Under Obama, Oil and Gas Production in Decline on Federal Lands by 40%

Below, I have posted an article entitled IER Analysis: Oil and Gas Production Declines on Federal Lands in FY2011.

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) posted this article on their website, and in my opinion, this is information that we the public needs to know. 

This is the sort of facts and figures that we all need when we contact our Representatives and Senators asking them why Domestic Oil Production is down instead of up? to turn up the

Because of a turbulent Middle-East, I would think that our Federal government is taking actions to increase our Domestic Oil and Gas production output.  Instead, the more I read, the more I find out that the Obama Administration is slowing production - not increasing it.

This is an interesting article in that it was written by the Institute for Energy Research as an answer to  Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) recently sent a letter to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

It appears the Congressman was unhappy about the way the Energy Information Administration reported its findings on Domestic Oil and Gas Production on Federal lands.

The letter from the Institute for Energy Research (IER) states clearly that "while the data disparity noted in Rep. Markey’s letter may lead some to believe that EIA’s under-reporting of production on federal lands gives cover for failed Obama administration policies, the facts remain unchanged. Production on federal lands is down ... There is clearly a need for policy changes that encourage energy production on federal government lands."

To quote Rob Bluey's article on Energy Production:

Despite the Obama administration’s restrictive policies for oil and gas production on federal lands, overall production still increased thanks to the pro-energy policies in states like North Dakota.

“North Dakota has been the poster child for what can happen when we unleash free enterprise and allow states to develop and commercialize their resources,” Heritage’s Nick Loris wrote recently on The Foundry. “North Dakota is drilling at record pace.”

The result: North Dakota’s unemployment rate is 3.4 percent, the lowest in the country. According to a recent report from IHS Global Insight, North Dakota already returned to pre-recession employment along with energy-rich Alaska. Texas is expected to do so in the first quarter of 2012, followed by Nebraska and South Dakota next year.

Those states all have something in common: energy production.

That policy aligns with recommendations from Obama’s own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which yesterday issued a report calling for more energy production that includes drilling and pipelines. Here’s the language from the Jobs Council report:

As a nation, we need to take advantage of all our natural resources to spur economic growth, create jobs and reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil. First, we should allow more access to oil, natural gas and coal opportunities on federal lands.

Where sources of shale natural gas have been uncovered, federal, state and local authorities should encourage its safe and responsible extraction.

While the administration has supported holding additional lease sales and evaluating new areas for drilling, further expanding and expediting the domestic production of fossil fuels both offshore and onshore (in conjunction with more electric and natural gas vehicles) will reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil and the huge outflow of U.S. dollars this reliance entails.

In addition, policies that encourage rapid lease development while emphasizing the highest safety standards will ensure companies responsibly drill for natural gas or oil and mine for coal or other our minerals in federal areas in a timely manner.

With the Keystone XL decision, Obama rejected that advice. “At a time when unemployment remains unacceptably high, Iran is threatening the Strait of Hormuz, and Canada is looking to take this oil elsewhere, it is difficult to understand how the President could say no to thousands of jobs and an increase in energy supply from our ally,” Loris wrote in reaction to the decision.

- end quote.

So why isn't the Obama Administration and its Democrats in Congress more worried about increasing production and subsequently making America more energy independent while lowering gas prices at the pump?

I don't know why Obama has made it so tough for Oil Companies to produce on Federal land. Some say it's to keep gas prices high to force people to turn to alternative energy. Some say it is to force Americans to accept his plan to fundamentally change America.

I don't know what his reasons are for not helping Americans. I really believe that, and its what I also get from the article below, it seems that Democrats like Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) are more worried about trying to cover their backsides in an Election Year than they are about helping Americans.


IER Analysis: Oil and Gas Production Declines on Federal Lands in FY2011

Posted February 23, 2012

"EIA has included information on the production of oil and natural gas on Federal lands in the AER that significantly under-represents what is actually occurring:" letter from Rep. Edward Markey to Howard Gruenspecht, Acting Administrator of the Energy Information Administration.

Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) recently sent a letter to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) requesting the agency fix a problem with oil and gas production data on federal lands it reports in the Annual Energy Review (AER).

Markey’s interest in writing to EIA was to indicate that the production volumes reported on Federal lands by EIA were low, and to point out that production rose in fiscal year 2010, rather than declined as the EIA data showed and as the Institute for Energy Research (IER) and the Heritage Foundation reported on their websites.

EIA has yet to correct its reporting problem, and is waiting on the Department of the Interior (DOI) to provide correct data. In the meantime, IER painstakingly generated the available data for fiscal years 2006 through 2011 from reports buried in the Department of Interior’s website.

IER found that oil production on federal lands in FY2011 did, in fact, decline from the fiscal 2010 level and natural gas production on federal lands declined in FY2010 and then again in FY2011. While the Administration is correct that oil and gas production in the United States is rising, the data show that where the federal government was in charge oil and gas production fell last year on taxpayer-owned lands.

What Does the ONRR Data Show?

In FY2011, oil and natural gas production on federal lands declined from their 2010 levels: oil production on federal lands declined by 11 percent and natural gas production on federal lands declined by 6 percent. Meanwhile, there was a 14 percent increase for oil production on private and state lands and a 12 percent increase for natural gas production on private and state lands.

Sources: Department of the Interior, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, http://www.onrr.gov/ONRRWebStats/ExportReport.aspx?report=AllNonRevenueVolumesByCategoryAndCommodity&yeartype=FY&year=2011&datetype=AY
and http://www.onrr.gov/ONRRWebStats/Disbursements_Royalties.aspx?report=AllReportedRoyaltyRevenues&yeartype=FY&year=2011&datetype=AY

Moreover, natural gas production on federal lands in FY2011 declined by 27 percent from its FY2009 level, when it peaked at 6.82 trillion cubic feet, while natural gas production on state and private lands increased 28 percent over that time period.

Sources: Department of the Interior, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, http://www.onrr.gov/ONRRWebStats/ExportReport.aspx?report=AllNonRevenueVolumesByCategoryAndCommodity&yeartype=FY&year=2011&datetype=AY
and http://www.onrr.gov/ONRRWebStats/Disbursements_Royalties.aspx?report=AllReportedRoyaltyRevenues&yeartype=FY&year=2011&datetype=AY

The above trend indicates the Obama Administration policies that IER reported are causing lower oil and natural gas production on taxpayer-owned lands.[iv] These policies include limiting the offshore areas where oil can be produced, leasing much less land than previous administrations, cancelling oil leases, withdrawing oil leases and slow-walking the issuance of permits that allow domestic energy production. (For more of the Obama administration’s anti-energy actions, click here.)

Data Issues

In obtaining the data for this analysis from the DOI’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) website, IER noted the following:

•Data were unavailable on the ONRR website for non-revenue production on federal lands prior to fiscal year 2006. IER received the following message when asking for fiscal year 2005 data: “An error has occurred while processing your request. Please try again. If the problem persists, please contact MMS Customer Support at 1-877-256-6260. When speaking with customer support, a federal official stated that “an error has occurred in the MRM Statistical Reporting application.”

•The data given to Rep. Markey by ONRR is different from what is reported on the agency’s website. For example, in his letter to EIA, Rep. Markey indicated that non-revenue oil production on federal lands in FY 2010 was 312 million barrels, but the ONRR website reports 351 million barrels.

•Non-revenue production volumes by fuel type are not evident on ONRR’s statistical website. For more about ongoing data transparency issues at the Department of Interior, click here.

Conclusion

Rep. Markey was right to ask the U.S. Energy Information Administration to correct its information in the Annual Energy Review, which are not easily obtainable from the Department of Interior either by the general public or by other federal agencies or the Congress.

And while the data disparity noted in Rep. Markey’s letter may lead some to believe that EIA’s under-reporting of production on federal lands gives cover for failed Obama administration policies, the facts remain unchanged. Production on federal lands is down, while production on state and private lands is up.

