Many people put down Rugers.. but I just wanna say.. I love my Ruger
- Thread starter ruger270man
- Start date
- Status
Elmer, Elmer, Elmer...
I'd wager that, much like William Batterman Ruger, Sr, you just don't get it.
It's not about Mini-14's looking "tough", either.
It is, however, about selling out, much like S&W did with their nefarious agreement. Ruger could very well be described as one of those who "eats his own".
But since you wanted to spew a little vitriol, and demanded facts, then by all means, I will oblige you.
In case you missed it, here's the story:
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html
In case you can't find your way there, I'll save the effort, and with thanks to Dean Speir's site, post the article here:
*******************************************************
William Batterman Ruger, Sr.
"Father" of the Clinton Administration's High Capacity Magazine Ban
As is common with any controversial issue, there's a great deal of misinformation floating about, and misperceptions held by those affected by the issue.
Nowhere is this truer than with 1994's infamous "Crime Bill," the second significant piece of federal firearms legislation passed that year. Aside from the "assault weapons" (whatever those are) provisions, a significant portion of that bill dealt with magazines (or "clips" by the unknowing, the lazy or the sloppy thinkers)... very simply, if one is a civilian (non-military, non-law enforcement), one may not legally possess any "high capacity ammunition feeding device" of more than ten rounds manufactured after that date. Centerfire, rimfire... makes no difference.
Now it would not be unreasonable for anyone in the firearms community to assume that the author of this particular provision was someone like then New York Democratic Congressman (now Senator) Charles Schumer, Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum, or one of the "Boxstein Senatorial babes" from California, Barbara Boxner or Dianne Feinstein, or any number of gun-grabbing legislators or appointees of the Clinton Administration.
William B. Ruger. Sr. But, sad to say, it was none of those, or anyone even associated with them. It was Bill Ruger, "one of our own" who, for whatever his motives (and you'll get a lot of heated opinions on just what those motives might have been), became a Vidkun Quisling¹ to Second Amendment stalwarts.
In view of what has transpired in the intervening years, few will remember 17 January 1989 as being being a critical juncture for American firearms owners, but just as the Miami Firefight of April 1986 was a catalytic moment in the development of handgun ammunition, drug-abusing drifter Patrick Purdy's malevolent depredations in a school yard in Stockton, California, was a milestone that galvanized anti-gunners and put the firearms community in a defensive posture from which it is still operating more than a dozen years later.
Purdy, a criminal in possession of a Kalashnikov (quickly identified in the news media as an "AK-47 deadly assault rifle" {sic}) and a Browning High Power pistol, went into a school yard in Stockton, California, and unleashed a hail of 7.62 X 39mm rounds at a bunch of grade school children, killing five of them before dispatching himself with a single 9 X 19mm round from the handgun. (Ahhhh!, but that he'd tried to reverse the process!)
This terrible event, seized upon by national broadcast and print media, played right into a scenario envisioned by HCI wunderkind Josh Sugarmann and privately circulated in November 1988, so the antigunners were thoroughly prepared to launch a well-coordinated propaganda campaign designed to confuse the general population and to fractionalize the firearms community ... the operative phrase being "assault rifle."
Gun people, and the author was no exception, were immediately put on the defensive, and were kept busy lamely pointing out that Purdy didn't have an "assault rifle," which type of firearm had been tightly regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934, but that he had a perfectly legal (in most jurisdictions) semi-automatic weapon. (Not that it matters that much, but the long gun involved was a Norinco SKS-56, 7.62 X 39mm semi-automatic carbine.)
Sugarmann had devised a scathingly brilliant strategy, for all any of us wound up doing was getting the mainstream media to create the term "assault weapon," while on 5 April 1989 President Bush and his "drug czar," William Bennett (brother of President Clinton's attorney during the Lewinski scandal) temporarily suspended² further importation of a whole bunch of semi-automatic long guns by means of an Executive Order. And at the same time, a great many rank 'n' file gun owners began to rationalize that "Well, we really don't need those awful military-style assault weapons for hunting or target-shooting anyway."
William B. Ruger, Sr.
speaks on gun control
"A constant problem the industry has is that you can't compromise with gun prohibitionists."
June 1998 The American Rifleman, page 60, in a profile of the man who had just donated $1,000,000 to NRA.
Bill Ruger's Dirty Little Secret
William Batterman Ruger, Senior is not a stupid man... he might be somewhat naive politically, but he's no dummy! Figuring that unless he took action, the jig was soon-to-be-up for a number of firearms, including his Mini-14 and perhaps even his extraordinarily popular Model 10/22 rimfire repeater. Unfortunately the lessons of Munich and Neville Chamberlain seemed to have been lost on the senior Ruger in the post-Stockton madness, for his creative approach was to toss the high capacity magazine "baby from the sleigh" in the desperate hope of appeasing the pursuing legislative wolves. Reasoning that the public was probably more concerned about the high volume of fire which Purdy was able to generate, than the speed at which he delivered same, Papa Bill proposed that Congress enact legislation limiting the capacity of magazines to fifteen³ (15!) rounds.
