assumed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 5:01:51 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I put an Apex trigger in my S&W...............S&W can force me to give it back to them!!?? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cliff notes please..........I can still buy the parts and put them into my personal gun..........what is the issue here? People don't actually own anything if it has a company logo on it... Smith and Wesson reserves the right to demand guns back with no compensation if you modify them... Other companies are doing shitty things... Buy a Glock. If I put an Apex trigger in my S&W...............S&W can force me to give it back to them!!?? While they are only demanding them back from companies which resell modified M&P's and not individuals, there's really not much of a difference between the two. They are basically saying if it has their logo on it, they retain rights to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 5:03:33 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................ While they are only demanding them back from companies which resell modified M&P's and not individuals, there's really not much of a difference between the two. They are basically saying if it has their logo on it, they retain rights to it. What law says I can't modify a product I purchase because that is a "patent/trademark" infringement? I simply DO NOT get this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 5:07:42 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What law says I can't modify a product I purchase because that is a "patent/trademark" infringement? I simply DO NOT get this one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
................ While they are only demanding them back from companies which resell modified M&P's and not individuals, there's really not much of a difference between the two. They are basically saying if it has their logo on it, they retain rights to it. What law says I can't modify a product I purchase because that is a "patent/trademark" infringement? I simply DO NOT get this one. They are basically saying, since modifying an M&P could theoretically negatively impact the M&P trademark recognition, they can demand modified products be turned over to protect their trademark... I'm nicknaming this "The Butterfly Effect offense." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 5:25:25 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While they are only demanding them back from companies which resell modified M&P's and not individuals, there's really not much of a difference between the two. They are basically saying if it has their logo on it, they retain rights to it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cliff notes please..........I can still buy the parts and put them into my personal gun..........what is the issue here? People don't actually own anything if it has a company logo on it... Smith and Wesson reserves the right to demand guns back with no compensation if you modify them... Other companies are doing shitty things... Buy a Glock. If I put an Apex trigger in my S&W...............S&W can force me to give it back to them!!?? While they are only demanding them back from companies which resell modified M&P's and not individuals, there's really not much of a difference between the two. They are basically saying if it has their logo on it, they retain rights to it. Legally, they are very different. In fact, if an end user modifies a pistol (or any other consumer product) and then sends it in for warranty the manufacturer must prove that the modification caused the failure before denying the claim. That said, I see this flying about like a lead balloon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 5:27:41 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryWell I know that modifications can void a warranty but that doesn't allow S&W to demand the gun be returned to them does it? I mean it is still my gun but maybe the warranty is now useless because of my modifications...........right? ETA: For example, when I disabled the stupid safety lock in their revolvers I realize the warranty might be voided but they can't demand the gun back from me just because I did that.........right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 5:35:17 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well I know that modifications can void a warranty but that doesn't allow S&W to demand the gun be returned to them does it? I mean it is still my gun but maybe the warranty is now useless because of my modifications...........right? ETA: For example, when I disabled the stupid safety lock in their revolvers I realize the warranty might be voided but they can't demand the gun back from me just because I did that.........right? Quote HistoryQuoted: Well I know that modifications can void a warranty but that doesn't allow S&W to demand the gun be returned to them does it? I mean it is still my gun but maybe the warranty is now useless because of my modifications...........right? ETA: For example, when I disabled the stupid safety lock in their revolvers I realize the warranty might be voided but they can't demand the gun back from me just because I did that.........right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 5:35:59 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.................. Hit submit too soon, see my original post. The Act I linked protects consumers again manufacturers pulling the warranty for BS reasons. I see..........thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 5:49:45 AM EST
[#33]
Go lawyers
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 6:04:01 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go lawyers Can you please tell me what their real gripe is here............I am really confused on this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 6:45:08 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will be in the EE, waiting for the fire sale on all these M&P's all you purse swinging handwringers are getting ready to sell. LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 7:21:48 AM EST
[#36]
I think the real driver behind this is that S&W feels bolstered by the fact their stock is up over 100% this year and their egos feel they can muscle people around.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 7:26:21 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but doesn't all that work done to the M&P 'void the warranty and cause the gun to be unsafe' like S&W claims in their letter? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
damn, i go to work and this thread just keeps kicking... seems like this just opens a bad can of worms... why didn't S&W have a problem with this? http://i.imgur.com/AsVdeVi.png there are dozens other companies that modify and then resell M&Ps, I'm pretty sure most of those companies don't scratch out the logos of those guns, either. Just a guess, they have a deal/contract/agreement with S&W. but doesn't all that work done to the M&P 'void the warranty and cause the gun to be unsafe' like S&W claims in their letter? Depends on what was done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 7:27:36 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I put an Apex trigger in my S&W...............S&W can force me to give it back to them!!??
