No more Rugers for me

[Cosmoline]

But let's not turn this into a legal debate. My point is that a company unwilling to sell me a gun part will not get my business when it comes to whole guns.

It *is* a liability question, though. Personally I would never approve direct sale of a cylinder to a do-it-yourself gunsmith. The liability consequences are substantial if something should go wrong, and the federal law will not protect them. There are simply too many boneheads out there, and Ruger has no way of knowing if you know what you're doing or not.

 

[ants]

My point is that a company unwilling to sell me a gun part will not get my business when it comes to whole guns.

Yes, Ruger is accepting the business risk that you will stop buying their products. The small market you represent is a much smaller loss than facing liability claims for providing parts to unqualified individuals. If you have a problem with that, contact your legislator to reform tort laws.

It's a loss to Ruger, but they are dealing with it.
We must learn to deal with it also.

 

[MachIVshooter]

And then you void your warranty.

My choice. (Replacing the bolt shroud on a Remington does not void the warranty, BTW)

Or, you know, you could buy the S&W pistols without mag safeties that have really large warning labels printed on the side screaming "CAUTION: CAPABLE OF FIRING WITH MAGAZINE REMOVED" or some such nonsense

I never said I had a problem with such a warning. At least S&W was savvy enough to give people an option to have or not have a mag disconnect.

Oh yeah, and they also have loaded chamber indicators that you so loathe.

They have a peep hole on top of the slide, not some abomination that pops up with red paint all over it.

Like I said, loads of hypocrisy. Rationalize it all you want.

You keep saying hypocrisy, but fail to point it out.

I'm reminded of a saying,"Attitude Determines Altitude". Where do you guys buy your shirts? I'd be interested to know what a shirt looks like that fits someone with such a large chip on their shoulder. Obviously, you are one, or several, of the "me" generation who go through life with with a body deformation known as a recto-cranial inversion

When I'M the consumer and we're talking about where and how I will spend MY money that I earned, your darn right it's all about ME. And that's how a free market works. Ruger had a choice between some of my money now and more later, or none ever again. They chose poorly.


.

I'm sorry for your unfortunate birth defect but please don't hold it against others. All our lives, and the circumstances surrounding them today, are governed by results of the litigious society in which we live. Were you in the manufacturers shoes, and had to pay millions of dollars to idiots, you would protect yourself from idiots.

I suggest you read the thread more thoroughly. I made very clear that I was willing to sign an affidavit releasing Ruger from any and all liability.

If you ever grow out of the birth defect of recto-cranial inversion, you will understand. In the meantime, please spare us the bandwidth of this great and wonderful website so we may learn and receive all the good stuff that is out there

Yeah, you're right. The bandwidth would be much better used for yet another zombie thread.

You can come down off your pedestal now.

On a final note, I feel no pity for companies that lose business because they did not cater to the consumer. I do not feel guilt when I no longer give my money to a company who has displeased me. I have no remorse for speaking my mind about why that company has lost my business. This is not a case of "someone told me ___________ about (insert company), so I won't buy their product", or punishing for mistakes of the past. I'm not spreading lies here; I'm being very candid about what has irked me and why. You want to continue buying Ruger? Go right ahead. I choose not to from this point forward for reasons I've made abundantly clear.

 

[XD Fan]

For what ever it is worth, the liability issue is biggger than whether they win or lose in court. It is also about the cost of defense which can be huge.

 

[doubleh]

I bought my first Ruger, a Single Six in '61 or '2, can't remember when. I picked up a few more down the road, both rifles and pistols. Mostly single actions. I know they have no stated warranty. Will they repair their firearms. Don't know, never had one that needed repair. All you that won't buy from them just leave more guns for us that will.

Since locks got thrown into this I'll comment on that too. I have 3 or 4 guns that have them. I don't use them. They don't give me any trouble either so I don't complain about them. Same deal as above, leaves more for us that will.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I think it's completely reasonable for them to not sell you a spare cylinder that isn't properly fitted to the gun.

If they did there is the liability issue and also the issue that when it didn't work correctly you would get on a board like this and blast them about how you'll never buy anything from them again for selling you a bad part.