Sturm, Ruger & Company logo He had his Sturm Ruger braintrust prepare model legislation centered around this high capacity magazine prohibition with the fervent hope that "the guns [would be] saved." He even consulted with some others about this approach, including Neal Knox who attempted to dissuade him in the strongest possible terms (for Neal, anyway) from his foolhardy initiative. Papa Bill slept on Knox' council... and then on 30 March 1989 had his proposed legislation delivered to selected members of the House and the Senate. A portion of his document read:
The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives.
Shortly thereafter, the Sporting Arms and Ammunitions Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) endorsed the 15-round limitation in a position paper issued on 2 May 1989. It read, in part:
The possession of any "extra capacity" magazine in combination with the possession of a semi-automatic firearm, other than .22 caliber Rimfire, should be regulated. "Extra capacity magazines" are detachable magazines which hold in excess of 10(!) centerfire rifle cartridges or shotgun shells, or detachable pistol magazines which hold in excess of 15 centerfire cartridges.
"Semi-automatic firearms as such should not be the object of any legislative prohibition. It is actually the large magazine capacity, rather than the semi-automatic operation, which is the proper focus of this debate."
But then SAMMI and NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation, which shares quarters with SAAMI) were always little more than adjuncts of Sturm, Ruger anyhow.
It is instructive to note that in addition to Sturm, Ruger & Company, SAAMI was then comprised of Winchester Ammunition division of Olin, Browning Arms, Federal Cartridge, Hercules, Hornady Manufacturing, Marlin Firearms, O.F. Mossberg, Omark Industries, Remington Arms, Smith & Wesson, Thompson/Center and Weatherby.
Serious mis-step by the "All-American" gun-maker
Within months of the Stockton schoolyard shooting, President George Bush, midway through his first year in office, had a proposed crime bill which contained the Ruger-inspired limitation on magazine capacity, but which did not find favor on Capitol Hill. As Executive Editor Joe Tartaro noted in his 7 July 1989 Gun Week column entitled "A Fistful of Cartridges:"
If the President's proposal had not included the 15-round magazine bite, the whole crime package would probably already be law.
In his final syndicated column of 1989, Neal Knox discussed the implications of Bill Ruger's actions the previous Spring, and addressed some remarks aimed at him by Steve Sanetti, Sturm, Ruger's general counsel and the only person other than Papa Bill ever authorized to issue statements for the company:
Steve Sanetti says "I know better" than to ascribe Bill Ruger's magazine ban proposal to business considerations. Maybe so; I don't think Bill is by any means "anti-gun," nor do I think he really wants a ban on either guns or magazines (after all, he got his start as a machine gun designer).
But I do think Bill Ruger is pushing a plan that would protect his business while affecting only his competitors, and I think he's damaging the efforts of those of us attempting to stop all proposed bans. Further, I don't think his actions on this issue, and other issues in the past, allows him to be described as "the strongest supporter of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
What I know is that about 9 p.m. the night before Bill sent a letter to certain members of Congress calling for a ban on high-capacity magazines he called me, wanting me to push such a ban. His opening words, after citing the many federal, state and local bills to ban detachable magazine semi-autos, were "I want to save our little gun" -- which he later defined as the Mini-14 and the Mini-30. I'm not ascribing Bill's motives as "expedient from a business standpoint;" Bill did.
While I agree that a ban on over-15-round magazines would be "indefinitely preferable" to a ban on the guns that use them, that's not the question. Neither I, nor the other gun groups have ever believed that we were faced with such an either/or choice. Early last year the NRA legislative Policy committee discussed various alternatives to the proposed "assault weapons" ban, and wisely decided that magazine restrictions wouldn't satisfy our foes, but would make it more difficult to stop a gun ban.
I was particularly shocked when I realized Bill was talking about a ban on possession of over-15-round magazines, rather than a ban on sales (which is bad enough). I told him that such a law would make me a felon, for not only did I have standard over-15-round magazines for my Glock pistol (a high-capacity which has sharply cut into Ruger's police business), I have many high-cap mags for guns I don't even own, and don't even know where they all are. As I told Bill, after a lifetime of accumulating miscellaneous gun parts and accessories, there's no way I could clean out all my old parts drawers and boxes, then swear -- subject to a five or ten-year Federal prison term -- that I absolutely didn't have an M3 grease gun mag or 30-round M-2 magazine lying in some forgotten drawer.
Bill said (and all these direct quotes are approximate).
"No, there'd be amnesty for people like you. We have to propose a ban on possession before they could take us seriously."
He contended that the public's problem was with "firepower," which could be resolved by eliminating high capacity mags.
I told him Metzenbaum and Co. would gladly use whatever he offered, but they weren't about to willingly agree to eliminate high-cap magazines as a substitute for banning guns; that their intention isn't to eliminate "firepower" but "firearms."
