Ruger's Image

As far as Ruger ripping off others designs? He was the first to admit it. This was a quote from Bill in a Shooting Times interview:

WBR: Right. Well, I think I have done some of that. I’ve come into the gun business so late in terms of evolution of firearms. There aren’t a whole hell of a lot of ideas left that keep popping out at you.

It’s really a matter of perfecting designs. I think my strong suit as a contributor to technology of firearms is getting the logic sorted out, the shapes of components, their adaptability to production, to shooters, to collectors.

I’m a tooling expert. I’ve proven that. I make guns that are both sound designs and are commercially feasible or they won’t exist...otherwise it becomes a museum piece and nothing more.

I’ve taken advantage of new manufacturing technology. Take forged steel versus investment casting. The decision to go to investment casting was easy.

With casting you very nearly have a finished part. Forging, to my mind, is still a very crude process. Forging is a complicated thing. Plus there are metallurgical differences. The metallurgical structure (of precision investment castings) are stronger. Plus it’s more economical.

Click to expand...

The man built his company creating firearms that people wanted, for the price they wanted to pay. In the process, he created and perfected a precision investment casting empire. They have been a profitable company from day one without ever borrowing a cent. That is pretty fuggin impressive considering they never had any serious military contracts to keep their asses floating. So could the naysayers please tell me if they suck so bad, why are they still in business?

There can be only one explanation......Ruger doesn't suck.

When I bought my P-series pistol I was ignorant of Bill Ruger's part in the magazine capacity limits of the assault weapons ban. I didn't learn about it until I became active on the forums. I do not agree with what he did then. I do believe what he did was a business decision. Some people might not consider my P-944 pretty, it doesn't have target accuracy, nor does it have the easiest trigger to master but it works & does so consistently. It is the only Ruger I have owned but due my experience with it I would be inclined to buy another.
I also agree with whoever it was that posted that Ruger needs to do more testing & better quality control if they want to keep the "rugged, reliable Ruger" image. Too many recalls on new products will put people off purchasing from them. I know for myself just from watching the forums I wouldn't buy a new product from them until it had been out for at least a year maybe two.

an M14 would have been a very good idea

Click to expand...

Look up "X-GI", that's as close as Ruger could get to making an M-14 clone at a reasonable price. All reports from the few folks that got to play with one before the project was dropped say it's accuracy would have made the Mini look good.

At this point, the economics of trying to produce an M14-type rifle, mean that basicly no one (now that Chinese guns are taboo/un-importable) is gonna take on Springfield's place of that market. No US company can produce a comparable quality or better rifle, for the same price point. SA/Imbel have long since paid off their initial investment(s) in tooling etc, and they are THE "known name" with regard to M14 clones.

In other words "A quality US-made M14 clone at same price point as SA" is a pipe dream.

Oh and also on the subject of the Gold Label, Ruger isn't wholly to blame for THAT failure. Ruger was under the impression that the American gun buying public wanted a US competitor to Beretta, the "Gun buying public" thought Ruger should compete with the likes of Stoeger once THAT was sorted out Ruger laughed at the absurdity of the idea and moved on.

Ruger is doing just fine in my oppinion. They've made some manufacturing decisions that i don't exactly like (plastic 10/22 trigger housings, No more Blued Bisley Vaqueroes). and the fact is that now that they no longer make the blued B-V, none of their current lineup matches any of my personal wishlist. but that doesn't mean they're not a viable and vital company that I wish the best for. the more firams makers stay afloat the better.

the more firams makers stay afloat the better.

Click to expand...

Absolutely...competition is good for us, the buying public, and it provides incentives for them (all manufacturers) to keep good QA/QC and CS. They may have a lot of recalls, but at least they make an attempt to remediate the issues (there are others that don't).

The LCR is an innovative take on the 38 snub and the LCP is an improved version of the 380 pocket at a still affordable (269 around here) price. They make an affordable and reliable 22 auto handgun and rifle as well. Plus you have their stout DA and SA revolvers. They do have some recalls but they are good about updating their firearms when problems are found. They are entering new markets and may pull out of a few but that is business. I can't see how they could have a bad rep.

I have liked Ruger for some of their variety of offerings-not many American companies offer the wide range of actions in handguns, rifles and shotguns they do.
My only complaint has been with the SR-9 pistol I own. Finicky with ammo out of the box, started feeding/ejecting reliably after 200 rounds.
The Super Blackhawk in .44 Mag. I stupidly (but fiscally responsible!) sold 20 years ago was the most accurate centerfire pistol I have owned.
Currently have a SR-9, Mark II and NRA Mini-14. Wish they offered a 9mm snubbie in the SP series!