Indeed, if ONRR’s data volumes are correct,there are abundant reasons to believe that current policies holding public lands captive from resource development serve to make federal lands increasingly unattractive to energy producers.

Our nation needs to produce energy, revenue and especially, jobs. Meanwhile, state and private lands are rapidly increasing energy production. There is clearly a need for policy changes that encourage energy production on federal government lands.

Author: IER


Reprinted here as a service to the public.

by Tom Correa

Obama OK With "Target Killing" Americans Here?

OK, the headline reads, FBI Director: Have to check whether "Targeted Killing" rule is outside US only

Wait a minute! What does he mean, he has "to check?"

According to the article, FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice to see if Attorney General Eric Holder's "three criteria" for the "targeted killing" of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.

The new phrase in the whole Obama speak dictionary is "Target Killing." And by the way, "Target Killing" is the Political Correct term for "Assassinating!"

From what I gather from Holder, it sounded like they were targeting Americans overseas as people trying to kill other Americans.

I'm up front when I say, I have no problem killing anyone of any nationality who is living overseas and is trying to kill Americans. If an American wants to kill Americans overseas, either as a part of a terrorist group or a foreign military, then he is simply a part of America's enemies overseas and needs to put down. No different than a rabid dog.

But we're talking American citizens here in America, and that is a whole different story. If a person in the process of attempting to kill Americans is himself shot and killed during the process of being arrested, than that is a completely different situation because the law is being carried out.

A person in violation of our laws is a criminal. As a criminal, our criminal justice system enables law enforcement officers to arrest and detain individuals being investigated or charged. If something goes wrong during that arrest, than yes, citizens have been known to have been killed.

That is not the same as actually targeting and killing Americans in the United States because they are wanted for something - even if it is complicity in a terrorist plot. We don't kill these people. We arrest them.

So where's the difference between here and overseas? Well first, here we have full law enforcement capabilities. Second, as citizens, we have rights to a trial. If overseas, our law enforcement cannot depend on even the slightest cooperation to locate and apprehend criminals. And if that criminal or terrorist is located, then many countries will not allow Americans to be extradited.

And why won't many countries extradite criminals and suspected terrorist to us? Well it's either because the United States does not have Extradition Treaties with those countries, or it is because most criminals running from the law have relinquished their American citizenship to stay in other countries.

To me, when they become a former American citizen - they lose all rights under our justice system. And yes, that makes them fair game for target killings overseas.

OK, so that's how I see killing terrorist operatives who used to be Americans. But, when he was pressed by House lawmakers about a recent speech in which Attorney General Eric Holder described what he sees as the legal justifications for assassination overseas, FBI Director Robert Mueller did not say without qualification that the three criteria could not be applied inside the U.S.

"I have to go back. Uh, I'm not certain whether that was addressed or not," Mueller said when asked by Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting

Yoder followed up asking whether "from a historical perspective," the federal government has "the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas."

"I'm going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice," Mueller replied.

Indeed, Holder's Monday speech at Northwestern University seemed to leave the door open. While Holder speaks of Americans who lead al Qaeda overseas, the implications of the speech seem broad.

"First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles," Holder said.

Holder said the feasibility of capturing a U.S. citizen terrorist is "fact-specific and potentially time-sensitive."

"Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack. In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force," said Holder.

So OK, this sounds like the bad guys overseas couldn't be arrested and they were losing time, and the situation was such that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.

OK, I have no problem with that.

fact is that three Americans were killed last year when lethal force was used against American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. I don't know if Awlaki relingished his American citizenship, but since he wanted to kill Americans - that becomes a mute point.

Awlaki is credited with helping plot the foiled Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253 by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and inspiring the Fort Hood shooting. The two others killed - his son and a cohort who published his online terror magazine "Inspire" - were considered by the U.S. to be collateral damage.

Asked about FBI Director Mueller's response, the Justice Department said the answer is "pretty straightforward."