Bill finally said, "Neal, you're being very negative about it." He got angry, then said "Well somebody's got to do it; by God I will." And the next day he sent his letter to the Hill; the evidence indicates a few weeks later he talked SAAMI into supporting undefined "regulation" of magazines over-15-rounds -- a vote that might have gone a little differently if any produced high-capacity magazines as standard for either rifles or pistols.
I suspect that Ruger and SAAMI's actions are responsible, directly or indirectly, for the Bush administration's proposal to ban high-cap mags, but that proposal has been ignored -- except as evidence that "the Bush administration and the American firearms industry recognize there's a problem -- that Americans shouldn't be allowed to have such guns."
Of course, that isn't what Bill Ruger and SAAMI are saying, but that's the message they're sending. Perhaps it isn't business expediency to propose banning only that which they don't make, in an effort to protect what they do make; but it sure can't be claimed to be in defense of the Second Amendment.
"Enjoy your retirement, friend."
"The legendary William B. Ruger has retired as chairman, treasurer and chief executive of Sturm, Ruger & Co. after 51 years at the company's helm.
He recently was honored by being unanimously elected as an Honorary Life Member by the NRA Board of Directors."
January 2001 The American Guardian, page 17.
Five years later William B. Ruger Sr.'s model legislation served as the basis of the "high capacity ammunition feeding devices" section of the Clinton Administration's "Crime Bill," save one major detail... the 15-round capacity had been dropped to 10-rounds by the time it had passed and been signed into Law on 13 September 1994! (The antigunners not only stuck it to "us," but stuck it to their Quisling as well.)
Why were we not surprised?!
What was surprising was that within four years the NRA would celebrate the man so enthusiastically. For many, this is one wound which has not healed, and the author has not only not purchased a Ruger product since that time, but subsequently sold at distress prices, his Mark II pistol and prized Model 77/22 rifle.
Aside from his million dollar donation to the NRA Museum, William B. Ruger, Senior, should be remembered as the man who embraced the investment casting process very early on, and whose Pine Tree is one of the most respected investment casting enterprises in the world, the man who gave us the Mini-14, the 10/22 and the first American-made production firearm chambered in 7.62 X 39mm... and the man who told NBC News' Tom Brokaw that:
* "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun."
* "I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 or 30 round magazines or my folding stock."
* "I see nothing wrong with waiting periods."
And, sadly, that too must be part of the Ruger legacy.
Footnotes:
1.- Vidkun Quisling (1887-1945) was a twentieth-century Norwegian politician, an intelligent and hard-working head of Norway's home-grown form of Nazism, the Nasjonal Samling (National Unity) Party. While he also fancied himself a philosopher, he went so far as to urge Hitler to invade his country in hopes of becoming Norway's supreme leader.
On 9 April 1940 Hitler did just that. And Quisling got his wish... for precisely five days before being placed in a figurehead position while one of the Nazis own actually ran the country. Within months of the war's end, Quisling was tried executed by firing squad. And a new word entered the dictionary, not only in English, but in many other languages as well, synonymous with traitor.
2.- This ban became permanent on 7 July 1989, and affected virtually every Kalashnikov, H&K 90-series, Galil, Uzi, Valmet, SIG 550-series, etc.
3.- This quickly led cynics in the firearms community to speculate as to Ruger's true motives, for one of the major competitors to his then new P-85 series of pistols was the Glock 17, the only pistol around (other than the scarce and unwieldy Steyr GB) with a greater than 15 round magazine capacity. Some are still convinced that this was at the root of his actions.
by Dean Speir, formerly famous gunwriter, (with
special thanks to TGZ's consigliore Robert P. Firriolo, Esq.)
Post questions or comments in The Gun Zone Forum.
I'd wager that, much like William Batterman Ruger, Sr, you just don't get it.
It's not about Mini-14's looking "tough", either.
It is, however, about selling out, much like S&W did with their nefarious agreement. Ruger could very well be described as one of those who "eats his own".
But since you wanted to spew a little vitriol, and demanded facts, then by all means, I will oblige you.
In case you missed it, here's the story:
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html
In case you can't find your way there, I'll save the effort, and with thanks to Dean Speir's site, post the article here:
*******************************************************
William Batterman Ruger, Sr.
"Father" of the Clinton Administration's High Capacity Magazine Ban
As is common with any controversial issue, there's a great deal of misinformation floating about, and misperceptions held by those affected by the issue.
Nowhere is this truer than with 1994's infamous "Crime Bill," the second significant piece of federal firearms legislation passed that year. Aside from the "assault weapons" (whatever those are) provisions, a significant portion of that bill dealt with magazines (or "clips" by the unknowing, the lazy or the sloppy thinkers)... very simply, if one is a civilian (non-military, non-law enforcement), one may not legally possess any "high capacity ammunition feeding device" of more than ten rounds manufactured after that date. Centerfire, rimfire... makes no difference.
Now it would not be unreasonable for anyone in the firearms community to assume that the author of this particular provision was someone like then New York Democratic Congressman (now Senator) Charles Schumer, Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum, or one of the "Boxstein Senatorial babes" from California, Barbara Boxner or Dianne Feinstein, or any number of gun-grabbing legislators or appointees of the Clinton Administration.