The 10-22, while fairly reliable, is and has been a step behind in the accuracy department. While I hate to admit it, my bull barreled, new stock, new trigger pack 10-22 only matches most of the Marlin Model 60 factory rifles I have used. With all that money invested I could have had multiple Model 60's that performed in the end just as well.

The Mini14 has a tarnished history of mediocre to terrible accuracy. Things seem better with the 580 line but even these don't seem totally impressive. I can't say the rifle pulls at me any more than an AR and with what prices have done of late (the mini climbing and the AR falling closer to pre obama prices) I can't justify its purchase over a new AR. If the mini is good enough for you awesome. I can't take anything away from your decision. And no I wouldn't want to be standing down range or either, though that holds true of every firearm. With the sour taste the old models left it will take a while of everyone reporting great groups before I jump back on ship with the mini.

The bolt action rimfires have been another relative joke in the accuracy department, at least relative to other brands in the same price range. I LOVE the stout little action but the accuracy is so dodgy I can't see spending a dime on one unless I got a great deal and had budget left for a new trigger and barrel. Again I LOVE the action and think those rifles have all the potential in the world, they have been hampered by mediocre accuracy for too long to spend a premium on them.

Ruger's bolt actions too suffer from the hit or miss accuracy issue. While many people seem to love them and say they are good shooters it seems quite a voice can't get them to shoot. Today's bolt action market is razor thin. Everyone is making a sub $500 rifle that will shoot 1-1.5MOA. There isn't enough room to have reports of mediocre accuracy floating around. I had a $300 Stevens 200 that shot my hunting loads, 5 shots, into 1.5" at 100 yards. I think there was a bit more in that barrel but the factory trigger was a bit heavy and rough which I think kept the rifle from being in the 1 MOA range. Many people are getting the accutrigger models to shoot sub MOA and many get the heavy barrel models to shoot sub 1/2MOA. T/C has the new Venture with a 1 MOA guarantee and they price in under $500. Remington has seemed to come around of late making many sub MOA rifles. If you need CRF I look straight to CZ. Good actions, Great triggers, Good barrels. Mine have all shot better than MOA. Its too tight for me to risk it on a Ruger that may or may not shoot.

I like the new piston AR. I'm not in the market for a piston AR but it was nice to see something other than another $900-$1500 DI basic AR model pop up. The piston market is one I think has been capitalized a bit light on, though I'm not sure now is the best time to be pushing such a rifle. It seems AR owners bought big about a year ago. I still have nothing bad to say about this rifle though.

I do like the new SR22. I know its just a 10-22 with a different stock but its a market I think is out there. It looks cool and the fact it is proven reliable puts it ahead of Colt and S&W's attempts at a .22lr that looks like an AR. I haven't spent the money on it but again its a market I can't blame them for entering.

Their handguns, across the board, are something I like. I like their MK III. I removed the mag disconnect and while the loaded chamber indicator is ugly I don't see it when I shoot. That pistol shoots great, accurate and reliable. I had a Single Six. It was a smooth pistol, I just realized I wasn't much of a single action revolver guy. Can't say anything was wrong with that handgun in any way, just not my cup of tea.

I have shot their SR9 a bit. I think its a nice pistol and honestly if I were in the market for a new double stack 9mm it would be second only to a CZ75, but thats because I like the SAO trigger of the CZ more than any of the DA/DAO options out there from any manufacturer. That pistol is a range toy for me so a light crisp trigger is something I look for.

The P series pistols are a true workhorse. Not going to win a beauty contest and not something I would want to try to conceal but certainly reliable and accurate, along with reasonably priced, especially used.

I own two LCP's and like both. While they are a very close copy of the keltec they seem to have legal right to use the same design so I can't say its a bad decision. I think they improved on the design and made a better pistol.

I have no real experience or knowledge of their single action centerfire handguns. After the Single Six I pretty much lost interest in them so I can't comment here.

Their double action revolvers are built like a brick house. Another work horse I have nothing bad to say about. The new LCR looks like the future. I don't see how people can say much bad about it. I see a lot of comments about staying away from it until it is proven. Pretty solid design if the only negatives to come are speculative.

I am by no means a Ruger Hater or Lover. I have or have had many of their rifles and handguns. Their rifles haven't done anything for me so far, but their handguns have been solid and reliable. I don't dare say my opinions and requirements are the same as everyone else. I'm sure will disagree with some of my thoughts but these are my opinions based either on my first hand experiences or much research into items of interest. I am sure some will have had better and worse results than I have found but that's why we have so many options. We all can shoot what we enjoy.