I'm a Ruger fan and think they are really headed in the right direction now. Bill Ruger is gone, as is all the family from the business. For those of you with issues against them please let it go. I'm sure Sam Colt did things we didn't like also............

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I'm glad Ruger didn't sell you the cylinder.
They need to protect themselves from liability. It's good business practice.

There are fundamental and simple economic principles that you either don't get or won't consider because you're too busy pouting. You came on the board to try and get someone to agree with this... grade schoolish "I'm gonna take my ball and go home!" behavior.
Congratulations Recruit! You're the only one in formation that's in-step!

By all means, go be someone else's bad customer.

 

[ThomasT]

I have edited out my own response to this thread. I like Ruger and understand the reason they won't sell some parts.

Dave Manson can make a reamer for the 327 magnum cartridge.

 

[MachIVshooter]

For what ever it is worth, the liability issue is biggger than whether they win or lose in court. It is also about the cost of defense which can be huge.

I'm glad Ruger didn't sell you the cylinder.
They need to protect themselves from liability. It's good business practice

Once more, signed affidavit. No more liability.

I think it's completely reasonable for them to not sell you a spare cylinder that isn't properly fitted to the gun.

Ruger also refuses to fit the cylinder. I asked that first. When I asked why not, the response was "because we don't. You just have to buy a new gun".

If they did there is the liability issue and also the issue that when it didn't work correctly you would get on a board like this and blast them about how you'll never buy anything from them again for selling you a bad part.

I don't know what kind of person you are or how the folks are that you deal with day in and day out, but I don't blame other people or companies for my mistakes.

As well as being a gun nut, I'm a hot rodder. I love to tinker with all things mechanical. Sometimes it doesn't work out as planned. I just deal with it. If they would sell the cylinder and for some reason it couldn't be used, that's my problem. No one to blame but myself, and I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with a company (or government) thinking they know what I need and trying to exert control.

There are fundamental and simple economic principles that you either don't get or won't consider because you're too busy pouting. You came on the board to try and get someone to agree with this... grade schoolish "I'm gonna take my ball and go home!" behavior.
Congratulations Recruit! You're the only one in formation that's in-step!

I've covered the "liability" end several times in this thread already. The only principal here is that Ruger is OK with disappointing long time customers if it means they can sell one more unit. Very shortsighted.

And no, I'm not trying to get sympathizers. I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not. My point, however, is a very simple one. This is America; The only prerequisit to ownership of products a civilian can lawfully possess is want and funds to purchase.

I've got to where I am in life by being an uncompromising individual. When I want something, I find a way to get it. When someone trys to tell me I can't have it, I push even harder. Sometimes I'll exert more effort than it's worth simply to make a point.

I think they choose wisely. You sir, are a loose cannon

Personal attacks are a no-no here. To that end, however, I'd like to know exactly what part of this thread has led to such an ill-conceived conclusion. I'm a loose cannon because I want to rechamber a gun? I guess 4D company has loads of loose cannons keeping them in business. Or perhaps it's because I refuse to do business with a company that has policies with which I disagree. If that's the case, this board is chock full of loose cannons who won't buy from anti-2A companies and the like. So which is it?

Do you think another 150 to 200 FPS is going to make your 6 shot 32 magnum a world class killing machine

Nope. I think it will be one more cartridge I'd like to play with.

If you want more power then handload the 32 magnum. You can exceed the published data and be well on your way to matching the new 327 round

I've hot rodded the .32 H&R about as much as one can. It's simply a matter of case design and capacity.

You could even buy a reamer and rechamber you gun and use 327 factory loads. For a while

Reamers aren't yet available.

You are exactly the kind of "Consumer" no gun maker wants

You mean the kind that buys a new gun more often than most people buy socks? Or the kind that handles nearly all repairs in house (I've sent guns back exactly 2 times in my life, A P3AT with a bad mag catch and an NAA mini in .17 HMR that wouldn't stabilize bullets)?

I don't bad-mouth companies that don't deserve it. I'm not even attacking Ruger here. The only thing I've said is that I'm unhappy with their policy on parts sales and refuse to do future business with them because of it. Do you understand the difference between voicing an opinion about a personal dislike and badmouthing a company? No where in this thread have I proposed that anyone but me stop doing business with Ruger. Not once.