William B. Ruger. Sr. But, sad to say, it was none of those, or anyone even associated with them. It was Bill Ruger, "one of our own" who, for whatever his motives (and you'll get a lot of heated opinions on just what those motives might have been), became a Vidkun Quisling¹ to Second Amendment stalwarts.
In view of what has transpired in the intervening years, few will remember 17 January 1989 as being being a critical juncture for American firearms owners, but just as the Miami Firefight of April 1986 was a catalytic moment in the development of handgun ammunition, drug-abusing drifter Patrick Purdy's malevolent depredations in a school yard in Stockton, California, was a milestone that galvanized anti-gunners and put the firearms community in a defensive posture from which it is still operating more than a dozen years later.
Purdy, a criminal in possession of a Kalashnikov (quickly identified in the news media as an "AK-47 deadly assault rifle" {sic}) and a Browning High Power pistol, went into a school yard in Stockton, California, and unleashed a hail of 7.62 X 39mm rounds at a bunch of grade school children, killing five of them before dispatching himself with a single 9 X 19mm round from the handgun. (Ahhhh!, but that he'd tried to reverse the process!)
This terrible event, seized upon by national broadcast and print media, played right into a scenario envisioned by HCI wunderkind Josh Sugarmann and privately circulated in November 1988, so the antigunners were thoroughly prepared to launch a well-coordinated propaganda campaign designed to confuse the general population and to fractionalize the firearms community ... the operative phrase being "assault rifle."
Gun people, and the author was no exception, were immediately put on the defensive, and were kept busy lamely pointing out that Purdy didn't have an "assault rifle," which type of firearm had been tightly regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934, but that he had a perfectly legal (in most jurisdictions) semi-automatic weapon. (Not that it matters that much, but the long gun involved was a Norinco SKS-56, 7.62 X 39mm semi-automatic carbine.)
Sugarmann had devised a scathingly brilliant strategy, for all any of us wound up doing was getting the mainstream media to create the term "assault weapon," while on 5 April 1989 President Bush and his "drug czar," William Bennett (brother of President Clinton's attorney during the Lewinski scandal) temporarily suspended² further importation of a whole bunch of semi-automatic long guns by means of an Executive Order. And at the same time, a great many rank 'n' file gun owners began to rationalize that "Well, we really don't need those awful military-style assault weapons for hunting or target-shooting anyway."
William B. Ruger, Sr.
speaks on gun control
"A constant problem the industry has is that you can't compromise with gun prohibitionists."
June 1998 The American Rifleman, page 60, in a profile of the man who had just donated $1,000,000 to NRA.
Bill Ruger's Dirty Little Secret
William Batterman Ruger, Senior is not a stupid man... he might be somewhat naive politically, but he's no dummy! Figuring that unless he took action, the jig was soon-to-be-up for a number of firearms, including his Mini-14 and perhaps even his extraordinarily popular Model 10/22 rimfire repeater. Unfortunately the lessons of Munich and Neville Chamberlain seemed to have been lost on the senior Ruger in the post-Stockton madness, for his creative approach was to toss the high capacity magazine "baby from the sleigh" in the desperate hope of appeasing the pursuing legislative wolves. Reasoning that the public was probably more concerned about the high volume of fire which Purdy was able to generate, than the speed at which he delivered same, Papa Bill proposed that Congress enact legislation limiting the capacity of magazines to fifteen³ (15!) rounds.
Sturm, Ruger & Company logo He had his Sturm Ruger braintrust prepare model legislation centered around this high capacity magazine prohibition with the fervent hope that "the guns [would be] saved." He even consulted with some others about this approach, including Neal Knox who attempted to dissuade him in the strongest possible terms (for Neal, anyway) from his foolhardy initiative. Papa Bill slept on Knox' council... and then on 30 March 1989 had his proposed legislation delivered to selected members of the House and the Senate. A portion of his document read:
The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives.
Shortly thereafter, the Sporting Arms and Ammunitions Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) endorsed the 15-round limitation in a position paper issued on 2 May 1989. It read, in part:
The possession of any "extra capacity" magazine in combination with the possession of a semi-automatic firearm, other than .22 caliber Rimfire, should be regulated. "Extra capacity magazines" are detachable magazines which hold in excess of 10(!) centerfire rifle cartridges or shotgun shells, or detachable pistol magazines which hold in excess of 15 centerfire cartridges.
"Semi-automatic firearms as such should not be the object of any legislative prohibition. It is actually the large magazine capacity, rather than the semi-automatic operation, which is the proper focus of this debate."
But then SAMMI and NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation, which shares quarters with SAAMI) were always little more than adjuncts of Sturm, Ruger anyhow.
It is instructive to note that in addition to Sturm, Ruger & Company, SAAMI was then comprised of Winchester Ammunition division of Olin, Browning Arms, Federal Cartridge, Hercules, Hornady Manufacturing, Marlin Firearms, O.F. Mossberg, Omark Industries, Remington Arms, Smith & Wesson, Thompson/Center and Weatherby.