"The legal framework (Holder) laid out applies to U.S. citizens outside of U.S.," said a spokeswoman pulling excerpts from the attorney general's speech.

OK, that's what I thought as well. But as you will see, I', wrong.

Holder said the circumstance were legal when it is a case of "an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans. The circumstances are sufficient under the Constitution for the United States to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen abroad," Holder added.

So if we're clear that it is to "use lethal force against a U.S. citizen abroad," the why is the FBI Director so screwed up as to what the policy really is? Well, the problem comes from Attorney General Holder referencing legal authority in the War on Terror that dates back to the George W. Bush administration and saying that the Obama Administration is not bound to a particular battlefield.

"Neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan," Holder said.

Eric Holder contents that it is "simply not accurate" that the President must get permission from a Federal Court before taking action against a United States citizen terrorist.

Holder said, "Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."

Imagine that, an Attorney General who wants to usurp the Constitution and break the law.

It is remarkable that he doesn't understand that even the President is bound by the Constitution. Granted a citizen can be arrested, for example, by a Federal Agent, but to take action in the line of a warrant or a trial than that federal agent must go through a Federal Court to take action against a Untied States citizen.

So friends, now I can actually see why FBI Director Mueller doesn't know the answer.

It's because the Obama Administration is saying that assassinations of Americans is not restricted to former Americans and American terrorist overseas - but to American citizens here at home as well.

That's scary if not stopped.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine on Wednesday that Attorney General Eric Holder's remarks not only would be seen by the framers of the Constitution as "the very definition of authoritarian power," but were met "not with outcry but muted applause."

"Holder's new definition of 'due process' was perfectly Orwellian," Turley wrote. "What Holder is describing is a model of an imperial presidency that would have made Richard Nixon blush. ...

"Where due process once resided, Holder offered only an assurance that the President would kill citizens with care. While that certainly relieved any concern that Obama would hunt citizens for sport, Holder offered no assurances on how this power would be used in the future beyond the now all-too-familiar 'trust us' approach to civil liberties of this administration," he wrote.

I'm sorry, but giving any federal agency the power to kill Americans on orders from the President - here in the Untied States - is a American State that is too scary for me to imagine.

And this administration doesn't understand why many Americans are frightened at where he wants to take our country?

This is why, and come November it has to stop!



Story by Tom Correa

Sandra Fluke - Might Have A Problem?

Like many others, I've heard about Rush Limbaugh catching all sorts of flak from the Liberal Media because he called Sandra Fluke a "slut."

So OK, I can't help but be curious as to why he would have said that?

After looking into this, I've found out that on the morning of Wednesday, February 29th, 2012, a hearing on women's health was conducted to combat the Congressional hearing that was being held by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) on the Obama Care Mandate which violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) picked a panel of Clergymen to testify on the Obama Care Mandate that is trying to force Religious Institutions to distribute contraceptives and afford its employees abortion counseling if requested - even if it goes against the basic teachings of the church.

The Liberal Media has conveniently pushed aside that primary issue by focusing on women wanting free contraceptives. This of course is the standard Liberal Media tactic of taking the heat off the Obama Administration.

The issue is not free contraceptives for women. The issue that the Liberal Media wants to divert attention away from is the Obama Care Mandate of Religious Institutions to adhere to Federal Regulations that directly oppose the religious doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Folks, no matter what the Liberal Media trys to say, that's the real issue here!

The Liberal Media would make Americans believe that the discussion is about a women's right to free contraception coverage. During the hearing with the Clergymen, who represented the primary religions in the United States, Democrats wanted to know "where are the women on the panel?"

For some reason, probably out of convenience, the Democrats at the hearing seemed to completely reject the fact that the hearing was not about "contraceptives" - but was in fact about our First Amendment Religious Freedoms.

So another hearing on free contraceptives was called by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. She wanted to steer the discussion away from that of our First Amendment Religious Rights and over to a women's need for free contraceptives.

It is apparent to me that free condoms seem to be more important to the Democrats in Washington D.C., then is our Freedom of Religion.

