Ruger Still in Business

[bg]

Be it as it is, I own a mini out here in Ca. I can't say anything pro or con
on Mr.Ruger, but I DO know that my mini-14 is not or needs to be "reg"
out here as a AW, unlike AK spinoff's, etc.

Whether those who wrote up the infamous SB23 which is Ca's updated
AWB law, figured Mr.Ruger was playing along with the gun control bit
or not, I don't know.

I simply know this. I didn't have to turn in paperwork or 25.00
dollars in 2000 so my mini could be on some legal beagle hit list
here in Ca as a weapon to be possibly confiscated as a AW.
Doesn't mean those with a gun hatered in charge WON'T come
after it, but at least it's not on the infamous Ca "AW reg list".
This may or may not be a good thing, but I CAN at least sell
it here in Ca if and when I want and someone is dumb enough
to buy it, as I was.

Is this right ? Heck no, but we're run by those elected with a rabid
anti firearm agenda. I know it's the voter's fault, but there isn't
that much interest here with the public regarding pro-firearm laws.
Everyone is worried about gas, what club to go to and be seen at,
what's the newest flavor down at Starbucks, and "where you'd get
those "hot" sneakers"...

What's a simple lawful gun owner going to do ? I own 3 Rugers.
The mini, a Vaq in 45 and a Blackhawk. Am I going against the cause ?
6 of one, half a dozen of the other I guess.

 

[fallingblock]

Cosmoline has the gist of it....

"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."
*********************************************************

Absolutely agree about the Ruger revolvers.

Bill's designs brought revolvers back from the realm of the obsolescent to the state-of-the-art.

And the No.1 is the finest mass-produced single shot available. Who else would have had the courage to introduce a fine SS in 1966?

Ruger is a major firearms manfacturer, supplying the essentials for gunowners everywhere. To attack the company on the basis of one understandable mistake (at a time of panic in the firearms manufacturing industry) by old Bill is foolish to the ultimate degree.

If you absolutely can't live without "genuine" Ruger mini-14 20 rounders, urge the company to produce them. Remind them that they could make money doing so.

All this talk of "boycott Ruger" is simple nonsense. :banghead:

 

[Treylis]

The only Rugers I own are used/inherited and I encourage others to only buy Ruger firearms used. I find it absolutely amazing that the same people who say things like "if you subsidzie bad behavior, you only encourage it" insofar as welfare have a bit of cognitive dissonance when it comes to things like this.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Heh. If you want to deal only in absolutes and apply the same criteria across the existential board, be my guest, but I predict you'll have a short, ignominious, and grotesque journey through the complex reality.

Supporting an American quality gun manufacturer is not the same as subsidizing hereditary thieves, just as making a small compromise in the face of overwhelming pressure against your very existence is not the same as looting electronics and jewelry in a disaster area.

Ayn Rand is an author I do respect and read, but she does like to deal in absolutes too. Funny that, taking into account she tucked her tail and ran away from Bolshevik Russia instead of standing up against socialist statism in her home territory. It seems to me, in doing so she made a fine compromise between her principles and her fanny.

 

[Gewehr98]

Fallingblock, pay attention.

If you absolutely can't live without "genuine" Ruger mini-14 20 rounders, urge the company to produce them. Remind them that they could make money doing so.

Ruger has been, and continues to produce 20 round mags for Mini-14 rifles. The rub? They're sold for Law Enforcement and Military use only. Hence the displeasure with the late Bill Ruger Sr's edict concerning the common man and magazine capacities, while he was selling the real deal out the back door marked "LE and Military customers".

 

[CAnnoneer]

So, he is not in business to make money and sell what he can to whom he can, but makes the arbitrary evil decision to deny his products to the public because he is anti-gun or just a mean old man?

It seems all this hatred is better directed to the antis that created an atmosphere wherein a gun manufacturer's best option is to design limitations to be placed on himself.

The more you hurt American gun manufacturers, the weaker the financial support for 2A.

Other posters already said something about cutting a nose to spite a face.

 

[JohnKSa]

Just curious...

Were any gun companies in support of the NFA when it passed? I've never seen that addressed.

Does anyone know which U.S. gun companies supported the GCA of 1968 because it reduced competition from overseas gunmakers?

