Ruger's Image

[McBuck]

Anybody else notice that Ruger is producing more....I hate to use the word "tactical" so I won't....more firearms that are a little better built and more appealing to the masses ?
ie; LCR, 580 Series minis, the SR556, "Tactical 10/22"

Whassup ?

 

[Lightsped]

As long as the quality is decent I see nothing wrong with a little variety. Different people like/use different tools for different jobs. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[wally]

Whassup ?

They want to sell guns, make a profit, and stay in business. They were missing out on a large portion of what is selling well.

I'm very happy with my Ruger SR-556 and 10/22 Tactical (sure I could have just got the TAPCO stock and replaced the Butler Creek folder, but hard to have too many 22s )

I look forward to sending more of my money their way when they finally offer 20 round Mini30 magazines!

--wally.

 

[rcmodel]

A lot of things have changed at Ruger since Bill Ruger died.

For instance, old Bill would have never stood for the outright copy / rip-off of the Kel-Tec P3AT pistol by his company, and would probably have fired anyone who suggested it.

They used to stand for integrity and innovation in design & manufacturing methods when Bill Ruger was still around.

But he didn't much care for Tackycool and just wouldn't allow it.
Now that the old guard is gone, I guess anything, including stealing another companys design is fair game now.

rc

 

[CoRoMo]

I'm lovin' it. Of course, I don't own any of their latest turnouts, but I think it's all good. The supposed 1911 I've heard about is particularly interesting.

 

[Almond27]

A Ruger 1911, well I guess never say never with Ruger now.

 

[benEzra]

But he didn't much care for Tackycool and just wouldn't allow it.

Actually, he was fine with "tactical" looking guns, but didn't think mere peons like ourselves should be allowed to own guns that look too unconventional, or that have a magazine capacity greater than that of a mid-1860's Henry carbine.

Ruger MP9 (1995)

The Ruger SR-556 is an innovative design, in the same way the original mini-14 was---as a collection of a lot of tried-and-true concepts into one well integrated package. I particularly like the way the gas system on the SR-556 works.

 

[Cosmoline]

Exactly. I think we all remember the infamous letter he wrote on the subject calling all of us dishonest criminals.

I'm not going to mourn his absence from the company. And I hope they continue to get more innovative.

 

[taliv]

AR15s have a larger flat surface area on the receivers...


their lawyers needed the extra space to engrave their safety briefing

 

[1KPerDay]

Ruger MP9 (1995)

Nice Uzi.

 

[ArmedBear]

I haven't seen all that much innovation.

Fixing the Mini-14 was long overdue, but there's no innovation there.

The SR-556 and LCP are copies of other guns.

The tactical 10/22 is just a repackaging of a rather poor product that has declined in actual quality, to sell it to mall ninjas who don't know any better. They may, of course, constitute "the masses". Hard to say.

The LCR is innovative. That's Ruger's major innovation, and it is significant from all I can tell, though it has yet to be seen if it has more far-reaching influence. So far, it hasn't been recalled, either.

The Alaskan is funny, and I guess it sells really well. Good for Ruger. Their use of manufacturing capacity for those things probably cost them a couple of sales to me, since they didn't make the revolvers I wanted, but I'm not the masses, perhaps.

I don't miss Bill Ruger's politics or prejudices. But I'm not sure I'm overly excited about what Ruger is currently doing to their products, like craptastic plastic single action revolver grips, trigger locks in single actions, more plastic in the 10/22, rough bolt actions in the Hawkeye, the failure of the Gold Label project, etc.

When the mall ninja market is satisfied, I wonder what Ruger's reputation with serious shooters will still be. "Quality" isn't the first word that comes up in my mind. I'd like a No. 1, but the first thought that enters my mind is, "$1000 for a gun that might or might not shoot straight? I don't know..."

 

[Offfhand]

Target-Tactical? Who are they kidding? Just another sleezy effort to appeal to the wallyworld wannabees. Does the phrase "bottom feeding' come to mind?

 

[ArmedBear]

Does the phrase "bottom feeding' come to mind?

That's my long-term concern for Ruger, really.

When this generation of gamers have moved on to buying lawnmowers and golf clubs instead of tactical 10/22s, will any discriminating shooters be looking at Rugers?

In general, I think there are two kinds of customers to consider. There's good money in the short-term impulse buyer, but what about lower-volume but more long-term sales to hunters, target shooters and the like? What about the higher end? Ruger has ditched their Custom Shop and their engraving shop.

Time will tell.

 

[benEzra]

When the mall ninja market is satisfied, I wonder what Ruger's reputation with serious shooters will still be.