Serious mis-step by the "All-American" gun-maker
Within months of the Stockton schoolyard shooting, President George Bush, midway through his first year in office, had a proposed crime bill which contained the Ruger-inspired limitation on magazine capacity, but which did not find favor on Capitol Hill. As Executive Editor Joe Tartaro noted in his 7 July 1989 Gun Week column entitled "A Fistful of Cartridges:"
If the President's proposal had not included the 15-round magazine bite, the whole crime package would probably already be law.
In his final syndicated column of 1989, Neal Knox discussed the implications of Bill Ruger's actions the previous Spring, and addressed some remarks aimed at him by Steve Sanetti, Sturm, Ruger's general counsel and the only person other than Papa Bill ever authorized to issue statements for the company:
Steve Sanetti says "I know better" than to ascribe Bill Ruger's magazine ban proposal to business considerations. Maybe so; I don't think Bill is by any means "anti-gun," nor do I think he really wants a ban on either guns or magazines (after all, he got his start as a machine gun designer).
But I do think Bill Ruger is pushing a plan that would protect his business while affecting only his competitors, and I think he's damaging the efforts of those of us attempting to stop all proposed bans. Further, I don't think his actions on this issue, and other issues in the past, allows him to be described as "the strongest supporter of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
What I know is that about 9 p.m. the night before Bill sent a letter to certain members of Congress calling for a ban on high-capacity magazines he called me, wanting me to push such a ban. His opening words, after citing the many federal, state and local bills to ban detachable magazine semi-autos, were "I want to save our little gun" -- which he later defined as the Mini-14 and the Mini-30. I'm not ascribing Bill's motives as "expedient from a business standpoint;" Bill did.
While I agree that a ban on over-15-round magazines would be "indefinitely preferable" to a ban on the guns that use them, that's not the question. Neither I, nor the other gun groups have ever believed that we were faced with such an either/or choice. Early last year the NRA legislative Policy committee discussed various alternatives to the proposed "assault weapons" ban, and wisely decided that magazine restrictions wouldn't satisfy our foes, but would make it more difficult to stop a gun ban.
I was particularly shocked when I realized Bill was talking about a ban on possession of over-15-round magazines, rather than a ban on sales (which is bad enough). I told him that such a law would make me a felon, for not only did I have standard over-15-round magazines for my Glock pistol (a high-capacity which has sharply cut into Ruger's police business), I have many high-cap mags for guns I don't even own, and don't even know where they all are. As I told Bill, after a lifetime of accumulating miscellaneous gun parts and accessories, there's no way I could clean out all my old parts drawers and boxes, then swear -- subject to a five or ten-year Federal prison term -- that I absolutely didn't have an M3 grease gun mag or 30-round M-2 magazine lying in some forgotten drawer.
Bill said (and all these direct quotes are approximate).
"No, there'd be amnesty for people like you. We have to propose a ban on possession before they could take us seriously."
He contended that the public's problem was with "firepower," which could be resolved by eliminating high capacity mags.
I told him Metzenbaum and Co. would gladly use whatever he offered, but they weren't about to willingly agree to eliminate high-cap magazines as a substitute for banning guns; that their intention isn't to eliminate "firepower" but "firearms."
Bill finally said, "Neal, you're being very negative about it." He got angry, then said "Well somebody's got to do it; by God I will." And the next day he sent his letter to the Hill; the evidence indicates a few weeks later he talked SAAMI into supporting undefined "regulation" of magazines over-15-rounds -- a vote that might have gone a little differently if any produced high-capacity magazines as standard for either rifles or pistols.
I suspect that Ruger and SAAMI's actions are responsible, directly or indirectly, for the Bush administration's proposal to ban high-cap mags, but that proposal has been ignored -- except as evidence that "the Bush administration and the American firearms industry recognize there's a problem -- that Americans shouldn't be allowed to have such guns."
Of course, that isn't what Bill Ruger and SAAMI are saying, but that's the message they're sending. Perhaps it isn't business expediency to propose banning only that which they don't make, in an effort to protect what they do make; but it sure can't be claimed to be in defense of the Second Amendment.
"Enjoy your retirement, friend."
"The legendary William B. Ruger has retired as chairman, treasurer and chief executive of Sturm, Ruger & Co. after 51 years at the company's helm.
He recently was honored by being unanimously elected as an Honorary Life Member by the NRA Board of Directors."
January 2001 The American Guardian, page 17.
Five years later William B. Ruger Sr.'s model legislation served as the basis of the "high capacity ammunition feeding devices" section of the Clinton Administration's "Crime Bill," save one major detail... the 15-round capacity had been dropped to 10-rounds by the time it had passed and been signed into Law on 13 September 1994! (The antigunners not only stuck it to "us," but stuck it to their Quisling as well.)
Why were we not surprised?!
What was surprising was that within four years the NRA would celebrate the man so enthusiastically. For many, this is one wound which has not healed, and the author has not only not purchased a Ruger product since that time, but subsequently sold at distress prices, his Mark II pistol and prized Model 77/22 rifle.