Nancy Pelosi arranged for a Georgetown Law Student named Sandra Fluke to testify in support of the need for free contraceptive coverage which is included in the Obama Care Mandate - otherwise known as the Affordable Care Act which was passed by Democrats in 2010 before they were ousted from Congress.

So Sandra Fluke was seated to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on a women's need for free contraceptives.

Sandra Fluke, who is a "Third Year" Law Student at Georgetown Law which is a Catholic University, is also past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ.)

During her testimony, she said, "I don't understand how you can have an open conversation without hearing from the women who have been personally affected by this."

Personally affected by what? The law has not gone into effect yet, besides it is not a discussion about a women's need for free contraceptives. You would think that a Third Year Law Student would understand what the initial hearing was about? It is about our Religious Freedom!

During here testimony, she said, "I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously-affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens."

Of course she does not mention that the reason that a Catholic Institution such as Georgetown University does not furnish contraceptives is because contraception is against the teachings of the Catholic Church and its religious doctrine.

It is obvious that she is incapable of respecting the religious doctrine of any religion. It would have been interesting to hear her complain if she were attending a Muslim University with Islamic teachings.

But she goes on and says, "We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic or Jesuit institutions."

As my grandpa would say, "that is her opinion - and she is wrong." For Catholics it would be a conflict, but don't advise her of this - I'd hate to trouble her with facts.

Then she went on, saying that on a daily basis that she has heard about the plight of women, especially one, who "works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage."

Then she gets dramatic and says, "And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard. Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000.00 during law school."

Stop! Yes, she said that contraceptives - aka condoms - "can cost a woman over $3,000.00 during law school."

No kidding! And yes, she's been in Georgetown University for at least 3 years! I can't help but wonder how that great education is turning out - if she or anyone else is not smart enough to know that $3,000.00 on condoms is insane.

But wait, there's more, she then goes on to say, "For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.  40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."

OK, so from what I gather there are a lot of sexual activity going on at Georgetown University.

In fact, from what I'm hearing, I really can't understand how a Third Year Law Student who has spent $3,000.00 on condoms has time for classes. But hey, that's probably just me!

So with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, I've found a solution for the students at Georgetown!
After hearing about the plight of women students at Georgetown University, I found a cheap website for them and Sandra Fluke to go to. This site will save her and any other Georgetown Law Student a lot of money.

Fact is, there is no reason that condoms for Sandra Fluke or any other student should "cost a woman over $3,000.00 during law school." Heck, I've never even heard of "professional" women spending $3,000.00 on condoms.

For those such as Sandra Fluke and the 40% at Georgetown who are spending such big money on birth control and STD protection.

My friends, here's a great link for you. It should help any student strapped for condoms! No pun intended!

TROJAN Enz Condoms Lubricated Latex - 36 count for $15.36

As Sandra Fluke said, "For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."

In my opinion, the problem of no free condoms for women who are as sexually active as that bunch back East needs to be addressed.

If female students need $1,000.00 worth of condoms a year, then that is indeed a Medical Crisis - and they have bigger prolems than just a bad reputation.  

Now for you students, who like Sandra Fluke, who are extremely sexually active and spend a lot of cash on contraceptives - I have done some Homework for you.

For a box of 36 TROJAN-Enz Lubricated Latex Condoms, they sold for only $23.99 a box. That's the regular price. You multiply that by 12 months at $23.99 regular price, it will cost you $287.88 for condoms for a year!

Now as you can see, there are 36 in each box - so you will have a few left over each month if you just hold your sex drive down to once a day each month.

So for at least $287.88 a year, multiply that by 3 years, you will only spend $863.64 to get you through your Third Year of Law School at Georgetown.  That is a savings of $2136.36 for you. This extra savings is especially important for those students who are needing to find more money for beer, wine, and other sexual aids.

But hey, you will have 1296 condoms if you act now - and that will help you get to about the same level of education as Sandra Fluke is right now.

Friends, with links to cheap condoms and the money you save, you'll be missing classes and seeing your professors for "private tutoring sessions" until the cows come home! 