Oh and also on the subject of the Gold Label, Ruger isn't wholly to blame for THAT failure. Ruger was under the impression that the American gun buying public wanted a US competitor to Beretta, the "Gun buying public" thought Ruger should compete with the likes of Stoeger

Click to expand...

That's not how it went.

Ruger promised an American-made double for $1995 and a lot of people were pretty excited about it. Yes, it was plain-looking, but it balanced well. I shot an early one, once. Nice gun in the hands.

Ruger actually delivered a plain-looking American-made double for $3500 if you could find one. While it was nicer than a Stoeger, it wasn't up to the standards of other guns in the price range (including the Silver Hawk, for that matter).

It was most certainly Ruger's fault. They didn't do their research before making promises to their customers.

It would probably have done quite well for under $2000, especially if, like the Red Label, a couple hundred more bucks would get you some engraving, so it didn't look like a military weapon.

If blued steel was affordable AND SOLD maybe Ruger would have kept it in the lineup. One of the very basic mistakes any gun enthusiast makes is that the kind of guns he likes are also good sellers on the market.

I suppose the Rohrbaugh enthusiasts would like Ruger to have come out with an $1100 copy, right down to the magazine, too. Ruger did well enough with the LCP at $260 they made a sales record last year, double their prediction. Cheap sells.

The American gun buying public is hard to read and fickle. LOTS of other makers have bit the bullet on designs that died on introduction - Colt, Remington, Savage, Winchester, et al. One thing they all have had to do is cut costs to produce a salable firearm. Its been going on longer than some members here - the Remington Nylon 66, the POST '64 Winchesters, etc.

Everybody whined and complained that the better methods of craftsmanship were lost, good workers put to stamping or casting junk parts, etc. No, what was happening was competition. Another maker could and did come up with a better product cheaper. Even Mauser did that - from the late twenties to the last rifle finished in May of 1945, appearance, finish, and complex operations were ruthlessly reduced to cut costs.

Those May 1945 Mausers can and will shoot just as good or better than the earlier parade quality ones. Further, it was the highest month of production in a upward trend reaching back before the war. Reducing unnecessary operations means you can make more of them for the same amount of labor.

Or make more profit - which the American owner/stockholder demands, regardless of our quaint concepts. Having a battery of trained workers rifling barrels on lathes is 30 years out of time. Hammer forging is here, and will quickly overtake lesser methods of mass production.

Had Winchester kept filing away at semi finished receiver forgings on the Model 70, they would now be over $25,000. The fickle American public - regardless of what they have said - would drop them like hot potatoes. And did. Winchester went out of business anyway.

You can't get old world craftsmanship, low price, and the American economy all in the same building. Most of us won't work for the pay - amd we won't pay for the finish and bluing. We only have ourselves to blame.

The final death blow of Ruger's SXS was a much better looking and finished, American made SXS by Ct. Shotgun Mfg. (CSM) at a great price. The RBL gun by CSM proved that there IS a market for SXS shotguns here in the US and has been quite successful. I bought a 20 ga when they were first announced at a bargan price,and their 28 ga since.

The RBL gun by CSM proved that there IS a market for SXS shotguns here in the US and has been quite successful.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

There just isn't a market for the Gold Label at the price of an RBL. I really think it would have sold, at a street price well under 2 grand, as promised. Ruger's mistake was promising what it couldn't deliver.

Could be that what happened with the RBL is the same thing that happened to the Model 70: Production costs rose dramatically, and the desired sales price was no longer profitable.

To say that Ruger "ripped off" the Colt design is silly. What single-action revolver manufacturer does not generally follow that design? Or even advertise that it's a copy? Given what Ruger did for safety with a revolver, he deserves quite a bit of praise. They took an ergonomic design, added the transfer bar, and created a really good product.

Don't forget that in the case of the single action Bearcat, it wasn't Colt that influenced its design. It's more old school Remington than anything.

I have to admit my experience with them is largely negative, as in "they discontinued it?!?!" Namely the 10/22mag and 40carbine. If they still made the 40carbine I'd have one and whichever pistol it shares mags with RIGHT NOW.

Also, my 10/22lr was just innacurate.

I'll keep looking for a 40carbine and maybe a lever-action 22mag, but how such good weapons would be discontinued is unfathomable.