Aside from his million dollar donation to the NRA Museum, William B. Ruger, Senior, should be remembered as the man who embraced the investment casting process very early on, and whose Pine Tree is one of the most respected investment casting enterprises in the world, the man who gave us the Mini-14, the 10/22 and the first American-made production firearm chambered in 7.62 X 39mm... and the man who told NBC News' Tom Brokaw that:
* "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun."
* "I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 or 30 round magazines or my folding stock."
* "I see nothing wrong with waiting periods."
And, sadly, that too must be part of the Ruger legacy.
Footnotes:
1.- Vidkun Quisling (1887-1945) was a twentieth-century Norwegian politician, an intelligent and hard-working head of Norway's home-grown form of Nazism, the Nasjonal Samling (National Unity) Party. While he also fancied himself a philosopher, he went so far as to urge Hitler to invade his country in hopes of becoming Norway's supreme leader.
On 9 April 1940 Hitler did just that. And Quisling got his wish... for precisely five days before being placed in a figurehead position while one of the Nazis own actually ran the country. Within months of the war's end, Quisling was tried executed by firing squad. And a new word entered the dictionary, not only in English, but in many other languages as well, synonymous with traitor.
2.- This ban became permanent on 7 July 1989, and affected virtually every Kalashnikov, H&K 90-series, Galil, Uzi, Valmet, SIG 550-series, etc.
3.- This quickly led cynics in the firearms community to speculate as to Ruger's true motives, for one of the major competitors to his then new P-85 series of pistols was the Glock 17, the only pistol around (other than the scarce and unwieldy Steyr GB) with a greater than 15 round magazine capacity. Some are still convinced that this was at the root of his actions.
by Dean Speir, formerly famous gunwriter, (with
special thanks to TGZ's consigliore Robert P. Firriolo, Esq.)
Post questions or comments in The Gun Zone Forum.
Well, you've managed to cut and paste quotes from Dean Speir and Neal Knox, quoting, although maybe not,
I'm aware of Bill Ruger's flippant letter to congress, while congress was debating a complete ban on semi auto weapons, suggesting that if they wanted to ban high capacity firearms, perhaps they should just ban the magazines instead. And I agree it was a mistake. But the threat of a complete ban on the guns themselves was real. Hell, it all but happened in California, having nothing to do with anything Ruger said.
I just don't think a mistake, or a lapse in judgement, turns Ruger into Sarah Brady or Adolph Hitler. I was involved in way too many RKBA events, where Ruger made generous donations.
Ruger was running a public company, trying to save sales of his Mini 14 rifle, among others. As I said, here in California, 16 years after our state "assault weapons" ban was enacted, you can still buy a Mini 14.
And in case you forgot.... Mr. Ruger is dead.
Who's your boogeyman now?
Course, S&W has had different owners for years, but that doesn't stop the boycotters there either.....
what Bill Ruger said.
I'm aware of Bill Ruger's flippant letter to congress, while congress was debating a complete ban on semi auto weapons, suggesting that if they wanted to ban high capacity firearms, perhaps they should just ban the magazines instead. And I agree it was a mistake. But the threat of a complete ban on the guns themselves was real. Hell, it all but happened in California, having nothing to do with anything Ruger said.
I just don't think a mistake, or a lapse in judgement, turns Ruger into Sarah Brady or Adolph Hitler. I was involved in way too many RKBA events, where Ruger made generous donations.
Ruger was running a public company, trying to save sales of his Mini 14 rifle, among others. As I said, here in California, 16 years after our state "assault weapons" ban was enacted, you can still buy a Mini 14.
And in case you forgot.... Mr. Ruger is dead.
Who's your boogeyman now?
Course, S&W has had different owners for years, but that doesn't stop the boycotters there either.....
Bill's dead.
However, the Sturm, Ruger & Co. policy he enacted is very much still alive. Don't believe me? Try buying factory hicap mags for that Mini-14 and Mini-30.
His efforts caused 10 years of AWB nonsense for those of us in the Free States. Even longer if you live in places like the PRK.
And before anybody labels me a Ruger basher, I've owned Mini-14's and Mini-30's (momentarily). I very much like my 10/22, No.1 Rifle, and as soon as the New Vaquero comes out in .44 Special, I may have to get one.
However, the Sturm, Ruger & Co. policy he enacted is very much still alive. Don't believe me? Try buying factory hicap mags for that Mini-14 and Mini-30.
His efforts caused 10 years of AWB nonsense for those of us in the Free States. Even longer if you live in places like the PRK.
And before anybody labels me a Ruger basher, I've owned Mini-14's and Mini-30's (momentarily). I very much like my 10/22, No.1 Rifle, and as soon as the New Vaquero comes out in .44 Special, I may have to get one.
cracked butt
Member
Bill might have just been a good businessman. If his 'mini' rifles couldn't compete with SKS's and AKs on price and quality, he leveled the playing field for himself politically 
I like Ruger revolvers. I like the MkII pistol, aside from the screwy grip angle. I like the No.1 rifles.
