Ruger Still in Business

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Isn't the Mini-14 reason enough not to own a Mini-14?"

Yes, but now that I have some extra money to my name it might be fun to see if I could melt the barrel off a Mini-14 using one of those 20-rounders. Five fast shots is hard enough on that skinny barrel, and accuracy, as it is.

I do boycott Ruger golf clubs. :p I don't play golf.

John
 
I did some additional research and was astounded to learn that the high capacity magazine ban was the brain child of Bill Ruger.

Well, close. Actually, it was a gun banner's idea (with the help of some congresscritters) to limit mags to *fifteen* rounds. But that wasn't good enough for Bill, as his 11 and 12 round pistols would still be at a competititve disadvantage to Glock, etc. So Ruger & SAAMI teamed up and suggested making it a ban on mags over *ten* rounds - that's their idea of a 'compromise'. There is a letter from Bill Ruger to a congressman proving this. Haven't bought a Ruger since. And have divested myself of the Ruger I had owned. The company who did this (Sturm Ruger Inc) has never onced apologized or done anything to attempt to repeal the 10 year ban. They'll never get a dime of my money, but because Ruger gave 1 million to the NRA museum, I am no longer on a crusade to try and destroy them.
 
Tell them "if you build it we will come" over ten round mags, jazz up the Mini 14, surprise us. Who do you think your custumers are? Chuck shumer and sarah brady? :D
 
I'm puzzled.

Did they used to make full-capacity mags for the Mini-14?

Do any samples remain? Has no one made aftermarket copies?

:confused:
 
A dead guy wrote a stupid letter over fifteen years ago. You're going to have a boycot over that? The political situation in the 1980's was quite different from today. The GOP was not as strongly pro-RKBA as it is now, and the movement for gun rights was not nearly as powerful a force. It took the Klinton years to really kick start the movement.

Ruger can make high-caps or not, and sell them to the public if they want to or not. I don't care whether they do, so long as they have a *right* to do it. I don't agree with the late Mr. Ruger's political views, but I like his revolvers and some of his rifles.
 
I sold my only Ruger (a MK II) back in early 1995, and will not buy another one.
 
Kamicosmos:
The Mark II is a fine gun.
The MK II is a piece of crap.

It is accurate, but any firearm you need a mallet to clean is a piece of crap. The Browning Buckmark is only slightly less crappy (based on removing the sights to clean the d**mned thing).

Funny - the Taurus 96 is as accurate as either of the semi-autos and does not require either a mallet or sight re-alignment every time I clean it. Heaven forbid - I may turn into a wheelgun kinda guy.

After having to send that fine steel garbage back to Ariz. to get it fixed, I now check the disassembly before buying any firearm.

Live and learn...

Pe (grumpy) et
 
Last edited:
A dead guy wrote a stupid letter over fifteen years ago.

No, that is inaccurate. What is accurate is "a company known as Sturm Ruger & Co actively encouraged Congress to pass a ban MORE STRICT than the ban which the banners conjured up, and said company has been laughing all the way to the bank ever since at all the gun owners stupid enough to buy their products even though this company actively sought to destroy our rights in order to give their products a competitive advantage, and the current management apparently eagerly embraces the same philosophy, given the fact that not a scintilla of apology or rectification has ever been forthcoming." They don't give a crap - they can make golf clubs or any number of products with their investment castings if/when guns become unprofitable. Said company is laughing at YOU Cosmo. ;)
 
Would you like me to add insult to injury? I'm sure most of you know Ruger stopped shipping 20 and 30 round Mini-14 mags about 5 years before the ban(there were even rumors that the "new Mini" would have a five round blind mag that you would have to load from the top), but here is another tidbit for you to chew on:

Remember the XGI? For those of you that haven't, it was to be a "bigger" Mini-14 that would shoot 308's. The XGI (catchy name, huh?) was going to use military M-14 mags. It was announced about 1982. The gun shop I hung out at had a want list and would sell guns first come first serve according to the want list. On every page about half the entries were "XGI". Ruger never brought it out claiming it would not shoot to their standards (must of shot like the Mini). Here is the kick in the stomach: I was at the Shot Show (I think about 1989) and heard a buzz that Ruger was going to bring out the XGI after all. I went to the Ruger booth and after quite a bit of prodding I got a Ruger offical to admit that they had it working and were working on production. They planned on shipping in April of that year, but it was hush-hush at that time with no public announcements. Between the Shot Show in January and the April release date there was another school shooting that dominated the airways for weeks...and I never heard another thing about the XGI.

I have talked to people that are close to Ruger since and they have told me not to be surprised if we still do see it now that Bill is gone (and the "bottom line" is more important). I'll bet if Ruger got a government contract for it we would see it right away.

And yes, once you shoot a Model 41 Smith or an early Hi Standard Citation or Trophy it is kind of hard to shoot a Ruger Mark II target gun.
 