Line numbers in a catalog either sell or die. What we like as individuals has nothing to do with the long term commercial viability of a product. It what 5 - 10,000 customers buy every year that counts.

Oddball cartridges in weird actions don't sell. I'm not holding my breath waiting for the 6.8 SPC to be offered in the Winchester '94 - considering even that has died. How could the company who lived and breathed the lever action for 80+ years not be in business?

Most buyers don't want them. I might even suggest they prefer low quality imported AK's firing a similar round with worse accuracy.

HK no longer makes the Model 91 or 93, either. They moved on. Is there demand? Sure, enought to sell lots of PTR's and kits. Hot ticket right now. Just not from HK.

If someone sees a model being dropped from production - it's not all bad. They sometime get reborn as a better one. Some appreciate in value and they discover they own a rare gem. Others discover the blandness, sell it and discover better firearms.

If a favorite firearm hits the skids, maybe it's time to do some soul searching.

That I can appreciate, but a 10/22mag and a 40carbine (a police gun) had to have been good sellers. I'd be surprised if they weren't.

but a 10/22mag and a 40carbine (a police gun) had to have been good sellers. I'd be surprised if they weren't.

Click to expand...

the 10/22Mag sold well for a few years, then most everyone that wanted one, had one. at that point demand dropped off a cliff and ruger could no longer justify keeping the separate receiver production line open.

as for the PC4 rifle, as you noted it was intended as a police carbine. The hoped for sales of ruger pistols (matching mags, being the big selling point) never materialized, strike number one. then when the big impetus for "patrol carbines/rifles" hit it was post "N. Hollywood", and what depts wanted then were AR-class guns (strike two, and end of police sales).
as for civilan sales of the PC-series, First pistol caliber carbines are a real Niche market amoung the public, and to keep it simple, unless someone both already owned a ruger P-series pistol AND wanted a companion carbine, they weren't all that likely to buy a PC of either chambering.

Interesting thread with a lot of good insights. Also some comments from people who don't understand business at all.

I think the quote from Ruger about his move from forging to casting conveys an important point. Most any gun maker can make a superior weapon by lavishing time on it. There are lots of custom gun shops that out there selling rifles for five times what a Ruger costs. If they establish a market they can stay in business, but maybe they will sell one rifle a week. Manufacturing expertise is the the key to staying competitive. If a mass market rifle like a Ruger costs $50 more than the competition, the sales are going to plummet.

I doubt anyone is making much money on hunting rifles these days. In an article about disappointing profits at S&W maybe a year ago, they blamed competition for the I-Bolt from new models by just about every major manufacturer. Someone, perhaps Savage, started a revolution with better triggers and accuracy approaching 1MOA, and everyone has to upgrade. I think Ruger was lagging in this area.

Edit: changed "is lagging" to "was lagging" in the last sentence.

Okay. Just a few thoughts regarding Ruger.... (and I have a love hate thing with Ruger)....

The company began with Bill Ruger taking a design (the Nambu pistol), altering a little, and chambering it to .22 LR. By simplifying an existing design, and making it cheaper, but also making it far more strong than it needed to be to handle the .22 cartridge, he built quite an empire.

And that same pattern held. Ruger takes something out there, puts the "Ruger spin" on it, and a bunch of people buy it. We are only seeing a continuation of this policy under new management.

That being said, Ruger always had one problem. Adjusting to changes in the American shooter. I don't think they are having those problems now that Bill Ruger is dead.

I doubt anyone is making much money on hunting rifles these days.

Click to expand...

If that's true, then Ruger's management must be complete idiots for coming out with multiple new lines of said rifles.

rc ruger didnt steal the design they fixed it and made it how it should be made and keltec didnt believe in their product enuf to patent the idea before producing it so whos fault is that and as far as tactical goes look at the ruger mini-14 and the ruger 44mag carbine

Brother-in-law is an engineer at Ruger over in Prescott and he is a stickler for near perfection. In the early 90s he gave me a P-90 .45 acp that has proven to be extremely accurate, feeds all ammo and never a malfunction, aside from it's bulk compared to my old slab sides is an excellent pistol.

Here is the factory test target.

Couldn't resist.

seeing red-labels give out after 5000-10000 targets, soured me on the ruger brand. other o/u in the same price range are good for 100000+ before a rebuild. every person i know that started with a red label ended up trading/selling/putting it in the back of the safe and using a rem or beretta auto, or any of the big name o/u that for the same price are far more durable

however there pistols are ok -- for the price. <500$ for the vaquero i am very happy with!