I wouldn't equate the over-$1000 AR market with the "mall ninja market", and "serious shooter" is not always synonymous with "AR hater". Call the SR-556 many things, but mall ninja it is not, and the gas system is one of the better implementations of a piston system on the market. Certainly better than the mini-14's setup, IMO, and the SR-556 is a far better rifle all around than the mini.

FWIW, I used to own a 188-series Ranch Rifle, and sold it because although the fit and finish looked pretty good, and it was absolutely reliable, its accuracy was abysmal.

In general, I think there are two kinds of customers to consider. There's good money in the short-term impulse buyer, but what about lower-volume but more long-term sales to hunters, target shooters and the like? What about the higher end? Ruger has ditched their Custom Shop and their engraving shop.

Ruger has never catered to the very high end (witness the Ruger full-size pistol's niche on the duty-pistol spectrum, the Mark II's place in the world of .22 target pistols, their bolt rifles, etc.). They've always been more Chevy than Porsche, which is not necessarily a bad thing. IMO the SR-556 moves them considerably upmarket compared to their usual offerings, as they are now competing with LMT's and Colts instead of Oly Arms plinkers and stripped-down DPMS's.

 

[ArmedBear]

They've always been more Chevy than Porsche, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Like GM, their prices have risen a bit much for their market positioning, then. That's a potential long-term problem: when the discriminating market no longer considers your products, and you price yourself out of the lower-end market, what's left? Chevy found out.

IMO the SR-556 moves them considerably upmarket compared to their usual offerings, as they are now competing with LMT's and Colts instead of Oly Arms plinkers and stripped-down DPMS's.

That's true, with one enormous caveat.

The discriminating (i.e. high-end) AR buyer specifies modules and parts, not a rifle as a unit. The AR's greatest virtue is its modular construction. Every rifle can be a custom rifle, and one needn't pay a gunsmith thousands of dollars, and wait six months, to get it.

Do you really think that "mall ninja" precludes a $2000 price tag? I don't. There are impulse buyers with cash out there (far fewer than a few years ago).

The SR-556 is a good entry into a big market. It would be wrong for Ruger not to be in this market, when everyone else is. However, is being yet another AR maker really Ruger's best future strategy?

Also, charging LMT/Colt prices does not automatically mean that you are competing on the same playing field. (See the Red Label.) Charging $30,000 for a Chevy didn't put the company on a par with BMW, either.

If you ask me, an M14 would have been a very good idea, especially if they published the specs. I'm sure they could make one for a competitive price, and it's not a commodity. That was Bill Ruger's genius with the single actions: take a proven gun and sell a rugged one for less than the competition.

As I said, time will tell.

 

[Maverick223]

I like Ruger a great deal better now than I did a couple years back. They have begun to show improvements in several key areas (mostly with regards to the type of offerings and accuracy), but they have noticeably cheapened some of their mainstays (particularly the 10/22). If they keep the quality high (how bout less plastic?) and improve their barrels a little more I believe they will do well.

 

[wally]

The tactical 10/22 is just a repackaging of a rather poor product that has declined in actual quality, to sell it to mall ninjas who don't know any better.

The collapsible stock on the 10/22 Tactical fits my wife nicely where other 10/22 stocks didn't. Got her interest up for learning how to shoot rifles. Guess that makes her a mall ninja. I don't see any decline in quality over my 20+ year old 10/22. Plastic in a Glock is great, but plastic in a 10/22 is a problem?

If you don't like what they make don't buy it. Real innovation in firearms is pretty rare, very few guns don't have roots in features of other designs. Making it at a price point people can actually afford counts!

I'm happy to see Ruger and S&W put aside the politics of their previous masters and make military style semi autos for civilians.

I've had two recalls on my Honda Hybrid, so what, I'm still getting 40 MPG and I don't drive 55!

--wally.

 

[svaz]

I've never cared for Ruger products. I've always thought them over-priced and under-performing (except for the 10/22 & the Mark-II). I especially took indignant exception to Bill Ruger's opinion of mere bourgeois gun owners and how he thought he knew better than we what we should have.

Good riddance to the old guard I say. Maybe I'll thumb through the Ruger catalogue in a year or two if they are still around.

 

[McBuck]

Well. I have to defend Ruger a bit.
I have a 10/22 ( a lot of you boys do too) and it is reliable and acurate to a fault. The gun always shoots where I point it, and never fails to fire or feed. Ruger was right on with this gun.period.
Now, I am going to catch some flack here and I know it...mini-14 580 tactical.
Look...I was raised on an AR platform ( US Army) and loved Stoners little Mattel toy...great gun and I won't deny that at all. BUT Ruger introduced the Mini-14...and I liked it...all except for one thing: It looked like chicken salad, but shot like chicken s**t. Why and how could Ruger mess something so simple up ? But they did, and it took them , what, 30 years to fix it ? But with the 580 Series I think they may have it right ( at least with my 580 they do) AND, they are selling the high cap mags to the public. Might be time to let past grievences be water under the bridge...Ruger wants our business, and are working for it. Hey JMHO

 

[gunnutery]

Ruger has never catered to the very high end

What about the Ruger Red Label? Don't they make really pricy over-under shotguns under that name? I can't think of the prices at the moment, I just knew I'd never afford one.