And heck, I didn't even factor in the sale price of $15.36 - or bulk sales for those gals out there in Georgetown who may be going into business because of their desires - so the benefits of my help may just keep getting bigger and bigger! No pun intended!

Of course, there is no need to thank me. Although, I'm sure that the parents of those who I have helped appreciate my assistance.

Now getting back to being serious with this story.

This is just my opinion, but I really believe that if a woman needs to spend $3000.00 in 3 years on condoms because she has that huge of a sexual appetite - then that woman is not a "slut" like Rush Limbaugh said.

When I was in College, shameful as it was, yes there was a female student who was in fact known as "the campus slut." She got that reputation for sleeping with 4 different guys in a year. That's right, just four in a year! Who knows what kind of name they would 've had to come up with if others would have known that she spends $1000.00 a year on contraceptives?

But this new revelation of what's going on at Georgetown University goes way beyond just promiscuity. This moves way pass the extent of getting a bum rap that garners a guy or a gal a bad reputation. And yes, I also new a guy in college who was a known as a "campus slut." But this goes beyond that!

No, I believe that anyone who spends $3,000.00 on condoms goes way beyond being saddled with a horrible reputation as "the campus slut."

Fact is, after taking the financial numbers that Sandra Fluke has presented in her testimony into account, by looking at that kind of money, with knowing that Sandra Fluke said she spent "practically an entire summer’s salary" - just on contraceptives - well, then I really believe that she might qualify as someone with real problems.

This would be in the realm of someone who has, as she said, "critical health care needs."

Seriously, if I were a parent of a young women who said that she might be having to "struggle financially" because she can't get free condoms - I would definitely be concerned.

That's just the way I see it!

Story by Tom Correa

Smith & Wesson - A Tough Success Story - Part 2

In Part 1, I talked about Smith & Wesson of the 1800's.

Smith & Wesson first designed a double-action revolver in 1872 as a variation of their very successful Model 3 that they offered to the Russian government.

Back in those days, a double-action revolver was called a "self-cocker."

Their commercial introduction of a S&W double-action did not come until 1880 with a series of small-frame, 18-ounce, five-shot top-break .38 S&W and .32 S&W revolvers.

These exposed-hammer, top-break, pocket-size, double-action revolvers were a scaled down version of their large Model 3.  And yes, they were among the most popular guns Smith & Wesson ever built. Nearly a million total were sold before they were discontinued in 1919. 

Over the years Smith & Wesson has been there to furnish the military, the police, and the private citizen with a wide assortment of choices in fine firearms.

My favorite Smith & Wesson of the late 1800s happens to be the Smith & Wesson Model 10 Military & Police revolver. Its full name was Smith & Wesson .38 cal Hand Ejector Military and Police Model of 1899 Model 10. 

When first sold, this .38 caliber revolver shot a big 200 grain bullet which of course meant that it had plenty of stopping power. It was called the "Hand Ejector" because, unlike the famous S & W break opens, the Model 10 has a swing cylinder that enables the user dump the expended rounds with just one hand.

When I was a young boy on my grandfather's ranch in Kunia, Hawaii, on Oahu. The Model 10 that I shot belonged to my grandfather. It was the first pistol that I'd ever shot, and yes, I instantly feel in love with it.

It is not the most powerful or the most accurate revolver, but the greatness about the Model 10 is its simplicity and versitility.

It is simple, basic, and extremely reliable - which of course are the three things I enjoy in old style firearms. It has a fixed-sight, takes six rounds, and has a fluted cylinder.

It is no frills revolver that was designed to be drawn and fired quickly, not have sights that would snag or catch on clothing, and it can be carried for close-combat defense uses. As for plinking with it at cans like I did at my grandfather's ranch, well it was just a lot of fun to shoot.

The Smith & Wesson Model 10 was first known as the Smith & Wesson Military & Police. Then later, it was known as the Smith & Wesson Victory Model. After that, it became simply known as the M&P Model 10, and finally just the Model 10.

