Springfield Armory & Rock River Arms - No More for Me

[herrwalther]

This never hit attention radar, as I don't live in Illinois. The more I read about it though, the less I like it. Rock River never sold anything that interested me so I was not a customer of theirs. But Springfield has caught my eye with many of their models. Probably not anymore after this.

 

[salt&battery]

It is fine to buy from Ruger now considering the fact that they are not in any way similar to what they were when Bill Sr. was still running things. He was the sell out and Ruger has more than made up for that by now producing all the types of things he was against and being a high quality, Pro 2A company. There is no reason to boycott Ruger and S&W got the message too. Apparently SA and RRA did not understand that message, but they are about to.

6 years from now you will be saying the same about SA and RRA excusing them saying they are ok. don't you see how it works?

 

[il.bill]

but S&W and ruger years ago were worse then RRA and SA. so your friends proved nothing

Uh - they proved that they have forgiven Ruger and S&W, for the reasons pointed out by helitack32f1 in Post 24.

As I said: "Forgiveness for SA and RRA may well come with time, but right now many of us have no intention of giving them any more of our money."

How it works is that SA & RRA will need to do something for atonement.

 

[salt&battery]

Uh - they proved that they have forgiven Ruger and S&W, for the reasons pointed out by helitack32f1 in Post 24.

As I said: "Forgiveness for SA and RRA may well come with time, but right now many of us have no intention of giving them any more of our money."

How it works is that SA & RRA will need to do something for atonement.

I don't remember S&W doing anything for "atonement" or even ruger. ruger jumped into the AR market for the money. they both know human nature and know guys blow of steam for a couple of months then thing go back to normal. like going to a town meeting complaining about taxes. they sit their smirking and nodding their heads then laugh at you when you leave and nothing changes

 

[il.bill]

Saw a picture on the Illinois Carry Forum posted by Molly B. I wanted to share.

 

[JR24]

I'm very angry at this. I've been a happy M1A owner for a decade, but now I'm wondering if I should sell it (at a considerable loss because of the stigma that SA has now brought upon themselves).

I certainly won't buy any new SA guns (but I wasn't going to anyway, they offer nothing I want).

But you are gonna have to pry my M1A from my cold, dead, hands.

 

[KansasSasquatch]

So should we all give up on the gun companies that operate in states that pass anti-gun legislation?

Ruger, S&W, Colt, Remington, Savage, and now SA and RRA?

It'd be awfully difficult for all of them to pack up overnight and move to gun friendly states. How many employees do you think would uproot their families? Do you think the companies would be able to train that many new employees in an efficient manner?

The situation sucks but be realistic. SA and RRA did what they had to do to keep the doors open. Hopefully they can use some lever age and fight back, but they won't have any leverage if the entire gun community gives up on them.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

Both Ruger and S&W are both under new ownership so why would we blame the new owners for what the old ones did. If SA or RRA change hands then we can forgive them.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

What sucks is that I was going to buy the new XD-E, it would have been my 4th XD

 

[JeeperCreeper]

Once they get new management or change their tune, I'll buy eventually. I don't hold grudges forever and still make decisions based on my own personal wallet, so time will tell....

 

[WestTexShooter]

Years ago, when Steve Melvin was CEO of S&W, I wrote him and stated I would not buy any more of their products if they stayed in MA. He wrote back basically saying that people in MA. were not unlike other people in every state of our Republic. That to mean that it was not monolithic, that their associates did not agree with the state gov't. but not much they could do.

About 3 years ago I communicated with the CEO of SA, basically communicating the same ideas. He said he understood but their company could not just desert the good people of Genesco (?) who had supported the company so loyally.

I appreciate these things. But as someone who believes that the Bill of Rights is to the soul of our Republic what the Holy Bible is to the soul of man, I will no longer purchase firearms from companies located in non-free states. I will not buy a product when that company will pay taxes to the state, and have that state try and deny me the right to buy that product. Insanity.

I will ALWAYS try to buy made in U.S.A., but the company must be located in a free state.

 

[helitack32f1]

6 years from now you will be saying the same about SA and RRA excusing them saying they are ok. don't you see how it works?