Does anyone know which U.S. gun companies were in favor of the 1986 Machine Gun ban because it was bundled with legislation that made gun and ammo purchases simpler for U.S. citizens?

We don't want to accidentally leave anyone off the list.

he is not in business to make money

Actually, "he" (Bill Ruger Sr.) is dead.

 

[Ultima-Ratio]

Geeeez Kiddies

Ruger stands as an American Firearm manufacturer from two-d-twos to Express rifles! Anyone here an equal? Hmmmmmmm? Anyone here building affordable double barrel shotguns? Thought not!
Ruger has revolutionized the investment cast industry, anyone else here do anything close? Hmmmm? Thought not also!
What Mister Ruger said or didn't say don't mean squat to me, they build the best for the money period!
Laters Kiddies

 

[fallingblock]

O.K., Gehwehr98....no biggie....

"Hence the displeasure with the late Bill Ruger Sr's edict concerning the common man and magazine capacities, while he was selling the real deal out the back door marked "LE and Military customers".
*********************************************************

Urge Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc to sell what they produce to ordinary gun nuts...and convince them it's worth their while to do so.

An economic carrot instead of a misguided and certainly ineffective stick.

And, YES, IT'S TRUE!

Bill Ruger is dead!

Because of him, and his business acumen, we have a much wider variety of sturdy, affordable and reliable firearms at affordable prices.

If, in old Bill's mind, he was trying to save his company and thereby one of our major firearms sources, good on him. Compromise isn't pretty, but neither is absolutism that destroys itself. :banghead:

 

[Bottom Gun]

I don't forget or forgive. Neither Ruger or Smith & Wesson has seen a dime from me since they sold us out. Losing my business probably doesn't mean beans to either one of them but it makes ME feel better.
Let them get thier money from Hillary, Schumer and McCain. They'll never see any from me again.

 

[Boats]

Who is seeing your money? Chances are good that they suck as bad politically but just aren't as demonized yet.

 

[UnknownSailor]

I'm of the opinion that the Mini-14 is so lacking as a serious working gun, that who cares if 20 or 30 round magazines are available for it?

I certainly don't.

That being said, I already have the one Ruger product I want, a 22/45 Mark II with a 5.5" bull barrel.
I have a Marlin Model 60 for my .22 LR rifle

 

[denfoote]

Last I heard, they were!!!

Years ago I got all worked up over the bruhaha.
I even got rid of a perfectly good Walther P99 because I was convinced they were in league with Satan!!
Now, I own two Smiths, eight Rugers, and I have replaced the P99!!

 

[GunGoBoom]

I don't forget or forgive. Neither Ruger or Smith & Wesson has seen a dime from me since they sold us out. Losing my business probably doesn't mean beans to either one of them but it makes ME feel better.
Let them get thier money from Hillary, Schumer and McCain. They'll never see any from me again.

+1.

What in the name of all that is holy does the quality of their products have one iota to do with this whole business of whether or not the company deserves boycott? Talk about a red herring that a 2nd grader would detect - anyone who even mentions the products should be concerned with their lack of intellect on that point and go back and take a course in logic, IMO. If Remington spent 5 million campaigning for Hillary for prez, and got her elected, would you still buy Rems? There is no principled difference. Actually, that wouldn't be 1/10th as traitorious as what Ruger did. The fact remains that Ruger the *company* (not a single person) actively sought and succeeded in destroying our constitutional freedoms, and most everyone has given them a free pass on it. Rationalize it all you want - and yes their products are excellent, but you're still a principle-less prostitute, IMO, to give money to a company that URGED CONGRESS TO PASS A MORE RESTRICTIVE GUN BAN THEN EVEN THE BANNERS HAD SUGGESTED. Period. And I see that most people are going to do that - even freedom-loving people, because their products are such values (don't understand it, but I see that it's going to remain the status quo). But those people need to just simply ADMIT that they're compromising principle in order to obtain economic value in guns, or simply shut up and be silent in their shameful compromise, rather than seriously trying to defend the joke that is their argument against the deservedness of a boycott. It's EASY to uphold a *principle* when you're giving up very little to do so (such as if Ruger's products blew hard). But it shows true character and integrity to uphold principles when it's DIFFICULT to do so (turn down the great value offered by Ruger's products). How much character do YOU have?