Smith & Wesson struck gold on this design.

Today Smith & Wesson's Model 10 revolver is still being made. And yes folks, this revolver has the distinction of being the most successful revolver of all time.

Friends, this pistol has been is production steadily since 1899 with very few changes. It has been available with barrel lengths of 2 inches, 2 and half inches, 3 inches, 4 inches, 5 inches, and 6 inches. I believe that the 5 and 6 inch barrel lengths were made for special contracts.

If this pistol doesn't sound like the perfect pistol, well some 6 Million have been produced over the years, making it the most popular center-fire revolver of the 20th century.

That, my friends, is a record not topped by any revolver on record. And yes, as a handgun it is only surpassed by the amount of semi-automatic 1911s produced.

By 1914, with the success of the Model 10, even the British government wanted it.

But yes, they wanted it in their standard .455 caliber.  The Smith and Wesson Hand Ejector 2nd Model .455 Webley caliber revolver was created.

Colt's New Service double-action was already being used in Great Britain. The British liked the solid frame, double action design with a swing out cylinder. Colt's New Service model revolver was the company's large frame, heavy caliber offering from 1898 to 1944. The Colt proved extremely popular with military and law enforcement again chambered in the hefty .455 caliber round. 

In contrast to the Colt New Service, which had originally been offered in .455 among other chamberings, the Smith & Wesson .455 Hand Ejector of the First Model was specifically manufactured to meet the needs of a military organization.  In this case, the British.

The 1st Model came with a 6.5" barrel, a blue finish, with a shrouded ejector rod. The 2nd Model had no shroud on the ejector rod and a lighter weight barrel. From what I've read, today these are prized by collectors.

The 1st and 2nd Models were very popular with the British. In fact, the British purchase many during World War I and into World War II.

Of course, many different models in a variety of calibers and barrel lengths have come out over the years. Smith & Wesson dominated the double-action market for years.

When talking about the history of Smith & Wesson, there are many many very note worthy Models. Among the most famous was the Model 1911 .22 caliber Target Pistol, the Model 1917 in .45ACP, the Model 19 .357 magnum California Highway Patrol model, the Model 13 in .357 magnum with a 3inch barrel, and of course the snub nosed Chief's Special.    

Of course, one of the most famous Smith & Wesson revolvers has to be the Model 29 revolver with the 6 inch barrel in .44 magnum. Yes, the "Dirty Harry" pistol.

I bought a Model 29 .44 mag to take on a Bear Hunt as a backup piece to my .45-70 Government 1895 Marlin lever-action rifle.

Well, the truth is that I never went on that hunt. But, I did keep that pistol.

For me, it is too much gun to take out of the safe and go plinking tin cans with. It is something special among revolvers and I hope the friend that I gave it to as a birthday present appreciates it. I think it will serve him well for many years to come.

In 1964, Smith & Wesson passed out of the hands and subsequent control of the Wesson family. It was a time when several conglomerates took control of Smith & Wesson.

But the sale of Smith & Wesson did not stop it's growth, or its desire to branch out into other fields besides firearms. 

Then in 1987, yes, a British company by the name of Tomkins PLC bought Smith & Wesson. 





1980s S&W Advertisment

Those British folks owned Smith&Wesson through some tough times for the gun industry. The anti-Gun groups became much stronger in those years, and of course the United States elected it's first openly anti-Gun President in the way of Bill Clinton.

Just a little over a year into his first term, Bill Clinton went after the gun industry full force with threats of lawsuits and over-regulation.

Then came the Brady Bill that banned many firearms just based on their looks.

The passage of the Brady Bill cost Bill Clinton his Democrat Party in Congress. After two years in office, his policies at offended the American public to the point of their voting out his Democrat majority in Congress.

In many ways, Bill Clinton made history by losing the Congress. The Democrats had ruled Congress through 40 years of Liberal control.

Pro-Gun Conservatives took control of Congress, but that didn't stop the Clinton Administration from attacking an American's right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. This time, instead of going after a citizen's right to own firearms, the Clinton Administration went after firearms and ammunitions manufacturers.