I like Ruger revolvers. I like the MkII pistol, aside from the screwy grip angle. I like the No.1 rifles.
Ruger stopped selling high capacity magazines for the Mini 14 many years before any of the AWB, in an effort to position the rifle as a sporting rifle. They never manufactured one for the Mini 30. I know you'd think it was just bitchin if he'd painted it black and sold it as a "Tactical Carbine" with hicaps, but then it would be on the California banned list along with others. And Ruger was running a business.
High capacity magazines for the P series pistols were reintoduced immediately after the sunset of the AWB.
Sure.... Singlehandedly......
So your strong convictions towards Ruger, and the company he founded, last until they come out with a new model you want?
So in other words, you're all mouth......
Omaha-BeenGlockin
Member
I kind of have a love/hate thing with Ruger.
I've had Rugers that I'd dump for things I wanted more--thinkin its just a Ruger(no big deal) ----funny thing is I replace them eventually cause they flat out work---and work well at that. This thread got me thinking---I'm up to 12 Rugers now----might be forgetting a couple too.
There are other guns in the safe that seem to captivate my interest more---the its only a Ruger feeling will always be there----but I'm definitely not a Ruger hater either----well aside from the POS Red Labels they produce----lololololololol.
I've had Rugers that I'd dump for things I wanted more--thinkin its just a Ruger(no big deal) ----funny thing is I replace them eventually cause they flat out work---and work well at that. This thread got me thinking---I'm up to 12 Rugers now----might be forgetting a couple too.
There are other guns in the safe that seem to captivate my interest more---the its only a Ruger feeling will always be there----but I'm definitely not a Ruger hater either----well aside from the POS Red Labels they produce----lololololololol.
Mike Hull
Member
Years before he took to drafting anti gun legislation, Bill Ruger had the arrogance to state many times publicly, that "civilians" did not need high capacity mags, and would not be able to buy them for "his" guns.
He would only supply hi cap mags to military, and LE.
That was from the beginnings of the mini 14, and he never changed his stance.
He would only supply hi cap mags to military, and LE.
That was from the beginnings of the mini 14, and he never changed his stance.
First off, Elmer...
I want to thank you for the ad hominem attack. Very High Road of you, and I appreciate the further insight into your character.
Second, I've owned many Ruger products since my first Single Six revolver in the 1970's, well before Bill Senior decided the common man was undeserving of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds each. I've discovered with my disposable income that Ruger builds some excellent products. (#1 Rifle, Red Label shotgun) They also build some products that in my experiences aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell. (Mini-14/30, P-series autopistols)
What are you insinuating? I vote with my dollars, much like every other gun owner. I don't like S&W's agreement, but I have had no problem buying pre-agreement and pre-lock S&W revolvers, especially if used or second-hand. My money never goes to S&W. Likewise, for some silly reason, I *know* those New Vaquero revolvers are gonna show up in pawn shops and the used revolver market eventually. People lose interest in shooting, gunowners die and their widows sell off the collections. I will obtain one, just like I have before, and not one penny of my money will go to Ruger. So while you're calling me ''all mouth", I'm having my cake and eating it.
Regarding whether Bill Senior was singlehandedly responsible for the AWB - probably not. But we know which camp he made his bed in, it's a matter of public record, and he went to his grave believing he did a good thing. Ruger the company still believes that crock, at least as far as their autoloading rifles are concerned. Dean Speir's Vidkun Quisling comparison is still valid in my book.
I want to thank you for the ad hominem attack. Very High Road of you, and I appreciate the further insight into your character.
Second, I've owned many Ruger products since my first Single Six revolver in the 1970's, well before Bill Senior decided the common man was undeserving of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds each. I've discovered with my disposable income that Ruger builds some excellent products. (#1 Rifle, Red Label shotgun) They also build some products that in my experiences aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell. (Mini-14/30, P-series autopistols)
Which shows you don't know me from Adam. It's kinda hard to paint me as an individual who would think it's "bitchin" to have a black-painted tactical Mini-14, since I couldn't stand the shotgun-patterning version I did own, and sold it after just a few weeks. (I used the money to buy a Colt AR) It wouldn't hurt my feelings if the Mini-14 model dried up and blew away, truthfully. But those who find the Mini-14 useful should at least have the benefit of full-capacity magazines, something Bill Senior decided common folk just didn't need. That smacks of arrogance, and disregard for anything other than his beloved Mini-14's survival in the face of legislation.
What are you insinuating? I vote with my dollars, much like every other gun owner. I don't like S&W's agreement, but I have had no problem buying pre-agreement and pre-lock S&W revolvers, especially if used or second-hand. My money never goes to S&W. Likewise, for some silly reason, I *know* those New Vaquero revolvers are gonna show up in pawn shops and the used revolver market eventually. People lose interest in shooting, gunowners die and their widows sell off the collections. I will obtain one, just like I have before, and not one penny of my money will go to Ruger. So while you're calling me ''all mouth", I'm having my cake and eating it.