The MAIN reason I don't own anything made by Ruger is that they don't make anything I want (although a MkII or a 10/22 would be useful...and their .454 Casull Alaskan is kinda neeto) so for me to "boycott" wouldn't be all that big a deal.


But since 1) Bill Ruger actively lobbied for the AWB and 2) Ruger still refuses to sell full capacity mags for their products to us peons even though the ban is gone, I see no reason to buy their products or support them in any way.
 
Ruger makes good inexpensive firearms. I like good inexpensive firearms.
Ruger wants my money, I want their guns. That's a fair exchange for both sides. My/their political views have nothing to do with this fair deal.

Some of you guys hate Ruger based on some political moves. You choose to penalize yourselves and them by refusing a good deal. Who wins then? Neither you, nor they, but maybe the Italian, Austrian, German, French, or Brazilian companies that have your business instead, maybe? :evil:

I can't see how hurting a US gun manufacturer can ever be pro-gun in the US.
 
What killed the XGI...

Here's a page on the saga of the XGI:

http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2800/2899.htm

They're saying it was a patent violation against Springfield Armory's M1A that killed it. That makes sense to me, because if you investment cast a Pinetree receiver large enough and strong enough to accept both .308 Winchester ammo and use M14/M1A magazines, chances are it's gonna look an awful lot like an M1A. ;)
 
I wonder what patent Springfield Armory holds on the M1A that would make it different than the M-14...semi-auto only? I don't think you can get a patent on that. And what Patent would the XGI break that the Mini wouldn't? The 308? I don't think you can get a patent on that either. And come to think of it dosen't the M-77 Ruger look a lot like a...well, you get the idea.
 
Wheelman, where do you get that from?

It's a sad thing when gun owners seek to drive gun manufacturers out of business. That is the same goal of those we claim to resist.

Nobody's trying to drive anybody out of business. We gun-buying consumers are simply trying to remind Sturm, Ruger & Co. that the '94 AWB is over, so they don't need to enforce their own version of that ban with respect to the Mini-14 and Mini-30 rifles. What's wrong with doing that subtle reminding by taking our checkbooks and buying products from somebody other than Ruger? That's free-market capitalism, aka voting with one's dollars. You do it every time you comparison shop at the supermarket, and if you chose Coca-Cola last week, you didn't put Pepsi out of business, did you? Even S&W survived the boycott post-agreement, and they laid off their employees for a month during the worst of it. (They just use more MIM now, and almost eliminated blued steel guns from their lineup)

As stated before in this thread, Ruger won't go out of business, their Pinetree Castings division still squirts out oodles of golf clubs and 1911 frames for custom makers.
 
Bill Ruger is dead.

And he orginally signed on to a 15 round magazine cap because his 9mms held 15 rounds.

He never sold much in the way of 20 and 30 round Mini mags even before the ban.
 
LAR-15, sources, please.

Your story contrasts to what's listed here:

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html

I see no mention of autopistols in the William Ruger, Sr. extract:

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.
As for this:

Bill Ruger is dead.
That means he won't be pulling any more boners in the future, now doesn't it?
 
Instead of a boycott

Why not try organizing a "lobby" to get them to alter and renounce that policy. After all, if only dishonest folk own magazines with more than 10, or 15, or whatever number of rounds... Well, that's an awful lot of US fighting men & women, police and other citizens.
 
He never sold much in the way of 20 and 30 round Mini mags even before the ban.

The nice thing for you Mini owners is now that the ban is off you see lots of original Ruger 20 round mags (LE mags) at the gun shows new in the box for $30-$45 each! I wonder where they all come from? :confused:

And while we are at it, how come in my hands its an "assault rifle" and in the police's hands its an "anti-terrorist wepon"? :confused:
 
That article points out Ruger did in fact propose and support a 15 round magazine limit.
 
That's correct, LAR-15.

And it also reflects he proposed a magazine ban not for the sake of his P-series autopistols, but for his beloved Mini-14.

Honest people don't need magazines of greater than 15 rounds capacity, now do they? :scrutiny:
 
I don't buy Ruger pistols, Mini-14's or 10-22's and likely never will. Why does it matter to me whether there are high-caps offered with them? They lose market share by refusing to offer more high caps, but that's their problem not mine. Obviously they're not the ones to go to for high cap pistols and semis. You could say the same thing about a lot of companies. In fact I'd say the same thing about most American companies. Europeans make better semis (1911's aside) by a long shot.

CZ doesn't offer a 20 round clip for the 452. Should I boycot them over this?

Ruger makes the best, toughest revolvers in the world bar none. I buy their wheelguns and I've owned some No. 1's which I consider beautiful. Yes, Ruger did a bad thing 15 years ago. But they haven't supported the antis since and they aren't giving money to HCI, so why should I care? The time to punish Ruger was long, long ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top