Coromo, do you have any links to info on the 1911?

 

[John Wayne]

For the most part, I am a fan of Ruger firearms. They have one of the most diverse lines of firearms of any manufacturer, and remain American made.

I didn't know Bill Ruger, so I'll try not to judge him, but I will say I am in favor of the direction of the company in his absence.

The LCP was a copy of the Kel-Tec, yes. Kel-Tec makes innovative firearms and has good customer service, but in my experience, their stuff is generally crap. Bout time someone came along and made a quality version of a Kel-Tec product, even if it is a knockoff. It's also spawned a market with 8+ new micro-.380s on the market, none of which anyone seemed interested in until the LCP came out, and then all of a sudden Kahr, Taurus, and Rohrbaugh are on the bandwagon.

I have handled a Mini-14, and can say that it seems like it would be one of the most fun and handy guns to shoot that I can think of. I have been put off from purchasing one by internet horror stories, but there are just as many bad stories about Mini-14s as there are saying the stock 10/22 needs $500 worth of Volquartsen parts to shoot well. I've been quite pleased with my 10/22 (it does have some aftermarket parts), so I might just have to work in a Mini as well.

Their Standard line of pistols is virtually unparalled in the entry level rimfire pistol market.

The SR556 is not a new design, but it is a quality rifle that offers lots of quality features like Troy sights, freefloat quad rail, Magpul mags, etc. for a LOT less money than other high end piston AR's.

The SR9 hasn't seemed to take off well, probably thanks to the early recall, but the design seems sound enough. Certainly a welcome departure from their P-series guns that make a Beretta 92 look anemic.

I like the direction the company is heading. Sales seem to be picking up too. They would be well advised to test products a little more thoroughly before releasing them though (LCP, LCR, SR9), lest they compromise their legendary reputation for reliability.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Now that the old guard is gone, I guess anything, including stealing another companys design is fair game now.

I agree that Ruger ripped off Kel-Tec's design, but what design was Ruger built upon? (Hint...it starts with "C" and ends with "olt".)

Legal competition and improving upon design is a good thing.

 

[Maverick223]

The LCP was a copy of the Kel-Tec, yes. Kel-Tec makes innovative firearms and has good customer service, but in my experience, their stuff is generally crap. Bout time someone came along and made a quality version of a Kel-Tec product, even if it is a knockoff.

Hmm, good point (but I will say that KTs stuff tends to function pretty good), perhaps they will copy the RFB and actually get some to the market.

I have handled a Mini-14, and can say that it seems like it would be one of the most fun and handy guns to shoot that I can think of.

They are not terribly accurate, but neither is the AK, and people don't tend to bash it nearly as much. Perhaps if it were stamped and the furniture looked like Home Depot stud rejects it would have a better following. FWIW, I wouldn't mind picking up a Mini-30 if I can find one in blued finish at a reasonable price now that they offer factory 20rnd mags.

 

[Horsemany]

IMO they're following the line of Remington these days. Anything to reduce costs. The finish on the 77 Hawkeye is a major dissapointment. Ruger used to due polished bluing as well as anyone.

I am concerned about their future in the current market. The flood of new turnbolts 3 years ago is killing them. Savage, Tikka, Marlin, CZ, T/C Icon, Kimber.....etc. A lot of new players in the market. Ruger's at a tough place I believe. They need to keep things fresh ie. SR556 but also maintain the quality that brought the "classic" buyer ie. No. 1's, 77's,Red Label etc.

It's hard to do both I'd imagine.

 

[McBuck]

You boys that aren't 100% sure about a Mini-14, I can understand...history os a difficult thhing to overcome. Trust me on this : find someone who has a newer 580 series, and get them to let you shoot it, and I mean seriously soot it: you will be amazed. I know I was. Maybe I just got a really good OOTB gun, but my 580 Tactical is a fine little carbine. It stacks em in there at 50yds ( I haven't had the chance to shoot at 100yds) It takes everything I shove into it; Bear, Fiocchi, Winchester, Remington...FMJ and PSP..and just keeps on ticking. I have made zero mods to this gun and can still dump a 20 round mag at 50yds and keep it all within about 3".
(see my other post, I have a target up onthe AR v Mini challenge)
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=6073826#post6073826
Ruger got it right on the new Minis. And now you can pick up Ruger factory mags for $24.99, instead of $50.00( CDNN )