This is one stupid ass thread. I can't believe i even responded.

You shouldn't have. All you've done is skim over the thread, presume to know what kind of person I am and then deride me. Very high road.

 

[Charlie Oldphart]

Since this thread has definitly turned into a product liability discussion and I hear rumblings of thread closure, I feel that I can pass on a story about product liability without being accused of going "off topic".

Up until a couple of years ago, My wife and I flew ultralight airplanes and powered parachutes. Let me say up front that I have never held a Private Pilot's lisence, but have had many hours of instruction by certified instructors (You don't need a lisence to fly a legal ultralight under Part 103).

For those who may be unfamiliar with powered parachutes, let me explain. Picture a three-wheeled frame with wheels with an engine attached to the rear with the prop facing rearward. Next, attached to the frame by many high strenth lines is a 500 square foot parachute. This looks just like what you see sky divers using.

The chute is spread out on the ground behind the machine. Advance the throttle, the machine moves forward on the ground and the chute pops up overhead, more throttle and you lift off. Top speed is about 25 mph.

Now imagine this. The chute itself is 500 square feet and costs about $3500. Sewn into a corner of the chute is a warning label that says in big bold letters words to this effect:

NEVER, NEVER TAKE THIS CHUTE INTO THE AIR. DO NOT ATTACH IT TO ANY TYPE OF AIRCRAFT. VIOLATION OF THIS WARNING WILL LIKELY CAUSE SEVERE INJURY OR MOST LIKELY DEATH! THE COMPANY HEREBY RELIEVES ITSELF OF ANY AND ALL LIABILITY PERTAINING TO ANY KIND OF USE OF THIS PRODUCT. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

There was also a manual also telling the proper way to attach the strings and cable to the aircraft! Most of the manual told about the dangers of flying and that it was an inherently risky sport and that if you were not willing to take that risk you should think about taking up croquet instead. I kid you not.

Well,the chute is not any good for anything except for flying, but I have been warned that I might be seriously injured injured or even die. What to do? So, I say the hell with it. I want to go flying. I have had enough instruction and knowledge to know that there are all kinds of things that could go wrong in the air. (It has something to do with gravity). I don't think that label is going to keep me on the ground.

Acually the rules of basic gun safety are quite similar to the rules of flying ultralite aircraft.

For example:

1. The gun is always loaded. Maybe it isn't, but it might be.

1. Never fly low over anything that you don't want to land on. Two-stroke
engines usually run the best just before they quit.

I could go on and on, but life is full of risks. My wife and I flew as long as we could , but health problems put us in a condition that we were a danger not only to ourselves, but to others. I developed glaucoma and could n't see well enough to fly and my wife has osteo arthritus that caused joints to lock up. Any pilots out there? Imagine flying a "baby" Super Cub taildragger and have your knee lock up. Not good. Time to quit.

Quit flying? Well, as the Hertz ad says "not exactly". We can still go up with a Certified instructor and take the controls in a safe area. Straight and level is okay, but maybe start on some basic rolls and other safe maneuvers?


My wife and I are both 76 years old and have both agreed getting an extra six months in a nursing is not for us. She will end up in a wheelchair and I probably will forget to zip my fly. So, to hell with it. She loves to fly and I'm going to give her every opportunity to live life, risk and all.

I got a call from my 19 year old grand daughter who said that she had been sky diving out in Las Vegas.

Good grief, says I, that dangerous! Didn't you rou read the label?

"What label"?

"The one on the chute. You could get severely injured".

"Oh Gramp, there are very few injuries. Lots of fatalities, but very few injuries. Besides, you and Grammie have been flying around in that flying lawnchair for years".

I just smiled and thought that's my girl.

Product Liability? I Haven't got time to worry about it. I've got a lesson scheduled for this afternoon.

Make sure all the lights are green before getting out of bed.

Carpe Diem!

Charlie

 

[ImARugerFan]

More for me! :-D

 

[kwelz]

I got a call from my 19 year old grand daughter who said that she had been sky diving out in Las Vegas.

