![Smith and wesson forum](https://kumkoniak.com/102.jpg)
Indeed, it is notable only for taking cost and quality reducing shortcuts to a new level in American rifle making. Almost nothing about this rifle is actually innovative. It is a knock-off of the venerable Remington Model 700 action, with a few ideas stolen from other manufacturers tacked-on. The truth is that this rifle is almost completely deritive. The "I" in "I-Bolt" is supposed to stand for "innovation," an assertion so boldly false as to be almost breath taking. The recent S&W I-Bolt rifle is one example of S&W "shading" the truth in their promotions. (You could say that they flat-out lie and get no argument from me.) However, Smith & Wesson's corporate actions over the decades of their existence have often been questionable and their advertising misleading, at best. Certainly not because they make guns, nor are their products (always) unsafe when used as directed. Of all the big American firearms manufacturers, Smith & Wesson is-in my opinion-the most deserving of censure. Guns and Shooting Online readers expect, and deserve, the truth-or at least an honest opinion. However, too many readers have written asking why I haven't reviewed S&W firearms, or asking if I recommend various S&W models. Quite the contrary, as I will undoubtedly alienate some readers and a large potential advertiser.įrankly, I don't like to write negative reviews, which is why I have usually declined to review Smith & Wesson products. I've never had any particular desire to do an article about the dark side of Smith & Wesson, but it's time someone in the outdoor media called a spade a spade, so to speak, rather than sugar-coat it as a "manual digging implement." I'm sure that I will be accused of all sorts of bias after speaking out in this article, but the fact is that I have no personal motive, nor do I stand to profit in any way, from an S&W hit piece.
![Smith and wesson forum](https://kumkoniak.com/102.jpg)