IMO, YMMV, etc. I'm gonna get flamed now - lol.

 

[Bottom Gun]

Some people say “Well things have changed now”, which is utter BS. Nothing has changed. Bill Ruger assumed room temperature and S&W was sold to a different group of investors, but nothing changed.
Neither company has even acknowledged any wrongdoing let alone shown any remorse for their actions.

If you want one of their firearms, buy a used one. You’ll save a lot of money, the turncoats who tried to sell you out won’t see a penny from your transaction, and in the case of S&W pistols, you’ll most likely get a better quality gun.
I haven’t been overly impressed by the new S&W’s I’ve seen lately anyway. Their quality has taken a step downward. My old S&W revolvers are much higher quality than what I see now.

You aren’t missing much by not buying from Ruger. Their Mark II line of pistols are nice and I own a couple which I bought used. If you need to have one, gun shops and shows are full of good used Rugers.
I can’t say much for their rifles. Both Mini 14’s I’ve owned were inaccurate jokes and the rest of their rifles I’ve owned weren’t any better. I actually threw one of their 10/22’s away after a frustrating six months of trying to get it to shoot half as well as my Remingtons or my Marlin. Why buy a .22 knowing that you’ll have to swap out the barrel, trigger and stock to get it to shoot?
I finally got one 10/22 to shoot but by the time I did, I had a $500 heavy barrel bench pipe which shot slightly better than my Remingtons but not nearly as well as my Finnfire or my Anschutz. It was a waste of time and money.

Getting back to the subject, if Ruger or S&W were to publicly admit they screwed up and publicly apologize to gun owners, I would consider doing business with them provided they produced something I wanted. That’s not likely to happen though so I won’t hold my breath.

People have been spinning this issue in all directions with everything from “Bill is dead” and “Things are different now. Give them another chance.” to “That was a long time ago. Get over it already”.

I’m sorry, but I won’t forget about it. I was one of the people who had to pay an inflated price for high capacity or pre-ban magazines after Traitor Bill sparked that issue. I didn’t like it then and I don’t like it now.

Forgive? Maybe, if they apologize. Forget? Never.

 

[fastbolt]

Old news ...

I remember well when this happened, and while disappointed, I didn't get all that excited about it. I did, however, disagree with Bill Ruger's thinking on the matter.

As with the S&W "episode", though, I refuse to cut off my nose to spite my face. In other words, I won't willingly deny myself access to fine, reliable firearms simply because I disagree with the company's owner, be it an individual or a corporation, on some political or philosophical issues. I dislike being that easily predictable, and perhaps susceptible to 'manipulation', when it comes to abstract concepts that aren't really connected to inanimate objects that may serve me well for some purpose.

I'm not saying that I'm never swayed or influenced by such things, in the larger scale, however, ... (I still won't spend a dime to buy a Norinco product, for instance) ... just not in an automatic, knee-jerk fashion that could theoretically be manipulated by someone with a carefully crafted political agenda someday.

If more folks looked into the behind-the-scenes issues, business dealings and connections, political affiliations and owner/corporate philosophies connected to virtually any large business, I'd suspect that something would surface that would disappoint or bother one person or another.

If a lot of the folks who have loudly decried the actions of companies like Colt, S&W and Ruger were to closely examine the other major firearms manufacturers ... especially those based in countries which aren't exactly aligned with America when it comes to political beliefs and governments ... I doubt you'd find a lot of American flag-waving, staunch "American Second Amendment" supporters. Businesses interested in profits, perhaps ...

 

[Bottom Gun]

Yes it is old news to some but there are also those who have never heard about what happened.
The bottom line is that it happened, it was intentional, it directly affected us and my principles will not allow me to cave in to self gratification. I was never a turn the other cheek person. If that makes me easily predictable, fine.

Some folks are predictable, some aren’t. Perhaps they were counting on the fact that unprincipled folks would eventually succumb to apathy and the desire to enrich themselves regardless of what that business might have done in the past. That too might be construed as easily predictable.

Anyone who wishes to support these companies is free to do so. That is called freedom of choice.
I also have the freedom of choice to decline to do business with turncoats out of principle. I don’t buy products produced by anti-gun manufacturers or pay to see movies with anti-gun actors.
I also have the freedom to complain about it. It’s my choice.