Good grief, says I, that dangerous! Didn't you rou read the label?

"What label"?

"The one on the chute. You could get severely injured".

"Oh Gramp, there are very few injuries. Lots of fatalities, but very few injuries. Besides, you and Grammie have been flying around in that flying lawnchair for years".

So what are the chances of me getting her number?

 

[wheelgunslinger]

MachIVshooter, I see your point. If they won't fit it, then you want to do it yourself. The problem is that your affidavit won't mean squat after a lawyer gets done tearing it apart. Ruger will be the evil corporation that sold you a defective piece and you'll be the guy without a face who was just tinkering in his garage and didn't deserve to have his life ruined.
It's not as simple as disavowing any threat or repercussions.

Perhaps Ruger has changed the "formula" of the sp101 frame's steel to be a bit stouter to handle the 327? Maybe there's an engineering issue to address flame cutting?

I'm a hot rodder myself and I think I feel where you're coming from on this. But, the bottom line is: it's Ruger's neck on the line and at some point you have to recognize that and not demand that they poke it out so far just so you can play with a souped up toy.
A stroker kit or crate engine from Roush is far and away a different legal climate than handguns.

 

[ThomasT]

Personal attacks are a no-no here. To that end, however, I'd like to know exactly what part of this thread has led to such an ill-conceived conclusion. I'm a loose cannon because I want to rechamber a gun? I guess 4D company has loads of loose cannons keeping them in business. Or perhaps it's because I refuse to do business with a company that has policies with which I disagree. If that's the case, this board is chock full of loose cannons who won't buy from anti-2A companies and the like. So which is it?

You are right. I should not have called you a loose cannon. For that i apologize.

 

[strat81]

All this fuss over a silly cylinder and product liability.

Yet, Ford will sell you a big block crate motor for about $10 grand. I doubt those folks use them to run to the grocery store.

The duality is surprising. But, that's what we get for living in such a litigious society. It should be noted that the head of Ruger is a lawyer.

 

[tinygnat219]

Seems reasonable of Ruger to me. Buy the gun.

 

[Poper]

Quote:
You could even buy a reamer and rechamber you gun and use 327 factory loads. For a while

Reamers aren't yet available.

Call Clymer. Give them the dimensions of the cartridge you want and they will make the reamers to your order. Even if the cartridge doesn't exist.

The rest is up to you. Including the consequesnces.

Hope this is helpful.

Poper

 

[GTSteve03]

And then you void your warranty.

My choice. (Replacing the bolt shroud on a Remington does not void the warranty, BTW)

Yes but a voided warranty means no Customer Service, which is worse than the poor customer service you claim from Ruger.

Or, you know, you could buy the S&W pistols without mag safeties that have really large warning labels printed on the side screaming "CAUTION: CAPABLE OF FIRING WITH MAGAZINE REMOVED" or some such nonsense

I never said I had a problem with such a warning. At least S&W was savvy enough to give people an option to have or not have a mag disconnect.

This quote:

So no more guns with owners manual's printed on the barrel for me.

Seems to go against what you just said. Or was it just a dig at Ruger and a pass for S&W because you like them?

Oh yeah, and they also have loaded chamber indicators that you so loathe.

They have a peep hole on top of the slide, not some abomination that pops up with red paint all over it.

You say peep hole, I say LCI. So now its just a question of aesthetics, not functionality.

You keep saying hypocrisy, but fail to point it out.

I just did, 3 times.

 

[mgregg85]

I wonder if they would fit a 9mm cylinder for my gp-100.

 

[MachIVshooter]

For that i apologize

Duly noted and appreciated.

Perhaps Ruger has changed the "formula" of the sp101 frame's steel to be a bit stouter to handle the 327? Maybe there's an engineering issue to address flame cutting?

I wouldn't be surprised, and I would have accepted that answer. If you had heard the conversation I had with not one, but two people at Ruger (especially after the lengthy hold times on both calls), you'd understand why I'm unhappy. The best logical reason they gave me was that the cylinders have to be fitted, which I can do, and I was very clear about that. After I told them that, I just got a very snotty and juvenile tone stating "Well, we just don't sell them. You have to buy a new gun".