If they happen to make a complete amends for their actions and reverse themselves as Ruger has, then yes, you are correct.

 

[helitack32f1]

I don't remember S&W doing anything for "atonement" or even ruger. ruger jumped into the AR market for the money. they both know human nature and know guys blow of steam for a couple of months then thing go back to normal. like going to a town meeting complaining about taxes. they sit their smirking and nodding their heads then laugh at you when you leave and nothing changes

Ruger does not have to do anything for "atonement". As I stated before, the guy with the anti-freedom tendencies is dead and gone, therefore, Ruger is essentially a different entity to the one you choose to hold a grudge against. Stating that Ruger got into AR's "For the money" is silly in that seems to imply that other companies just got into AR's for schits and giggles and completely ignores the fact that the old Ruger, under Bill Ruger Sr. would NOT have gotten into AR's for the money or any other reason. Not only did they get into AR's they also equipped their handguns with regular capacity magazines rather than the low-capacity magazines deemed politically correct by Mr. Ruger. They even supply Mini-14's with larger magazines which SR. was against.

 

[kemikos]

The situation sucks but be realistic. SA and RRA did what they had to do to keep the doors open. Hopefully they can use some lever age and fight back, but they won't have any leverage if the entire gun community gives up on them.

The problem isn't that the manufacturer operates in a state that passes anti-gun legislation.

The problem is that SA publically dropped their objection to a bill that will severely harm gun owners and dealers in their home state, in return for an exemption from the law. Literally within minutes of the change, the sponsors were able to claim "see, these corporations who pay "x" in taxes and employ "y" taxpayers are fine with it now". With that claim, the bill was then able to pass by a one-vote margin.

There's no way to know for sure how the vote would have gone had they not sold us out, but that really doesn't matter. The fact that it happened is enough.

And just so everyone knows what we're talking about here: if passed into law, the only firearm dealers left in IL will be the big box stores (because they're exempt from it too). In addition, transfers among non-dealers will be limited to 9 per person per year.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

"Big companies can't just uproot and move to another state"

Magpul: "Says who?"

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Thanks for the info....I'm pissed to hear this about SA to say the least. After it fails to pass the IL House (fingers crossed) they'll whistle a different tune, I'm sure.

 

[BearBrimstone]

At first I disliked Springfield Armory for this and thought I definitely won't be buying any of their products in the near future, but then I started thinking about it. If I'm honest about it I would have made the same decision if I were in their shoes. If I owned a company and I had the option of protecting my company but I had to throw other people under the bus of course I would do it. Why hurt my company just to help people I don't know? They merely made the smart business decision.

 

[PabloJ]

From "The Truth About Guns": https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...-illinois-ffl-licensing-scheme-for-carve-out/

"While its prospects are still unsure in the House, if signed by Governor Bruce Rauner, the new law will mandate state licensing for all Illinois gun dealers. It will also restrict all others in Illinois to nine firearm transfers per year.

The lobbyist for the Illinois Firearms Manufacturers Association (IFMA), Jay Keller, traded that group’s opposition to the bill in exchange for a carve-out, removing Prairie State firearms manufacturers from the licensing requirements.

Two companies provide the bulk of the funding for IFMA: Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms."



SA and RRA and their lobbyist got themselves, as well as 'big box' stores, exempted from the Illinois dealer licensing requirements, at the expense of all the rest of us. No more SA or RRA firearms bought or sold for me. Good luck to them as they set out on their own, leaving gun owners and dealers in Illinois behind.

Not a problem. I have never heard of Rock River Arms and the only interesting thing Springfield Armory offers is short barreled M1A "Scout-type" 7.62 rifle. I can get along w/o either manufacturer quite nicely.

 

[PabloJ]

Saw a picture on the Illinois Carry Forum posted by Molly B. I wanted to share.
View attachment 234075

The thing weighs more than G26 with 12 round mag. I do not understand marketing angle. Are they trying to separate few from carrying their five-shot sub nose revolvers?

