So I've been thinking that in the war on the 2nd, some gun makers have been better then others. We all know the negative examples I'm sure, but I'm thinking of guys like Ronnie Barrett who've really put their money where their mouth is about freedom. Who else out there in the industry is walking the walk?
From the Barrett FAQ
Are Barrett rifles legal to own or possess in my state?
That depends. You may live in a jurisdiction that restricts caliber, or magazine capacity. First, we recommend that you elect politicians that will change those laws. If you cant do that, then we recommend that you move to an area that obeys the constitution. But in any case, we dont offer legal advice on what you can or cant own. Check with your local law enforcement official.
The lock on Smiths are annoying; however, when I worked at a gun store the Smith rep told me some of the background behind them caving. If his info is true then I'm at least a bit mollified regarding the decision.
Care to share this? I'd love to know a/the story.
I wish I could afford to support Mr. Barrett.
Personally, I prefer my weapons made in America, and will give preferences to gun makers that make their weapons domestically, when their quality is what i'd expect from an American company.
The fact that Smith and Wesson, for instance, has the "lawyer lock" on their revolvers bothers me less than it does others.
Which is why for a while I've thought Barrett should make some more income friendly arms. I'd love to see a handgun line. Or even a rifle line in intermediate caliber.
Mike: thanks for the reply. I've been skeptical of those claims but never heard from anyone who might actually know.
Re: Saf-T-Hamr. They're the original patent holders of the locking device installed in Smiths these days. Before buying Smith they existed to try to get gun companies to install locks on their guns anyways.
Saf-T-Hammer, a 3-year-old company which specializes in safety and security devices for firearms
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2001/05/14/daily1.html