Yes but a voided warranty means no Customer Service, which is worse than the poor customer service you claim from Ruger

But, but, but............

If a modification I make to a firearm voids the warranty, I don't expect customer service with regards to warranty work. And my gripe with Ruger CS has nothing to do with warranties anyway.

Seems to go against what you just said. Or was it just a dig at Ruger and a pass for S&W because you like them

I don't have an M&P, but the warnings on my Smith Revolvers and 3rd gen auto's say.....................oh, wait-there isn't one printed anywhere on the guns. And there's a bit of a difference between Tanfoglio, Beretta, etc., where the print on the gun says "read manual before use" or "capable of firing with magazine removed" and Rugers, which say "Before using gun read instruction manual free from Sturm, Ruger and CO, inc. Southport, Conn. USA"

Furthermore, if you go back to my original post, you'll find that the print on the Rugers was not my complaint, I just chose to say "without owners manuals printed on the barrels" rather than "Rugers" to poke a little fun at something that is a well known trade mark of the company.

You say peep hole, I say LCI. So now its just a question of aesthetics, not functionality.

It always was a question of aesthetics. I didn't stop buying Rugers altogether because of the LCI move, I just steered clear of the ones that were so equipped. If they had done like Beretta and just put a discreet dot of red paint on the existing extractor, I wouldn't care. But Ruger, Springfield (the XD) and others added completely new parts that really do take away from the appearence of the gun. Ruger went a step further and stamped the words "loaded when up" on the two inch long bar of steel that sticks conspicuously (and IMO, offensively) out of the side of the Mk III or the slightly shorter but equally unattractive one on the P345 & SR9.





Versus S&W's version, which is very subtle:



Or Beretta's version:



Or Kimbers:

Guns are as much about fashion as they are function. LCI's like Ruger's take a decent looking pistol and make it ugly.


So no, you just didn't 3 times.

 

[HOME DEPOT GEORGE]

It seems to me if you are that displeased with ruger just dont buy one. On another thread you complained about your redhawk 454 and its horrible trigger.If its that bad sell it and buy a freedom arms or BFR since you aren't going to hunt using double action anyway. I was never happy with smith but dont bad mouth them I just moved on and am perfectly happy with ruger. I have better thing to do with my time and energy than to badmouth a manufacturer.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

My wife and I are both 76 years old and have both agreed getting an extra six months in a nursing is not for us. She will end up in a wheelchair and I probably will forget to zip my fly. So, to hell with it. She loves to fly and I'm going to give her every opportunity to live life, risk and all.

Charlie, that was one of the most enjoyable posts I can remember. Your philosophy on life sounds much like mine. Enjoy as I intend to. My hat's off to you sir!

Sorry for the thread drift.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I know for a fact that you can send Ruger a Vaquero in .45 LC and they will fit you a cylinder to fire .45 ACP

Have you actually done this yourself, or have you just heard it?

I am curious because a number of people have complained that Ruger will not do this - unless the Ruger you bought was a convertible when you bought it.

I am not arguing, just curious.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

Once more, signed affidavit. No more liability.

Not sure an affidavit has much legal weight. That my vary state to state, but I have had a liability lawyer tell me they are very easy to dispose of in court. He claimed that they were useful only if they convinced people not to sue, but were worthless if people (or their heirs) decided to sue anyway.

Anyone know if this is true?

Mike

 

[rust collector]

I'm no Ruger fanboy

In these parts, a waiver of liability may defeat a claim for ordinary negligence, but not for willful or wanton negligence. A manufacturer is going to be held to a very high standard, so Ruger's reasoning is sound.

A KB could also injure others who had not waived liability. If I owned Ruger stock I would want them to take this position

It would be great if I could just buy some parts and build a car to drive to work, but it's not just about me, is it? There are others out there relying upon my brakes to work.

The OP has every right not to do business with Ruger, and nothing I write is intended to reflect on his skills. Ruger may be the only major US firearms maker that hasn't been repeatedly sold, gone offshore, or filed for bankruptcy protection, however, so they must be doing something right.