Once the gun is mine I can do whatever I want with it...........or so I always assumed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cliff notes please..........I can still buy the parts and put them into my personal gun..........what is the issue here? People don't actually own anything if it has a company logo on it... Smith and Wesson reserves the right to demand guns back with no compensation if you modify them... Other companies are doing shitty things... Buy a Glock. If I put an Apex trigger in my S&W...............S&W can force me to give it back to them!!??
Once the gun is mine I can do whatever I want with it...........or so I always assumed. Of course you can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 7:28:45 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go lawyers They are indeed a scurvy lot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 8:07:59 AM EST
[#40]
Another side I havent seen mentioned is say this gun was used in a crime. For popularity sake lets say murder. The first thing you will see in the media is this "heavily modified Smith and Wesson assault gun" killed somebody. Not "9mm semiautomatic handgun modified by et al." I see S&W's legal side... I may not agree with their tactics or reasoning but I see it and respect their decision.
Now, since cars are a contrasting debate here, on the actual lawsuit side of the coin who here has been to SEMA? This is a distributor show similar to SHOT where cars are decked out in aftermarket pieces but many are still labeled with the OEM's badge and displayed with the OEM and model in their display plaque. What's the difference? (honest question). My personal opinion (since I know all of you care ) Is that S&W is kneecapping themselves. As a display piece, this is a sales opportunity for them. All it takes is for "Et al" to tell a consumer "we can replicate this so long as you go buy yourself an M&P and additionally pay for our products and services" and everybody wins. Why bite a feeding hand?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 8:10:39 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I realize that the gun was to be a display model at SHOT. I thought they were going to sell them? But maybe not. I'll edit my OP again to try to make it clear. I can't really blame smith for asking them to stop, I understand why they want to defend their trademark, and it looks like they are in the right legally. Its still going to reflect poorly on them in the future. As for SSVI and Blown Deadline making that misleading instagram post, that was shitty. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just because the facts have become known there's no reason to end this thread. More please. I fully intend to bump this thread in the morning so maybe people who missed the whole story will pull their head out of their ass and figure it out. You guys keep saying that, have you read the Apex page at your own link? Where does it say that this gun is for sale, will be for sale, or that there are any plans for Apex, Brownell's et al to sell customized M&Ps? They're customizing an M&P as a showcase of their services and aftermarket products to display at SHOT. No where on Brownell's "Dream Gun" website is a firearm for sale. Only the aftermarket parts you would need to purchase if you wanted to duplicate it with YOUR factory gun. S&W is stepping on their dick here. No other way about it. They are turning something that would have driven sales of their M&P into a net loss. Real smart. I realize that the gun was to be a display model at SHOT. I thought they were going to sell them? But maybe not. I'll edit my OP again to try to make it clear. I can't really blame smith for asking them to stop, I understand why they want to defend their trademark, and it looks like they are in the right legally. Its still going to reflect poorly on them in the future. As for SSVI and Blown Deadline making that misleading instagram post, that was shitty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 8:12:48 AM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Glock Perfection" Gen4 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Another reason to buy a Glock "Glock Perfection" Gen4 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 8:15:00 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe S&W should stop selling AR-15 clones, 1911 clones, and Glock clones... Oh, wait, they stopped selling Glock clones, because they got sued and HAD to stop making Glock clones... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good for S&W. They have an obligation to protect their investment and their product. Everyone who wants to make money butchering a pistol should try making their own, not stealing someone else's design. So you want to outlaw gunsmithing? Would you be okay with hunters or gun shops mounting scopes, or should companies force them to stay true to the design as originally sold? Or are you saying that it should be okay to repaint your car before you sell it, but only if you pull all the badging first? Or maybe Smith just needs to shut the hell up and worry instead about salvaging their reputation.Yeah, I think maybe they aught to do that. Maybe S&W should stop selling AR-15 clones, 1911 clones, and Glock clones... Oh, wait, they stopped selling Glock clones, because they got sued and HAD to stop making Glock clones... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 8:26:23 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good for S&W. They have an obligation to protect their investment and their product. Everyone who wants to make money butchering a pistol should try making their own, not stealing someone else's design. SW sold a firearm? is that not their goal? hell SW got sued for copying Glock. do you run K&N air filters in your ride? did you put custom insoles in your shoes? how about oversized grip handle on your bait casting reel? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 8:40:07 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about those pistols that are modified by their owners, they want them too? Fuck'em. No, they don't. People who didn't read the whole thing alleged at the beginning that this was S&W attacking the entire aftermarket when in reality a reading of the full document shows it's about one gun in particular, and even then that might be entirely based on a misunderstanding. Clickbait gun sites are no better than any other clickbait site in terms of accuracy of reporting or maturity. When all this gets resolved I'll bet you that the final story looks absolutely nothing like the original allegations...not that it will matter much to the pitchfork and torches set. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 8:42:20 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... You mean, not do exactly what Smith and Wesson did with Glock?
“he [S&W CEO Melvin] took out the (unloaded) pistol and slammed it on the conference table. ‘If you can’t come up with a better handgun than the Glock, then copy the motherfucker!” --- Glock: The Rise of America's Gun by Paul M. Barrett, ISBN 978-0307719959. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good for S&W. They have an obligation to protect their investment and their product. Everyone who wants to make money butchering a pistol should try making their own, not stealing someone else's design. ... You mean, not do exactly what Smith and Wesson did with Glock?
“he [S&W CEO Melvin] took out the (unloaded) pistol and slammed it on the conference table. ‘If you can’t come up with a better handgun than the Glock, then copy the motherfucker!” --- Glock: The Rise of America's Gun by Paul M. Barrett, ISBN 978-0307719959. That book is loaded with inaccurate bullshit. Remember that the author of that book is the same guy who made a bunch of money making ridiculous allegations about Blackwater. He's a fucking carnival barker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 8:42:53 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cliff notes please..........I can still buy the parts and put them into my personal gun..........what is the issue here? There isn't one, really. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 8:43:46 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There isn't one, really. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cliff notes please..........I can still buy the parts and put them into my personal gun..........what is the issue here? There isn't one, really. Thank you.........I thought I was losing my mind...................AGAIN!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 8:44:52 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People don't actually own anything if it has a company logo on it... Smith and Wesson reserves the right to demand guns back with no compensation if you modify them... Other companies are doing shitty things... Buy a Glock. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cliff notes please..........I can still buy the parts and put them into my personal gun..........what is the issue here? People don't actually own anything if it has a company logo on it... Smith and Wesson reserves the right to demand guns back with no compensation if you modify them... Other companies are doing shitty things... Buy a Glock. Did you even read the thread or the OP before posting? Thats not what is going on here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2015 8:44:57 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryI know Damon personally. He is good people; he is a combat vet and a legit Pipe Hitter operator. He does not sugar coat or kow-tow to anything PC. He says it like it is.
He smokes crack?!?!? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