 

[GBExpat]

I'm very angry at this. I've been a happy M1A owner for a decade, but now I'm wondering if I should sell it (at a considerable loss because of the stigma that SA has now brought upon themselves).

What reading this immediately brought to my mind was an image of John Lennon telling people to not buy Beatles albums just so they could burn them because that would be stupid.

 

[TomJ]

At first I disliked Springfield Armory for this and thought I definitely won't be buying any of their products in the near future, but then I started thinking about it. If I'm honest about it I would have made the same decision if I were in their shoes. If I owned a company and I had the option of protecting my company but I had to throw other people under the bus of course I would do it. Why hurt my company just to help people I don't know? They merely made the smart business decision.

I'm not sure how smart of a decision this was as they're alienating their customers. They are in too competitive of an industry to do that. I'm hoping they do something to make this right, as I'm a fan of their products, but as I've stated before they need to do something of substance, not just a line of spin.

 

[Elkins45]

If we boycott all the companies and they all go out of business then finally the Second Amendment will finally be vindicated.

Yay for us!

This was the decision of a handful of people. Maybe we should see if we can fix it before we start punishing the employees who had nothing to do with it.

 

[KansasSasquatch]

Thanks for the info....I'm pissed to hear this about SA to say the least. After it fails to pass the IL House (fingers crossed) they'll whistle a different tune, I'm sure.

While I'm sure there's some difficult aspects of running the machines that Magpul uses, those machines probably aren't nearly as complicated as running the equipment that a firearm manufacturer requires. Springfield doesn't do ALL of the machining on their firearms, but they still do enough that they need skilled machinists. You can't train someone to be a skilled machinist overnight. They also might need to train new QC personnel and the personnel that handles compliance with laws pertaining to firearm transfers. Again, most likely a lot simpler and cheaper for Magpul accomplish since they don't make firearms.

 

[Trent]

It was bought before this decision, the sale would not affect SA one iota. If you like the gun, keep it for nostalgia for before the company turned on their customers. That is how I am justifying keeping my pair of XD-S's, and why I will NOT be buying any more of their products.

Actually that is untrue. If people dump unwanted SA guns on the market cheap, folks not participating in the boycott who still want to buy Springfield guns are far more likely to buy a used one in good condition for few $$$, than buy a new one. So it does affect SA.

However a boycott first affects the dealers. The immediate impact of a boycott isn't at all on SA. It's on the dealers stuck on SA inventory. Once (or usually, as) that inventory is depleted the dealers decide whether to restock.

Now dealers aren't going to jump at the chance to cut their own throats. Not many will dump their inventory at a loss.

So what does it take to get the ball rolling?

It takes people dumping Springfield Armory guns on the secondary market, cheap.

That makes it more appetizing for those not boycotting to buy those guns, instead of dealer guns. There's a surplus of this "stuff" available. Prices invariably can only go down.

So, notwithstanding what you said, economics dictates that yes, indeed every transaction of that merchandise DOES in the end affect the manufacturer, and a wide-spread dumping of used (but good quality) springfield armory firearms are necessary to initiate the desired effect.

 

[KansasSasquatch]

The problem isn't that the manufacturer operates in a state that passes anti-gun legislation.

The problem is that SA publically dropped their objection to a bill that will severely harm gun owners and dealers in their home state, in return for an exemption from the law. Literally within minutes of the change, the sponsors were able to claim "see, these corporations who pay "x" in taxes and employ "y" taxpayers are fine with it now". With that claim, the bill was then able to pass by a one-vote margin.

There's no way to know for sure how the vote would have gone had they not sold us out, but that really doesn't matter. The fact that it happened is enough.

And just so everyone knows what we're talking about here: if passed into law, the only firearm dealers left in IL will be the big box stores (because they're exempt from it too). In addition, transfers among non-dealers will be limited to 9 per person per year.

And what if they hadn't negotiated for a carv-out and the bill passed anyways. Then they'd be screwed and may have had to close their doors. Firearms sales aren't peaking right now. SA and RRA are big enough that moving to a new state would cost them quite a bit, but small enough that they may not survive a move. I don't know, I don't have enough knowledge of their financial to make a decent guess on that. Do you?