Regarding whether Bill Senior was singlehandedly responsible for the AWB - probably not. But we know which camp he made his bed in, it's a matter of public record, and he went to his grave believing he did a good thing. Ruger the company still believes that crock, at least as far as their autoloading rifles are concerned. Dean Speir's Vidkun Quisling comparison is still valid in my book.
Eightball
Member
Frankly, I think itgoesboom nailed it right here. Sure, I only have one Ruger--a 10/22--but it's a fun gun, especially with the third-party 25-round mag I have for ititgoesboom said:
. Ruger firearms are just dandy--but the 2nd amendment issues are quite a blight on the company's record. However, it seems that this thread was started talking about the firearms themselves, not the political stances. If you won't buy a Ruger due to their political/business stance, that's your deal. I, on the other hand, will buy used firearms (no more direct profit to the company), and work with third-party mags and accessories until it becomes what I want, thus circumnavigating the whole "supporting Ruger's political stance". To each their own.Great story.... Except the the P-Series pistols had high capacity magazines when they were first introduced in the 80's, and starting shipping again with hi-caps when the AWB sunsetted.
As far as the Mini 14.... It's true that Ruger started positioning the gun as a 5 round sporting rifle, many years before any of the laws. I guess you can go ahead and villify him for that if you want to. But, like I said, you can still buy a Mini in California.
And the fact that S&W has had new American owners for years, and the agreement made by the previous owners became null and void, doesn't sway you from your boycott of products made by the current company. I guess you do have strong convictions.....
Maybe all this boycotting, trash talking, and misquoting a dead man wouldn't bother me so much, if it weren't for all the glowing words about Chinese SKS's and Russian ammo you read here.
KriegHund
Member
I like my mini-14 very muchly.
And by the way. The AR companies who made guns with no bayonet lug, and no flash hiders, and 10 round mags during the AWB. Weren't they sellouts? Shouldn't we be boycotting Armalite and Bushmaster. They should have closed their factories rather than giving in to the Clintonista's!!
KriegHund
Member
I guess we could either have sellouts or have all gun manufacturers quite the business.
CajunBass
Member
Yea, boy. Those gun companies should have just closed their doors. That would have showed them a thing or two.
rock jock
Member
I like my No. 1 for the aesthetics, but would never buy another centerfire Ruger rifle. Don't get me wrong, I think their bolt-actions are good guns, but there are better bolt-actions for the money.
jamz
Member
I've got a few Rugers, a 77/22 as a gift, a No.1 as a gift just today, and a used Single Six Bisley. I had another Single Six but sold it to my brother who wanted it.
I like Ruger rifles and revolvers, they are very pretty and functional. Auto hanguns, well......
-James
I like Ruger rifles and revolvers, they are very pretty and functional. Auto hanguns, well......
-James
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,713
well...
some of us have learned something new today. As a 10-22 owner, and as a prior owner of a Mini 14 and several P-series autoloaders...I might be happy that I sold all of the above, and I may not buy another Ruger.
Right or wrong? Only I can decide (although some of you will try to "help") how I spend my money. I do appreciate the fact that I get to read various points of view before I do so...
some of us have learned something new today. As a 10-22 owner, and as a prior owner of a Mini 14 and several P-series autoloaders...I might be happy that I sold all of the above, and I may not buy another Ruger.
Right or wrong? Only I can decide (although some of you will try to "help") how I spend my money. I do appreciate the fact that I get to read various points of view before I do so...
Wow, I thought I was reading about Rugers in "Rifle Country" how did I end up in "Legal & Political" reading about Ruger?
Since we're on the topic, anyone got rule of thumb on how long we need to punish a company for the politics of a dead previous CEO?
Since we're on the topic, anyone got rule of thumb on how long we need to punish a company for the politics of a dead previous CEO?
John Deere
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 51
Ruger is still on the appeasement bandwagon, the MK II was a nice pistol, until Rugers lawyers gang-raped it, I will never buy a POS MK III. And this is from someone with 14 Rugers in the vault
Heck, that's an easy one.
Oh, say, about as long as that company continues to uphold those politically-motivated policies of the late CEO. Now would that be punishment, per se, or simply voting with one's dollars (elsewhere)? Capitalism, and all...
No integral-lock or post-agreement S&W's in my stable, either.
Oh, say, about as long as that company continues to uphold those politically-motivated policies of the late CEO. Now would that be punishment, per se, or simply voting with one's dollars (elsewhere)? Capitalism, and all...
No integral-lock or post-agreement S&W's in my stable, either.
Some of you people just don't seem to understand what a sellout is...Ruger and S&W both sold out.
Why did they do it? To stay in business, like you said. But a sellout is a sellout.
And my rights are not for sale. Are yours? Apparently so.
Regards,
Stinger
Why did they do it? To stay in business, like you said. But a sellout is a sellout.
And my rights are not for sale. Are yours? Apparently so.
Regards,
Stinger
- Status