As a direct result of threats and pressure, in March 2000, Smith & Wesson, which was owned by British company Tomkins PLC, was the only gun maker to sign an agreement with the Clinton Administration. It did this in order to avoid the huge costs involved in lengthy lawsuits.

Smith & Wesson's problems only just started after they signed that agreement.

It was a horrible time for a private company like Smith & Wesson. The Federal government decided to place all sort of unwarranted demands on that privately owned company. The demands came in the shape of numerous "unrealistic" safety and design standards, and with imposed limits on the company's ability to sell and distribute their products.

Then came the public backlash!

Many in the public saw Smith&Wesson as making a deal with the Devil. The agreement was not at all accepted by the gun owning public. Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith&Wesson by refusing to buy their new products.

What followed the boycotts was a flooding of used S&W firearms on the gun market, of all sorts of used S&W guns. And yes, it nearly ruined the company for good!

After a 40% drop in sales, the sales impact from the boycotts led Smith & Wesson to suspend manufacturing at two plants and lay off over 800 employees.

Believe it or not, the success of the boycott lead the Clinton Administration to order the Federal Trade Commission to conduct an anti-Trust investigations of all sorts of groups including the NRA and others. The investigations were initiated under the Clinton administration specifically targeting gun dealers and Gun Rights Groups, but it was subsequently dropped under President George W. Bush.

The agreement signed by Tomkins PLC ended when they sold Smith and Wesson to the Saf-T-Hammer Corporation. The new company, now called the Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation, publicly renounced the Clinton anti-gun agreement it signed with the Clinton Administration

Their action was received positively by the firearms community, but the company was less than half of it's former self.

On 11 May 2001, Saf-T-Hammer Corporation acquired Smith&Wesson Corp. from Tomkins PLC for $15 Million, just a fraction of the $112 Million originally paid for by Tomkins PLC. Yes, this returned Smith & Wesson's ownership to America.

Saf-T-Hammer assumed $30 Million in debt, bringing the total purchase price to $45 Million. Saf-T-Hammer, a manufacturer of gun locks and other firearms safety products, purchased the company with the intention of incorporating its line of security products into all Smith&Wesson firearms in compliance with the 2000 agreement.

The acquisition of Smith & Wesson was chiefly brokered by Saf-T-Hammer President Bob Scott, who had left Smith&Wesson in 1999 because of supposed disagreement with the policies at Tomkins PLC.

After the purchase, Bob Scott became the President of Smith & Wesson to guide the 157-year-old company back to its former standing in the world as an American firearms maker.

On 15 February 2002, the name of the newly formed entity was changed to Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation. But of course, most folks will always know them as simply Smith & Wesson.



A Great Choice
for Concealed Carry

Today they produce some of the finest pistols, both revolvers and semi-autos, as well as rifles and everything in between.

From handcuffs to pocket knives, boots, clothing, tactical and hunting gear, the S&W logo seems to be everywhere these days. And yes, it is great to see!



When talking to those of us who own one, most will likely just refer to their pistol as a "Smith!" And no different than it was a hundred and fifty years ago, a "Smith" is a great insurance policy against bad guys.

Smith & Wesson has a long record of proving itself as one of the premier firearms manufacturers in the world. I'm glad they are a success story, they have had a tough road. Sometimes it was their stubbornness to adapt and change that lead them to lose valuable opportunities.

A lot of companies out there can learn a great deal by seeing where and how Smith &Wesson righted itself to get back on the road to being a successful company.

Next month, I hope to finish Part 3 where I go into Smith & Wesson's history of the semi-automatic pistol market. And yes, to answer one email that I've already recieved on this topic, I promise that I will try to research Smith & Wesson's tactical rifles as well.

Smith & Wesson - A Tough Success Story - Part 1

Smith & Wesson - A Tough Success Story - Part 3

Smith & Wesson - A Tough Success Story - Part 4

Story by Tom Correa